Cicero is always clear and simple in his divisions. R. Amerinus is accused of having killed his father. To prove his innocence and the guilt of his accusers, Cicero thus lays out his argument:

"R. Amerinus has not killed his father, because he had no motive to induce him to commit the crime; and because, though he had had a reason, the means were not in his power. The accusers themselves are guilty of the deed, because they had motives that urged them on to the perpetration of it, and the means of effecting their bloody purpose."

RULE V. Divide every subject according to the special design you have in view.

A printer, in considering the subject of a book, would divide it into sheets, pages, lines, and letters.

A grammarian would consider the periods, the sentences, the words of which the book was composed.

A logician considers a book as divided into chapters. sections, arguments, propositions, ideas.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ARGUMENTATIVE PART OF A DISCOURSE.

[From Whateley and Watts.]

In the invention of arguments art can give but little as sistance, though it may aid much in the disposition and conduct of arguments when invented.

There are two methods of reasoning, the analytic and synthetic.

The analytic is, when the orator conceals his intention concerning the point he is to prove till he has gradually brought his hearers to the designed conclusion. This is about the same as the Socratic method, by which Socrates silenced the sophists of his age. It is a very artful method of reasoning, may be carried on with much beauty, and is proper to be used when readers or hearers are much prejudiced against any truth, and by imperceptible steps must be led to conviction. But there are few subjects that will admit this method, and not many occasions on which it is proper to be employed.

The mode of reasoning more generally used, and more suited to popular effect, is the synthetic; when the point to be proved is fairly laid down, and one argument after another is made to bear upon it, till the hearers are fully convinced.

In arguing, the first business is to choose the best arguments for the cause, the occasion, and the hearers or readers. To do this, imagine yourself to occupy the place of those you are to address, and think how they will be likely to be affected by the arguments you propose to use, and adapt them to each.

Supposing the arguments skillfully chosen, the effect of them will depend not a little upon their right arrangement, so as that they shall not jostle nor embarrass one another, but give mutual aid, and bear most directly on the point in view.

RULES FOR ARRANGEMENT OF ARGUMENTS.

1. Avoid blending arguments confusedly together that are of a separate nature.

All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these three things: that something is true; that it is morally right or fit; or that it is profitable and good. These make the three great subjects of discussion among mankind truth, duty, and interest. But the arguments directed to either of them are generally distinct; and he who blends them under one topic will render his reasoning indistinct and inelegant.

2. With regard to the different degrees of strength in arguments, the general rule is to advance in the way of climax, especially when the reasoner has a clear cause, and is confident that he can prove it truly.

If he distrusts his cause, and has but one material argument, it is often proper to place this in front to preoccupy the ground and procure a more favorable regard to the rest of the argument.

3. When our arguments are strong and satisfactory, the more they are distinguished and treated apart from each other the better.

But if our arguments are doubtful and only of the presumptive kind, it is safer to throw them together in a crowd, and run them into one another for mutual support

4. Be cautious not to extend arguments too far, and not to multiply them too much.

Such a practice serves rather to render a cause suspected than to give it weight; it both burdens the memory and detracts from the weight of that conviction which a few well-chosen arguments carry.

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES FOR AN ADDRESS TO THE PASSIONS.

[From Blair and Whateley.]

1. Good sense must determine whether the subject admit the pathetic, and if it does, in what part of the discourse it should be introduced.

2. If we expect any emotion which we raise to have a lasting effect, we must be careful to bring over to our side, in the first place, the understanding and judg

ment.

3. An important point to be observed in every address to any passion, sentiment, or feeling, is, that it should not be introduced as such, and plainly avowed.

The effect otherwise will be, in great measure, if not entirely, lost; for there is a wide distinction, in this respect, between an address to the passions and to the understanding.

4. It must be observed that there is a great difference between showing persons that they ought to be moved and actually moving them.

To every emotion or passion nature has adapted a set of corresponding objects; and, without setting these before the mind, it is not in the power of any orator to raise that emotion.

Hence the object of that passion which we desire to raise in others must be painted in the most natural and striking manner; it must be described with such circumstances as are likely to awaken the passion or feeling in the minds of others. But to accomplish this effectually, you must be moved yourself.

5. In order effectually to excite feelings of any kind, it is necessary to employ some copiousness of detail, and to dwell somewhat at large on the several circumstances of the case in hand.

In this respect there is a wide distinction between strict argumentation with a view to the conviction of the understanding alone, and the attempt to influence the will by the excitement of any emotion.

With respect to argument itself, indeed, different occasions will call for different degrees of copiousness, repetition, and expansion; the chain of reasoning employed may, in itself, consist of more and fewer links; abstruse and complex arguments must be unfolded at greater length than such as are more simple; and the more uncultivated the audience, the more full must be the explanation and illustration, and the more frequent the repetition of the arguments presented to them; but still the same general principle prevails in all these cases; viz., to aim merely at letting the arguments be fully understood and admitted; but all expansion and repetition beyond what is necessary to accomplish conviction, is in every instance tedious and disgusting.

On the contrary, in a description of any thing that is likely to act on the feelings, this effect will by no means be produced as soon as the understanding is sufficiently informed. Detail and expansion are here not only admissible, but absolutely necessary, in order that the mind may have leisure and opportunity to form vivid and distinct ideas.

It is related that a whole audience were moved to tears by a minute detail of the circumstances connected with the death of a youthful pair at the battle of Fontenay, though they had previously listened wi.hout emotion to a general statement of the dreadful carnage in that engagement.

It is not, however, with a view to the feelings only that some copiousness of detail will occasionally be needful; it will often happen that the judgment can not be correctly formed without dwelling on circumstances.

6. It is not, however, always advisable to enter into a direct detail of circumstances, which might warn the hearer or reader beforehand of the design laid against his feelings. It is often better to introduce only the

EE

circumstances connected with the main object or event, and affected by it, but not absolutely forming a part of it.

r

Thus the woman's application to the King of Samaria, to compel her neighbor to fulfill the agreement of sharing with her the infant's flesh, gives a more frightful impression of the horrors of the famine than any more direct description could have done; since it presents to us the picture of that destruction of the ordinary state of human feeling, which is the result of long-continued and extreme misery.

Nor could any detail of the particular vexations suffered by the exiled Jews for their disobedience convey so lively an idea of them as that description of their result contained in the denunciation of Moses: "In the evening thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! and in the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were evening!"

Shakspeare, in the speech of Antony over Cæsar's body, has offered some excellent exemplifications of this rule.

7. Comparison is one powerful means of exciting or heightening any emotion; namely, by presenting a parallel between the case in hand and some other that is calculated to call forth such emotions; taking care, of course, to represent the present case as stronger than the one it is compared with, and such as ought to affect us more powerfully.

Men feel naturally more indignant at a slight affront offered to themselves, or those closely connected with them, than at the most grievous wrong done to a stranger; if, therefore, you would excite their utmost indignation in such a case, it must be by comparing it with a parallel case that concerns themselves; i. e., by leading them to consider how they would feel were such and such an injury done to themselves.

And, on the other hand, if you would lead them to a just sense of their own faults, it must be by leading them to contemplate like faults in others; of which the celebrated parable of Nathan, addressed to David, affords an admira ble instance.