lucidity, is a favorite instrument of popular refutation; the power of analogy as an argument is much greater in negative than in positive application.

EXAMPLES. It will be noted that the examples of chain of reasoning quoted from Macaulay and Webster on pp. 622 and 628, above, are both employed as instruments of refutation.

In the following the plea for foreign idiom in English is refuted by an analogy: "It has been maintained that the censure of foreign idiom as un-English has something unreasonable about it, for if such idioms had not been freely imported, our language could never have become the comprehensive instrument which it now is. The fact is unquestionable, but the inference is weak. As reasonably might it be argued that because a growing boy could eat apples and nuts and raw turnips, and thrive upon such fare, the same individual could digest crude victuals at every subsequent stage of his life! There are times and seasons in the economy of language quite as truly as in the physiology of animal life. The English Language has had its omnivorous period, or rather periods, in which it has taken in foreign nutriment to the verge of satiety. We have already more variety of phrase than we can well find employment for, and the demand of the present time is rather that we should work up what we have than import more raw material."1

SECTION SECOND.

ARGUMENTATION IN ORDERED SYSTEM.

Corresponding to what in the other types has appeared as description, narration, and exposition in literature, we here consider argumentation as it is made into a body of arguments, with the system, the balance, the literary distinction necessary to make it duly effective of its purpose. Argumentation in literature this may indeed be called; it belongs, however, for the most part to the literature of public speaking, and is expressed in the order and diction of spoken discourse.2 When it appears in printed form, it is merely as a palpable

1 EARLE, English Prose, p. 304.

2 For Spoken Diction and its Characteristics, see above, pp. 118-126.

imitation of speech or, more often, as a report or publication of what was originally delivered orally.

As a finished whole, this ordered body of arguments is, so to say, greater than the sum of its parts; this because the parts in juxtaposition so color, reinforce, and augment each other that each gathers power from the rest. The full effecting of this is an achievement of literary skill beyond the reach of rules; only a few suggestions, principally of the ends to be attained, can be given.

I. DEBATE.

In this kind of public discourse the interest, centering entirely in the subject-matter, —its terms, propositions, underlying grounds, takes little account of hearers except as thinking beings needing to see an intellectual object clearly and fully. The trenchancy of oratory is present; not, however, to marked degree, its graces or its emotional element. The ordering is intellectual; that is, all its parts are planned not to entertain, or even to inspire, but to secure the assent of the mind to a proposition.

By debate, then, we mean a body of arguments and explanations designed to produce intellectual conviction regarding some truth in question. It may take place between opponents, with the various sides of the question maintained by champions, or it may be merely an individual discussion. In any case, the debater's duty is rather to the truth he is handling than to the hearer or the occasion; and though there is a zest in achieving a victory, yet this is ill gained if gained by doubtful means or at any expense to honest conviction. In other words, as truth is worth more than victory, the procedures and tactics of debate are to be determined by the demands of truth first, and only secondarily by the temporary claims of contest.

Preparation of the Question.

I.

All that may be said about the determination of the theme1 in general literary work is raised to its highest degree of importance in debate. The preparation of the question is the determination of the theme or working-idea; only here the theme is to be cleared of all vagueness and discursiveness, to be not an idea merely, but a definitely worded, clear-cut proposition, in which the truth evolved from the question at issue, as the debater sees it, is reduced to an assertion. In formal discussions this statement of the theme is put as a resolution; which then, either positively or negatively, each speaker construes, explains, and submits to argument.

After the statement of the question as resolved, much depends on the construing of it, which is a work of exposition. Two aspects or stages of this are to be noted.

1. By exposition the question is to be subjected to every serviceable means of exegesis and explication. Whatever is obscure is to be put into accurate and lucid language; whatever is hard is to be simplified and defined; whatever is of subordinate importance is to be distinguished from the main issue; and thus, in a word, the case at issue is to be concentrated to a statement whereon, if possible, all the parties to the discussion may agree."

NOTE. How important and serviceable the mere exhibiting of the case may be, even to the extent sometimes of making argument superfluous, is illustrated from Lincoln's manner of preparing a question described in the note on p. 555, above.

2. By exposition the nature and extent of the question are to be determined, as the case demands. Whether the issue is

1 For the theme in general and its character, see above, pp. 421 sqq.

2 For the applications of Exposition involved in this, see pp. 576 sqq., above.

one of fact or of principle; whether of right or of expediency; whether admitting of certain decision or only probable; whether of universal or of limited application; - such ques

tions as these, questions to be answered by a kind of larger exposition, do much to determine on what lines the proposition is to be argued, and what range of result is to be sought.

ILLUSTRATION. The following, on the legislative question of Copyright, shows how such considerations as these affect the discussion.

"The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.

"Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honorable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House." Etc.

By a paragraph of such exposition he fixes the exact issue, and then says: "We may now, therefore, I think, descend from these high regions, where we are in danger of being lost in the clouds, to firm ground and clear light. Let us look at this question like legislators."1 In other words, this question is of such nature as to demand practical, not theoretical, procedure.

1 MACAULAY, Speeches, p. 279.

II.

For the question's

Measures looking to Attack and Defense. sake and for the progress of thought, no less than for the sake of contest, it is of practical value to treat the issue on the military plan, as something calling for attack and defense. For not only may an alert opponent draw away one's energies to side issues; the question itself, also, has many digressions and subordinate involvements to solicit an unwary debater away from the main line of procedure. He must keep the main truth in mind, a cause that must emerge clear from every confusion of discussion; must be watchful also of everything that would make against or obscure it.

The following are some of the things to be provided for, as occasion calls, in the tactics of debate.

The Burden of Proof. The question which side in a debate has the burden of proof, that is, must lead the attack and make its contention good by positive argument, is answered by ascertaining which side has the presumption of things. with it. The prevailing order of custom or opinion holds the field, and has merely the defensive. Whoever proposes an innovation, or maintains some proposition not generally held, must take upon himself the labor, or burden, of proving it. A man is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. A custom, statute, or prevailing opinion is presumed good until it is demonstrated to be bad. An important step it is, therefore, bringing out as it does the intrinsic strength of the cause, and dictating the method of procedure, to locate rightly the burden of proof.

In some merely speculative discussions the question of the burden of proof is not of enough significance to pay for raising. Such cases of course are to be discovered and allowed for by the debater; they belong to the question of essentials and non-essentials for his purpose.