"But of this residence [of Bolingbroke] at Oxford there is no proof at all. There is no entry of his matriculation on the books of the University, and these books are not, we believe, in any way deficient during the period of his supposed connection with Oxford. There is no trace of his residence at Christ Church on the Buttery Lists, and the Buttery Lists have from the Midsummer of 1695 been kept with scrupulous exactness. There is no trace of his residence to be found in the entry books of the Dean. We cannot find any allusion to his ever having been a resident member of the University in the correspondence of those accomplished men who must have been his contemporaries. But one circumstance seems to us conclusive. He was the patron of John Philips, and that pleasing poet has in two of his poems spoken of him in terms of exaggerated encomium. Philips was a student of Christ Church, and in his 'Cyder' he takes occasion to celebrate the eminent men connected with that distinguished seminary; but though he mentions Harcourt and Bromley, he makes no allusion to St. John." 1

The independent testimony of every additional witness strengthens the probability that any statement in which all agree is true; for, in cases in which there Concurrent has been no previous concert, it is more likely testimony. that such a statement is true than that the agreement in the testimony is accidental. The testimony of every additional witness, moreover, enlarges the surface exposed to attack, and consequently increases the likelihood that a falsehood on the part of any witness would be detected.

Evidence derived from testimony may have an immediate bearing on the question at issue, or it may relate to some circumstance from which an inference Direct and may be drawn that has a bearing on the ques- evidence.

circumstantial

tion at issue; that is, evidence may be either direct or

1 John Churton Collins: Bolingbroke and Voltaire; The Political Life of Bolingbroke.

circumstantial.

Of the distinction between the two no

better statement can be found than that made by Chief Justice Shaw in his charge to the jury at the trial of John W. Webster:

"The distinction, then, between direct and circumstantial evidence, is this. Direct or positive evidence is when a witness can be called to testify to the precise fact which is the subject of the issue in trial; that is, in a case of homicide, that the party accused did cause the death of the deceased. Whatever may be the kind or force of the evidence, this is the fact to be proved. But suppose no person was present on the occasion of the death, and of course no one can be called to testify to it, is it wholly unsusceptible of legal proof? Experience has shown that circumstantial evidence may be offered in such a case; that is, that a body of facts may be proved of so conclusive a character as to warrant a firm belief of the fact, quite as strong and certain as that on which discreet men are accustomed to act in relation to their most important concerns.

The

"Each of these modes of proof has its advantages and disad vantages; it is not easy to compare their relative value. advantage of positive evidence is, that you have the direct testimony of a witness to the fact to be proved, who, if he speaks the truth, saw it done; and the only question is, whether he is entitled to belief? The disadvantage is, that the witness may be false and corrupt, and the case may not afford the means of detecting his falsehood.

"But, in a case of circumstantial evidence where no witness can testify directly to the fact to be proved, you arrive at it by a series of other facts, which by experience we have found so associated with the fact in question, as in the relation of cause and effect, that they lead to a satisfactory and certain conclusion; as when foot-prints are discovered after a recent snow, it is certain that some animated being has passed over the snow since it fell; and, from the form and number of the foot-prints, it can be determined with equal certainty, whether it was a man, a bird, or a quadruped. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences, establishing a connection between the known and proved facts and the fact sought

to be proved. The advantages are, that, as the evidence commonly comes from several witnesses and different sources, a chain of circumstances is less likely to be falsely prepared and arranged, and falsehood and perjury are more likely to be detected and fail of their purpose. The disadvantages are, that a jury has not only to weigh the evidence of facts, but to draw just conclusions from them; in doing which, they may be led by prejudice or partiality, or by want of due deliberation and sobriety of judgment, to make hasty and false deductions; a source of error not existing in the consideration of positive evidence.”1

SECTION II.

DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION.

From the point of view of logic, arguments may be classified according as they move from the general to the specific,― DEDUCTION,2- or from the specific to the general, INDUCTION.3

A simple example of DEDUCTION has come down to us from Aristotle: " All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal." In saying Deduction. that "all men are mortal," we assert that every

member of a class designated as "men" is mortal; in saying that "Socrates is man," we assert that Socrates belongs to the class designated as "men;" in saying that Socrates is mortal," we assert that what we have said concerning the class to which Socrates belongs is true of Socrates. The two assertions "all men are mortal" and 'Socrates is a man are called the premisses; the asser

1 Chief Justice Shaw, in the case of John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of George Parkman. Reported by George Bemis.

2 From de, from, and ducere, to lead.

8 From in, into, and ducere, to lead.

4 Praemissa, from prae, before, and mittere, to send or put.

tion deduced from the premisses, the assertion "Socrates is mortal," is called the conclusion;1 the three assertions taken together constitute what is called a syllogism.2

In every valid syllogism, as in the typical example just given, the conclusion inevitably follows from the premisses; for it contains nothing that is not in the premisses. In saying that "all men are mortal" and that "Socrates is a man," we say by implication that "Socrates is mortal.” The statement of the syllogism in full enables one to see clearly the premisses from which the conclusion is deduced.

A deductive argument may be presented in various forms. For example:

(1) Laws that cannot be enforced should be repealed; the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors cannot be enforced; this law should, therefore, be repealed.

(2) If laws cannot be enforced, they should be repealed; the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors cannot be enforced; this law should, therefore, be repealed.

(3a) Laws that cannot be enforced should be repealed; the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors should, therefore, be repealed.

(36) The law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors cannot be enforced, and should, therefore, be repealed.

(3c) The law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors should be repealed, for it cannot be enforced.

The only difference between syllogisms (1) and (2) is in the manner of stating the first premiss; in (1) the assertion concerning laws that cannot be enforced rests on the assumption that such laws exist; in (2) the same assertion rests on the hypothesis that such laws exist, that is, it is conditional. The abridged syllogisms (3a), (36), and (3c) differ from (1) and

1 Conclusus, from con-, together, and claudere, to close.

2 Zvλλoyioμós, a reckoning all together, from σúv, together, and λογίζεσθαι, to reason.

(2) in the omission of the second premiss from (3a), of the first premiss from (36) and (3c), — omissions that are readily supplied.

A syllogism with one or more of its parts suppressed, as (3a), (3b), or (3c) in the example just given, is called an enthymeme.1 In practical life reasoning is usually conducted in this abridged form. For example:

The income tax is unequal in its operation; therefore, it cannot last.

The income tax is justifiable, for it tends to diminish inequality in the distribution of wealth.

"Robinson Crusoe" must be an allegory, for Defoe says it is. "Robinson Crusoe' "must be a true story, everything is so minutely described.

Greek, being a dead language, is of no use to living men.

As Greek literature is the source of what is best in modern literature, knowledge of it is an essential part of a liberal education.

A college student should be free to choose his studies, for he can profit by no study which he is forced to pursue.

Certain studies every college student should pursue, for they are the foundations of culture.

The wearing of high hats at the theatre should be forbidden by law, for high hats are a nuisance to short men.

A law prohibiting the wearing of high hats at the theatre is restrictive of liberty, and laws restrictive of liberty are impolitic.

"In a rude state of society, men are children with a greater variety of ideas. It is therefore in such a state of society that we may expect to find the poetical temperament in its highest perfection." 2

1 'Evoúμnua, from ¿v0vμeîolai, to keep in mind, consider, infer; from ev, in, and Ovuós, mind. For the history of the change in meaning which this word has undergone, see Murray's "New English Dictionary," and De Quincey's essay on "Rhetoric."

2 Macaulay Essays; Milton.