Proof not to A reasoner should, however, always avail himself of the Presumption, so long as it is in his fa- Burden of vor, and never assume the burden of prov- be unnecessaing what the experience of mankind has rily assumed. proved for him. In criminal cases, the question upon whom rests the burden of proof may be a question of life or death.1 "A moderate portion of common sense will enable any one to perceive, and to show, on which side the presumption lies, when once his attention is called to this question; though, for want of attention, it is often overlooked: and on the determination of this question the whole character of a discussion will often very much depend. A body of troops may be perfectly adequate to the defence of a fortress against any attack that may be made on it; and yet, if, ignorant of the advantage they possess, they sally forth into the open field to encounter the enemy, they may suffer a repulse. At any rate, even if strong enough to act on the offensive, they ought still to keep possession of their fortress. In like manner, if you have the presumption on your side, and can but refute all the arguments brought against you, you have, for the present at least, gained a victory: but if you abandon this position, by suffering this presumption to be forgotten, — which is in fact leaving out one of, perhaps, your strongest arguments, you may appear to be making a feeble attack, instead of a triumphant defence." 2 A reasoner who puts himself on the defensive by relying on the presumption in his favor is, moreover, likely to require different arguments and a different arrangement from those that would be necessary, if he were obliged to meet an opponent in the open field, or to attack him behind strong entrenchments. 1 See York's Case, 9 Metcalf's (Massachusetts) Rep., 93. CHAPTER IV. ORDER OF PROPOSITION AND PROOF. THE importance of so arranging the several parts of an argumentative composition that they may Importance of a good arrangement. render effective support to one another can hardly be over-estimated. Forces that could be beaten in detail may be irresistible when skilfully drawn up, and massed at the points of danger. "You shall find hundreds of persons able to produce a crowd of good ideas upon any subject, for one that can marshal them to the best advantage. Disposition is to the orator what tactics, or the discipline of armies, is to the military art. And as the balance of victory has almost always been turned by the superiority of tactics and of discipline, so the great effects of eloquence are always produced by the excellency of disposition. There is no part of the science in which the consummate orator will be so decidedly marked out, as by the perfection of his disposition."1 At the very beginning of his Oration on the Crown, Demosthenes justly demanded from his judges, as a condition of fair play, freedom in the arrangement as well as in the selection of his arguments. Had he been obliged to adopt the arrangement of his adversary Eschines, as Eschines desired, he would necessarily have given undue prominence to the strong points of the case against him, and undue subordination to the strong points in his favor. Imagine a chess-player obliged to govern his moves by those of his opponent. Imagine Napoleon forced to adapt his lines to those of 1 J. Q. Adams: Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, vol. i. pp. 168–169. See also Appendix, p. 283. the enemy, to post cavalry opposite to cavalry, artillery to artillery, infantry to infantry, whatever the character of the ground or the disparity of numbers. The most effective order in some circumstances is the least effective in others, for the conditions of each case determine the best order for that case. Hence, only the most general rules for arrangement can be given; but, if the principles which underlie those rules are once thoroughly understood, their application under new conditions will not be difficult. Should the Proposition come first? or should the argument lead up to the Proposition through should the the Proof? Proposition or the Proof come first? We have already seen how important it is that a reasoner should himself, at the outset,1 clearly understand the Proposition he is to maintain; but it by no means follows that he should hasten to announce the Proposition to those whom he would convince of its truth. His first object should be to secure their favorable attention. Now, to engage attention at all, it is desirable to appear to be saying something new. If, then, the Proposition is a truism to the persons addressed, it will usually be judicious to awaken their attention by beginning with what is novel in the Proof. Regarded from a new point of view, approached by a new path, the old conclusion will acquire a fresh interest, except, indeed, for those unfortunate persons whose minds are accessible to nothing but commonplace, and for whom, therefore, even a novelty must be presented in a commonplace dress. If the Proposition, whether well known to the persons addressed or not, is likely to awaken their hos 1 See p. 185. tility, it should not be announced until steps have been taken to procure for it a favorable reception. Often the best course to this end is to state at the outset the question at issue, but not to espouse either side until after the arguments for each have been canvassed. It may also be possible to secure assent to general principles from which the conclusion can be logically deduced. In pursuing this course, a reasoner seems to invite his readers or hearers to join him in an inquiry for the truth. This inquiry results, if he is successful, not so much in convincing them as in leading them to convince themselves of the justness of his conclusion; if he is unsuccessful, in inducing them to give some weight to reasons which they would not have considered at all, had they known to what conclusion they led. Another method of disarming hostility is for a speaker to establish pleasant relations with the audience by adverting to opinions (irrelevant ones, it may be) which they hold in common with him, before proceeding to points of difference. Thus, a well-known anti-slavery orator of Massachusetts was accustomed, in the days when Abolitionists were persecuted, to remind rural audiences that, whatever might be said of his political views, his religious opinions were as sound as theirs. In the absence, however, of considerations such as have been noticed, the better course usually is, first, to state what is to be proved, and, secondly, to prove it. This course is particularly to be recommended if the subject is abstruse, and the arguments are numerous. Knowledge of the proposition serves as a clue to difficult reasoning. Thus, Mill begins his "Liberty" and "Representative Government" by laying down the propositions he means to establish; and in "The Subjection of Women," the very title states his conclusion, if indeed it does not beg the question.1 Burke usually enumerates the propositions he intends to make good. The Proposition should The Proposition, when stated at the outset, should be stated with the utmost clearness and the greatest brevity; for it serves to show, not be clear what we are saying, but what we are going to say.2 and brief. "The brevity required in partition is positive. It consists in using the smallest number of words possible to express your idea. Every word must be used in its plain, literal meaning, without any admixture of figurative language. A partition is properly the solution of the proposition into its elements. Its perspicuity must depend altogether upon its precision; and what can be more absurd than for that part to be obscure, the only use of which is to throw light upon all the rest? "' 3 “I found from experience, as well as theory," writes Scarlett (Lord Abinger), the most successful of English advocates, "that the most essential part of speaking is to make yourself understood. For this purpose it is absolutely necessary that the Court and jury should know as early as possible de quâ re agitur. It was my habit, therefore, to state in the simplest form that the truth and the case would admit the proposition of which I maintained the affirmative and the defendant's counsel the negative, and then, without reasoning upon them, the leading facts in support of my assertion. Thus it has often happened to me to open a cause in five minutes, which would have occupied a speaker at the Bar of the present day from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour or more. If the Proposition is a complex one, care should be taken to arrange its parts in the order in which they are to be taken up and to take them up in the exact 1 See p. 196. 2 "Non enim, quid dicamus, sed, de quo dicturi sumus, ostendimus.". -Quintilian: Inst. Orator. iv. v. xxvi. 8 J. Q. Adams: Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, vol. ii. p. 19. Borrowed from Quintilian, Inst. Orator. iv. v. xxvi. 4 Abinger: Autobiography, p. 74. |