favor. When a man treats a popular subject, everybody is willing to listen, ready to aid him with interest and applause. A man who knows his subject and has an entertaining and instructive address to deliver on such a topic talks, or writes, under the easiest conditions. When a long-accepted theory is attacked, he who defends it has a presumption in his favor from the very fact that the theory has so long stood unassailed, or successful against all attacks. The audience shares in the speaker's or writer's belief, whatever it may be, and they will be thoroughly in sympathy with his attempt to overthrow those who attack him. The position of all those men who at different times have defended long-accepted views against so-called heretics in religion and science, illustrates the persuasive value of a subject that gives at the outset a presumption in favor of the speaker or writer. PERSUASION ARISING FROM THE RHETORICAL TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT. Even the rhetorical treatment that a writer gives his work may have persuasive value, for it may win or repel sympathy. What has already been said (p. 274) of the danger there sometimes is in stating at the beginning of an argument the thesis to be proved true, and (p. 276) of aiming in all cases at elegance, shows this. The reader knows that under certain conditions either of these may repel sympathy for the writer or for his subject. As a rule, however, whatever gives clearness and force to Argumentation not only produces in the hearer or reader readiness to accept the ideas thus clearly and forcibly stated, but also wins sympathy for the arguer by creating a belief in the general clearness and correctness of his work. This produces in the audience a disposition to accept whatever he may say. Indeed the rough rule may be formulated, that the rhetorical laws which lead to clearness, force and elegance, unless they contradict some of the suggestions about Persuasion already given, or to be given in this chapter, have a persuasive effect as well. PERSUASION ARISING FROM THE APPLICATION GIVEN THE SUBJECT FOR THE AUDIENCE IN QUESTION. Rhetorical treatment is, however, but one of four possible sources of persuasion. The third and fourth, persuasion arising from the application of the subject to the audience in question, and persuasion arising from qualities in the speaker or writer, are the most important. If a reader turns back to the various illustrations of persuasion in the introduction, the argument proper and the peroration given in the last chapter, he will see that in all three the speaker or writer strove to put before his audience some motives for conduct. By "motive" is meant "whatever occasions or induces free action in man." 1 Demosthenes (p. 320) begged his audience to note that instant action meant greater likelihood of victory. Beecher (p. 321) made his audience see that the result of their view must be a poor market for their goods. Hypereides (p. 330) moved his audience to tears. Isaeus stirred them by stories of their country's glory in the past. A speaker or writer may, then, cause an audience to act, that is, persuade it, in two ways. He may point out whatever in any statement proved true or in process of proof he feels will be for them a motive for action; or, he may stir their emotions so strongly with something he says about the topic that they will seek vent for their emotion in action and follow willingly his bidding. Demosthenes and Beecher did the first. Hypereides and Isaeus the second. Evidently, then, he who wishes to be persuasive must know what motives for conduct exist among human beings. 1 Art of Discourse, p. 171, H. N. Day. Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1867. THE VARIETY IN MOTIVES. THEIR GRADES. This is, however, no easy matter, for their name is legion. The illustrations already given appealed to the following motives: love of country; easier labor in one case than in another; desire for a good market, for manufactures; love of fair play, etc. Love of, and pride in, one's self, one's family, city, state, country; social and political ambition; avarice, anger, hatred, fear, charitableness; interest in education, literature or the fine arts; admiration of courage, perseverance, coolness, these are all possible motives, causes, for action. The first reason, then, why the study of motives in mankind is difficult is their number. A second reason has appeared even as the test above was named — that motives are not all of the same rank. Suppose that a man is induced to buy a lot of land, not because he has any real use for it, but because he knows that a man he dislikes strongly wishes to buy it. He will hardly care to say much about that motive. Suppose, on the other hand, that he buys it because the land, in a wretched part of the city, has been long used by poor children as a playground, and he knows that, if he does not buy it, the land will be sold to a man who, by placing buildings on it, will deprive the children of their playground. Suppose that he buys it even at some inconvenience to himself, because he is public-spirited and fond of children. Will not his own opinion of himself, and particularly the opinion of him among his fellow-citizens, vary decidedly under the differing circumstances? That is, there are grades in the motives which lead to action, - from those which regard simply the good of the individual, through those which regard the good of some class, to those which regard the good of humanity. That ascending scale is recognized in all Christian nations. Certainly, then, a student of Persuasion must know not only what motives for conduct exist, but also how they are graded. It is not likely that any reader of this book will speak to an audience that will not grade motives on the rough scale given above, though possibly such exist, but unfortunately among Christian peoples the grading of motives within the broad divisions given varies greatly. What seems very important to one may seem far less so to another. Even in the same country the grading may vary. For instance, love of the arts, of literature, of science, is much greater in some cities than in others. Any man who has lived in the newer West knows that in some regions the greatest sin is stealing horses. In many places the desire to gain money dominates every other motive. Consequently, a student of Persuasion must know not only what in general are the motives that in human beings underlie action and what are the broad gradings in them recognized by all Christian nations, but also what grading is operative in the particular audience he is addressing. All this makes Persuasion a constant It study of particular cases, instead of, as in Conviction, a study of rules that hold good for all rational beings. must show, too, why it is impossible to give generally applicable rules for Persuasion. Breadth of experience, constant study, persistent practice; these are the essentials to successful persuasion. Few men in modern times have understood persuasion better than did Lord Erskine. Trained first in the navy, later in the army, he became a lawyer who made all manner of acquaintances at assizes in all parts of England and Wales. Gaining thus a wide range of experience, he studied his fellow-men enthusiastically and minutely, and constantly applied the results of his study. One has only to read a speech of his to see that his eye was always on the faces of his audience. Here and there, from a change in wording, a reiteration, a sudden different method of attack, one learns that Erskine saw doubt or uncertainty on the face of some juryman, and was unwilling to move on until all his hearers were in accord with him. Henry Ward Beecher, also, was very skillful in persuasion. He had met in his wide experience all sorts and conditions of men, had learned to read their faces and figures as indices of their mental and moral powers an important faculty for the man who wishes to be persuasive. This wide experience gave him a deep knowledge of the causes of action, good and bad, in his fellow-men. When, too, he had a difficult audience to meet, he made before he spoke careful inquiries about its nature and tried to fit his treatment of his subject to the audience in question. As a result, when he had a difficult audience to meet, he handled it triumphantly, as in the Liverpool speech. |