and thus left a clear way for his proof of the truth of the theory of Evolution and a strong presumption in its favor.1 Still another effective method of refutation - a favorite of Macaulay's is to take up an opponent's argument as if to refute it, and then show that it makes not for, but against the opponent. This is an argumentative turning of the enemy's flank. Macaulay's "assault on primogeniture illustrates his manner of retorting that the facts prove exactly the opposite of what is asserted :— 'It is evident that this theory, though intended to strengthen the foundations of Government, altogether unsettles them. Did the divine and immutable law of primogeniture admit females or exclude them? On either supposition, half the sovereigns of Europe must be usurpers, reigning in defiance of the command of heaven, and might be justly deposed by the rightful heirs." "2 REFUTATION IS DESTRUCTIVE, NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. These examples of refutation must make clear a very important fact that every student should remember. Except when it has been conclusively shown that but a certain number of theories or statements are possible in regard to the matter under discussion, and all the possible theories but one have been refuted, refutation is purely destructive, and does not prove anything to be true or to exist. In all cases but that excepted, it merely clears the ground for the proof the refuter wishes to give of the truth of his own ideas. In the exception mentioned, by showing that all 1 Specimens of Argumentation (Modern), pp. 60 et seq. the possible theories but one do not hold, it at least establishes a strong presumption in favor of that one. So difficult, however, is it to be sure that all possible explanations of a phenomenon, all the theories in regard to it, have been named, that careful workers in Argumentation for example, Professor Huxley, see p. 308 — are usually satisfied with getting, even from the exception noted, a strong presumption in their favor, and go on to prove why their theory, their explanation, is to be accepted. 11. Study Emphasis. -A very important matter far too often neglected by students of Argumentation is study of emphasis, that is, giving prominence to that in an argument which it is important a reader should grasp and retain in mind The whole analytical process of separating what is essential in a treatment of the case in hand from what is extraneous is a study of a kind of emphasis. So, too, when a student considers, in preparing his brief, whether an idea is to be made a head or a sub-head, and how he must arrange his ideas to get climax, he again studies emphasis, for what is given a main position, what is put at the end of a climax, is emphasized. Indeed, the emphasis that comes from the position given an idea is largely settled in the brief. Rhetoric, however, may still do much to give emphasis, and may do its work both by the position and by the phrasing it gives an idea. Any college student knows that whether an idea is placed at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a sentence or paragraph its position in relation to other words - may affect emphasis. He knows, too, that the very phrasing of an idea, that reiteration of it, can make it prominent, difficult to forget. Any and all devices that he knows for giving emphasis he should bear constantly in mind in his work on Argumentation, for they are well-nigh indispensable aids to force in discussion. Constantly, beginners in Argumentation who give strong evidence in support of their ideas produce but a weak effect because they do not drive home their arguments. In developing a long division of their work they do not push into prominence that idea which they wish a reader to grant and remember. When they have given their proof of the truth of an idea they pass at once to proof about another idea, without any effort to impress unmistakably on the reader's mind exactly what they think the just completed division has accomplished. A reader may, therefore, feel that he ought to be convinced, but not be sure about what; or he may be sure that something which is not just what the writer intended to prove true has been demonstrated as a fact. The value of emphasis was recognized very early in the history of oratory : "A striking trait of Isaeus [420-350 B.C.] in the province of argument is iteration; and the preference of emphasis to form which this implies is worth notice as suggesting how the practical view of oratory was beginning to prevail over the artistic. Sometimes the repetition is verbal - an indignant question or phrase occurs again and again, where Isocrates would have abstained from using it twice. More often it is an argument or a statement which the speaker aims at impressing on the hearers by urging it in a series of different forms and connections. Or even a document, cited at the outset, is read a second time, as if to make the jury realize more vividly that a circle of proof has been completed." 1 1 Attic Orators, vol. II, p. 297. Jebb. A valuable means of impressing on a reader the truths a writer wishes him to accept as proved is the use of summaries. At the end of a division which has been long, involved, technical, or for any reason not easy to grasp, a writer sums up the significance of what he has been saying. He gives an outline in a succinct form likely to stay in a reader's mind, and thus emphasizes what he wishes to have remembered. Burke was a master of the summary. The following examples of his use of it in his speech on Conciliation with the American Colonies show how effective an aid to clearness and force the summary can be. 66 Then, sir, from these six capital sources of descent; of form of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of government, — from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your colonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth; a spirit that, unhappily, meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to con sume us. 66 If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable; if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient; what way yet remains? No way is but the third and last open, to comply with the American spirit as necessary; or, if you please, to submit to it as a necessary evil.” 2 "Here is my third example. It was attended with the success of the two former. Chester, civilized as well as Wales, 2 Idem, p. 82. 1 Political Orations. Camelot Series, p. 72. has demonstrated that freedom, and not servitude, is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition."1 "Sir, here is the repeated acknowledgment of parliament that the colonies not only gave, but gave to satiety. This nation has formally acknowledged two things; first, that the colonies had gone beyond their abilities, parliament having thought it necessary to reimburse them; secondly, that they had acted legally and laudably in their grants of money, and their maintenance of troops, since the compensation is expressly given as reward and encouragement. Reward is not bestowed for acts that are unlawful; and encouragement is not held out to things that deserve reprehension. My resolution, therefore, does nothing more than collect into one proposition what is scattered through your journals. I give you nothing but your own; and you cannot refuse in the gross what you have so often acknowledged in detail. The admission of this, which will be so honorable to them and to you, will, indeed, be mortal to all the miserable stories by which the passions of the misguided people have been engaged in an unhappy system." 2 Here is the summary with which Justice Harlan concluded the second part of his argument before the Behring Sea Tribunal, in Paris, in 1893: "If I am correct in the views above expressed, the answers to the first four points of Article VI. should be, substantially, as follows: "To the first. Prior to and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States, Russia did not assert nor exercise any exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea, or any exclusive rights in the fur seal fisheries in that sea, outside of ordinary territorial waters, except that in the Ukase of 1821 she did assert the right to prevent foreign vessels from approaching 2 Idem, p. 99. 1 Political Orations. Camelot Series, p. 92. |