Richard Whately persuasion, and even abOl ,787- 1863 thcr, making fine distincti1 preconceptions of the auo apparently rational argum< Richard Whately took his B.A. in 1808, un M.A. in 1812, und u 8.0 . and D.D . in lion, and setting up a systc 1825, all at Oxford University. Though Aristotle was taught and revered at Oxford , gumcnts . As noted in the philosophers since Bacon had scorned trnditional syllogistic logic, just as leading from testimony and proba rhetoricians of the previous century had scorned traditional topical invention. arc refuting scoffers and p1 Whately sought to redress this neglect and partly succeeded. In his Elemems of logic As an apologist for rcli1 ( I 826), he argues that the syllogism is a means or testing the validity of propositions, (like earlier apologists Jost regardless of the field of knowledge to which they apply. In other words, the syllo· and logic as the foundatirn gism is a method of linguistic reasoning , not of scientific discovery, and should not of discovery, for example, be faulted for being inadequate to an activity for which it was never intended. In the because they believed ston Elements of Rhetoric ( 1828 ; excerpted here), Whately defines rhetoric in Aristotelian nally made the notion ere fashion as "an offshoot of Logic'' whose function is to invent and arrange arguments. stone. Whately adds that t He revives a number of Aristotelian doctrines and tries to minimize the anticlassical New Testament to the call influence of George Campbell (p. 898). But his chief success in rhetoric was perhaps the broad interpretation th( to extend and refine Campbell's contribution to rhetorical theory. so many references concur, In the introduction to E/emems of Rhetoric, Whately gives a brief history of removed ." It would not be rhetoric. He cites only Aristotle (p. 169), Cicero (p. 283), Quintilian (p. 359), Bacon students used this very ex (p. 736) , Campbell, and Blair (p. 947) . Aristotle , says Whately, is the best of the lot, broadcast his sharp obscrv and his wellwdeveloped theory has never been superseded. Cicero barely makes the here of smug satisfactior list because his remarks, though helpful, arc not .,systematic ." Quintilian is system· Whately's use of logic as 1 atic but adds little to Aristotle. Bacon is included because of his antitheses. Campbell oughgoing . His eye is on t is superior to Blair, but Whately doesn 't say why. He does say that Campbell logic for religious argumcn doesn't understand logic, as Whately had previously shown in his Eleme11tsof fectly reasonable activity . 1 Logic. Campbell should have known logic better, because rhetoric, says Whately, is edge is based on the same an offshoot of logic. Rhetorical theory, it appears, has advanced little since Aristotle, demonstrations of causality and we need to go back to his starting point and treat rhetoric as a branch of logic. lion, moreover, is not apprc Modem science has emphasized knowledge of facts and has neglected logic (a de· a "progressive approach" t< velopment, says Whately , that might surprise Bacon) . To move confidently from therefore to argue for truths fact to gcneralizalion, logic is necessary. The thesis of Elemellls of Logic is esscn· The issue for rhetoric, tt tially that science and logic arc separate because discovery and reasoning arc differ· a..._.h...... ,.. persuasive, and this is What C"'"-'4.-\ ll ent operations. Discovery is based on experience (observation , experiment, and tes· persuasion accords with 101 c,kih.,._.,4...,~) timony); reasoning, on argument and demonstration (using the syllogism). Rhetoric some kinds of testimony m n.l~ c.....-r is in much the same state as its parent logic : Instead of requiring more attention to the witnes ses, the type of te observed facL~. such as details of style, rhetoric needs a theory of persuasion that de­ of detail, and so on . Similar scribes the actual processes by which conviction is formed. Whately proposes to s11mptio11about which side c search out the bases of rhetoric in language and psychology . This effort, we may of proof on the other side. \\ infer, will finally improve upon Aristotle and place Whately at the laller end of the inappropriate, and he defcnc history of rhetoric. taking a position in an im It may seem that Campbell proposed the identical project - and did a creditable Whereas liberals tended to job of it, too. Whately acknowledges Campbell's work and uses his arguments Whately, more conservative about the probabilistic basis of both scientific demonstration and moral argument, custom and tradition. He th1 about the nature of moral evidence, about the difference between conviction and into a productive tension tha

1000 NINETEl:NTH - CENTURY RHETORIC per!iua~ion, und even ubout the value of perspicuity in style. But Whately goes fur­ ther, making line distinct ions among the varieties of moral evidence, examining the preconception s of the audience . taking into account the often irrational effects of apparently rnlional argument s, investigating the role of emotions in creating convic­ z, and a B.D . and D.D. in tion, am.Is elling up a system (reminiscent or Aristotle' s) for turning out effective ar­ 1t and revered at Oxford, guments. As noted in the introduction lo Part Five, Whately focuses on argument ,lie logic, just as leading from testimony and probability, since they arc most likely to help clergymen who tional topical invention. arc refuting scoffers and presenting arguments for revealed truth. . In his Elements of Logic As an arologi st for religion in an age of skepticism inspired by science, Whately ! validity of propositions, (like earlier apologists Joseph Butler und William Paley) cleverly appeals to science [n other words, the syllo · and logic as 1hc founda1ion for h[s arguments. Speaking of probability as the basis liscovery, and should not of discovery, for example, he notes that people once dismis sed rerorts of meteorite s rm; never intended. In the because 1hcy believed stone s could not fall from the sky. But many such reports fi­ es rhetoric in Aristotelian nally made the notion credible, even though no two reports concerned the same 1t and arrange arguments. stone. Whately adds 11mlthe same reasoning applies to the many allusions in lhe ninimize the anticlassical New Testament to the calling of the gentiles. Ahhough no single allusion warrants ;s in rhetoric was perhaps the broad interpret.Ilion that Jesus was always intended to go to the gentiles, when 1cory. ~o many references concur, "the antecedent objection against each individual case is gives a brief history of rt:moved." h would not be surpri sing if scholar s were to discover that Whately's ~uintilian (p. 359), Bacon student s used this very examrle in their sennons; Whately probably intended to tely' is the best or the lot, broadcast his sharp ob!icrvations through that channel. But there is very little air a..~ (.c.~r Cicero barely make s the here of smug satisfaction in using the weapons of science against science. ic." Quintilian is systcm­ Whatcly's use of logic as the basi s for religious argumenL~ is consistent and thor- f his antitheses. Campbell oughgoing. His eye is on the larger issue of demonstrating that there is a basis in does say that Campbell logic for rcligiou'> arguments of many kinds and, furthermore, that arguing is a per- own in his Eleme11tsof fectly reasomible activity. Like Campbell, he maintains that much scientific know!- ~1',s1j !Jt-1'-\- rhetoric, says Whately, is edge is based on the same kind of reasoning as moral knowledge and that linear f 1~·hw,{,~ _, need Jillie since Aristotle, demonstrations of cau i.ality do not constitute the whole of logic. Causal demonstra- 1 ! """tr" 1-.. t-'i,A.1 oric as a branch of logic. tion, moreover, is not appropriate to arguments about most of life's affairs. Rather, -~~~ •. ras neglected logic (a de~ a "progressive approach" to the truth must be used. Rhetoric's proper province is '' .f,,H,<.-l-ks -M>"'"' .t. ) move confidently from therefore to argue for truths found by other means - by science or revelation. !i"'l.~ ~, '' miellls of Logic is cssen ­ The issue for rhetoric, then, is to determine what people will take to be true or and reasoning are differ . persuasive, and this is Whately's topic in Part I of Elemellls of Rhetoric. Sometimes ion, experiment, and tes­ persuasion accords with logic, sometimes not. For example, an audience will find . the syllogism). Rhetoric some kinds of testimony more convincing than others because of the character of quiring more attention to the witnesses, the type of testimony, the concurrence of other testimony, the degree ory of persuasion that de­ of detail, and so on. Similarly, the audience will almost inevitably make some pre­ ed. Whately proposes to mmpticm about which side of an argument is correct and will thus place the burden 1gy. This effort, we may of proof on the other side. Wha1ely does not feel that such presumptions are always fh(, "t~l-1 ~~IAk t(_ ly at the latter end or the inappropriate, and he defends them when they carry the authority of tradition, thus ~ ~ LM-kllr taking a position in an important debate in political philosophy or the period. C) li.1:U~ ~ct- and did a creditable Whereas liberals tended lo support the value of the unaided individual judgment, / t"'',lcs•r\..;tll\ and uses his argumenL,; Whately, more conservative, showed how persuasion might reasonably draw on j Ql..o\ l'b,;:..,. ... ( ion and moral argument, custom and tradition. He thus put individual and communal standards of judgment between conviction and into a productive tension that was further developed, as Karen Whedbee has shown,

RICHARD WHATELY IOOI in the work of liberal political philosophers John Stuart Mill and Alexis de velopmcntof Richard Whale Tocqueville. [June 1976]: I 15- 29), and Ki So, too, in refuting an argument, logic alone may not avail. In Part II, Whately and Liberal Judgment: The focuses on appeals lo emotion, noting that it is foolish lo abjure such appeals. Why Tocqueville" (Quanerly Jo11r Whately's Logic as well a.,; t should we suppose that stimulating the emotions is always overstimulating them? l /1 (1971) . Discussionsof the u. Arc emotions not a part of human decision~? Do we not often seek to persuade our­ seen in McKerrow's "Richan selves to choose a course of action by representing to ourselves appropriate gland" (Rlletorica 5 l~pring 1 thoughts and feelings'! It is legitimate and necessary, Whately says, to stimulate emotions such as hope, fear, and altruism because they lead to worthy aims. In Part 111,he discusses style, providing standard textbook advice on perspicuity and cor­ rectness. And in Part IV, he offers advice on elocution, relying on Thomas Sheridan (p. 879) for his main points and stressing the need for m1tumlncss, as opposed to the From Ele1nen recent fad for mechanical systems of delivery typified by Gilbert Austin (p. 889). Whately wrote widely on topical issues affecting Ireland, on political economy, and on religion (including a piece called Historic D011/Jr.,· Relc1tive ro Nc1po/eo11 Introduction Bonaparte, satirizing David Hume's essay on miracles). In addition, he edited the .. 1. works of Bacon and of the philosopher and Christian apologist William Paley. In a peculiar way, Whately's innuence may be measured by the remarks made about Variou,v deji11i1imuof Rlwtor, him by I. A, Richards (admittedly, a Cantabrigian) in 1936, who says that rhetoric Of Rhetoric various defin begins, "of course, with Aristotle, and may perhaps he said to end with Archbishop ~ by different writers; who, Whately."• Richards means that rhetoric reached its nadir in Whately's dry rules for much to have disagreed i argument. Irrespective of the justness of this valuation, clearly Whately is the figure the nature of the same thi Richards feels he must supplant to take his own place al the end of the history of fcrcnt things in view wh rhetoric. same term. Not only the 'w also those used in dctinin! various senses; as may be Selected Bibliograp/ry to the word "Art" in Ciccr a discussion is introduced Eleme11tsof Rlieloricis availablein the SouthernIllinois UniversityPress reprint of the stan• of that term to Rhetoric; dard 1846 edition,edited, with an excellent introduction,by Douglas Ehningcr (1963). Our the different senses in wt excerptsarc from this edition. derstood. "Twentieth-CenturyPublications on RichardWhately: A Bibliography"is in Rhetoric So­ ' .' To enter into an exami· ciety Quarterly 18 (spring 1988).It is quite short, even though it includesgeneral studies,un­ lions that have been give1 published papers, and dissertations.There arc no book-length studies of Whately's work. uninteresting and uninstt Nonetheless,there arc several worthwhile articles and a biography.The biographyis Donald versy. It is sufficient to Akcnson's A Protesttmtin Purgatory: Richard Whately, Arc/1hishop of D11b1i11( 198 1 ). 1lmx •• l guard against the comm• helpful introductoryarticles arc W. M. Parrish,"Whately and His Rhetoric," whichexamines that a general term has sor sources and innucnces, and James A. Winans, "Whlllelyon Elocution," both in Historicol corresponding to it, inde~ Stuc/ie.rof Rhetoric and Rhetorici,m.r,ed. Raymond Howes (1961): and "Whately's Theory lions; - that, consequent!: of Rhetoric," in Ex11lorntio11.1·in Rhetoric, ed. Ray McKcrrow{1982). Summarizing the case in every case is to be fou against Whatcly's rhetoric,on grounds that his treatmentof invention,audience, and the psy­ hcnd everything that is rig chology of persuasionis faulty, is Lois Einhorn in "Richard Whately's Public Persuasion: tcrm; - and that all othe, The Relationshipbetween His RhetoricalTI1eory and His Rhetorical Practice" (Rhewrica 4 whereas, in fact, it will c [ 1986):47-65). Dealingwith how Whatcly's theoryaccounts for the functionof trmlitionand r, ' F •\." present instance, that bo customin persuasionarc MiclmelSproulc's "1l1ePsychological Burden of Proof: On the Dc- more restricted sense of 'I. A. Ridmn.Js,Tlie P/rifo.mp/ryof Rlwloric:(1936; rpt. New York· Ox.ford Univcrsi1yPress, 19(15), sanctioned by use (the onl. and that the consequence 1 (I. 5.

1002 NINETllENTH·CEN'I URY RHETORIC uart Mill and Alexis de vclopmcnt of Richard Whatcly's Theory of Presumption" (Com1111111icationMonograph~ 43 !June 19761: 115-29), and Karen Whedbee's more positive, revisionist "Authority, Freedom avail. In Part II, Whately und Libernl Judgment: The 'Presumptions' and 'Presumptuousness' of Whately, Mill and abjure such appeals . Why Tocqueville" (Quarter-lyJoumal of S{Jeech84 [May 19981: 171- 89). W. S. Howell discusses Wlmtely's logic as well as lhe Rhetoric in Eiglitee111/i-Ce11111ryBritish Logic a11dRhetoric .1ys overstimulaling lhem'! (1971).Discussions of the Lugic alien bear on 1he Rhetoric, as Howell shows and as can be iften seek lo persuade our- seen in McKerrow's ..Richard Whately and the Revival of Logic in Nineteenth-Century En· to ourselves appropriale gland" (Rhewrica 5 [spring 19K7J: 163-85). Vhately says . to slirnulate ad to worlhy aim'>. In Part . f ;e on perspicuily and cor­ ,, lying on Thomas Sheridan nalnes .~, as opposed to lhe From Elen1ents of Rhetoric Gilbert Austin (p. 889). ind, on political economy, bts Relative to Na1mleo11 /11troduction vanat1on in the definitions employed; none of which perhaps may be fairly chargeable with In addition, he edited the error, though none can be framed that will apply logist William Paley . In a ~ 1. ·' . to every acceptation of the term. V11rim1sdefi 11i1io11sof Rhetoric. the remarks made about It is evident that in its primary signification, 36, who says that rhetoric ) Of Rhetoric various definitions have been given Rhetoric had reference to public Speaking alone, d to end with Archbishop by different writers; who, however, seem not so as its etymology implies. But as most of the rules in Whately's dry mies for much to have disagreed in their conceptions of for Speaking are of course applicable equally to :arly Whately is the ligure the nature of the same thing, as lo have had dif­ Writing, an extension of the term naturally took the end or the history of ferent things in view while they employed the place; and we find even Aristotle, the earliest same term. Not only the word Rhetoric itself, but systematic writer on the subject whose works also those used in defining it, have been taken in have come down to us, including in his Treatise various senses; as may be observed with respect rules for such compositions as were not intended to the word "Art" in Cicero's De Oratore, where to be publicly recited.' And even as far as relates a discussion is introduced as to the applicability to Speeches, properly so called, he takes, in the , ity Press reprint of the stan­ of that term to Rhetoric; manifestly turning on same Treatise, at one time, a wider, and at an­ ,ug(as Ehninger ( 1963). Our the different senses in which "Art" may be un­ other, a more restricted view of the subject; in­ cluding under the term Rhetoric, in the opening of liogmphy" b in Rlreloric So­ derstood. To enter into an examination of all the defini­ his work, nothing beyond the finding of topics of includes general studies, un­ tions that have been given, would lead to much Persuasion, as far as regards the matter of what is studies of Whatcly' s work. uninteresting and uninstructive verbal contro­ spoken; and afterwards embracing the considera­ 1y. The biography is Donald versy. It is suflicient to put the reader on his tion of Style, Arrangement, and Delivery. lwp of D11bli11( I 98 I). Three guard against the common error of supposing The invention of Printing, 2 by extending the ; Rhetoric," which examines that a general term has some real object, properly sphere of operation of the Writer, has of course ocution," both in Historict1{ corresponding lo it, independent of our concep­ ir); and "Whately' s Theory tions;-that, consequently, some one definition 982) . Summari1ing the c.isc •Aris1ot.Rlret. hook iii. [Au.I ,, .. J in every case is lo be found which will compre­ 1tion, audience, and the psy­ •or rather or Paper: for 1hc invention or printing is too hend everything that is rightly designated by that 'hately's Public Persuasion: obvious not to have speedily followed, in a liler.iry nation, the l\ tcrm;-and that all others must be erroneous: rical Practice" (Rlietorirn 4 introduction or a paper surticiently chcap to make lhe art Av.l~t whereas, in fact, will often happen, as in the available. Indeed the seals oflhe ancients seem to have been a the function of tradition and it present instance, that both the wider, and the kind of stumps, wilh which they in fact printed lheir names, lu.bMi­ 3urden of Proof: On the De- But the high price orbooks, caused hy the dearness of paper, 'v,,t""/ ""O more restricted sense of a term, will be alike precluded the sale of copies except in so .mw//a 1111111/,erthat 1. ••• , >xford Unive!'!ilty Pre~~. 1965), sanctioned by use (the only competent authority), the prilllingof them would have been more costly then Iran- Y'"""'-1"- and that the consequence will be a corresponding scribing, [Au.I UM

WHATELY ( ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1003 -.fJf' fhd u. t:--GM~I.fo~-4....() -{.. {t., ....t._. -\-l,~ . llllnnu,~ :L1..<("ftt'1 .. t,""-""'u contributed to the extension or thoi.c terms which, often taken of Logic;4 which has been considered conformity with the ve1 in their primary signification, had reference to by some as a kind of system of universal know). view of Aristotle) as an Speaking alone. Many objects arc now accom­ edge, on the ground that Argument may be em­ plished through the medium of the Press, which , ployed on all subjects, and that no one can argue Pl,ilo.wpl,y wul Rliewric c, formerly came under the exclusive province of well on a i.ubject which he docs not understand; the Orator; and the qualifications requisite for and which has been complained of by others for l remarked in treating c succes-;arc so much the same in both cases, that not :mpplying any such universal instruction as soning may be conside we apply the term ..Eloquent" as readily to a its unskilful advocates have placed within its purposes, which I venll Writer as to a Speaker: though. c1ymologically province: such as in fact no one Art or System lively by the terms "In considered, it could only belong to the latter. In­ can possibly afford. ~ i.e., the ascertair,111e111c deed "Eloquence" is often attributed even lo such The error is precisely the same in respect of I lion, and the establislm. composilions,- c.g.. Historical works,- as have Rhetoric and of Logic: both being i11.\'tru111e111al tion of another: and in view an object entirely different from any that arts; and, as such, applicat,/e to various kind of Bacon, in his Orga11lm, could be proposed by an Orator; because some subject matter, which do not properly come I the conduct of the fonm part of the rules to be observed in Oratory, or um/er them. r-:., )I,·'I. that the latter belong rules analogous to these, arc applicable to such So judicious an author as Quinctilian would ' ' ' Rhetoric: and it was ad< 1 compositions. Conformably to this view, there­ not have failed to perceive, had he not been car- _ regarded as the proper c l"I,\ f"~ fore, some wrilers have spoken or Rhetoric us 1he ricd away by an inordinate veneration for his ~ or the Judge;- to prov lLJ~{\\.t., Art of Compoi.ition,universally; or, wilh the ex­ own Art, that as the possession of building mute- [ not however to be unde :C.•p<.of clusion of Poetry alone, as embmcing all Prose rials is no part of the art of Architecture, though works are to be exclude, ;tW,~;h;;• composition. it is impossible to build without materials, so, the ~ Rhetorical rules arc apf A still wider extension or the province of knowledge of the subjects on which the Ora&oris ~ pher who undertakes, b• Rhetoric has been contended for by some of the to speak, constitutes no part of the art of Rhe­ convey his notions to ~ ancient writers; who, thinking it necessary to in­ toric, though it be essential to its successful cm- ? lime being, the characte1 clude, as belonging lo the Art, everything that ployment; and that &houghvirtue, and the good (. trincs he maintains. The could conduce to the attainment of the object reputation it procures, add materially to the must be supposed compl proposed, introduced into their systems, Treatises Speaker's influence. they arc no more to be, for sions arrived al by that J on Law, Momls, Politics, &c., on the ground that that reason, considered as belonging lo &heOra­ to impart his ideas to ot a knowledge of these subjects was requisite lo tor, as such, than wealth, rank, or a good person, lure; the object of whic enable a man to speak well on them: and even in­ which manifestly have a tendency to produce the prove the justness of th sisted on Virtue-' as an essential qualification of a same effect. doing this, he will not al perfect Orator; because a good character, which adhere to the same coun can in no way be so surely established as by de­ his own discoveries wer £\1rcmc.\' i11the /i111itt1tio11wul ette11sio11of the f. serving ii, has great weight with the audience. prtll'ince of Rhetoric. arguments may occur t, clear, or more concise, Aristotle 's cem11reof his prede<·es.wrs. In the present day, however, the province of undcrslanding of those t Rhetoric, in the widcl>tacceptation that would be ing therefore, and establ These notions arc combated by Aristotle; who at­ reckoned admissible, comprehends all "Compo­ often have occasion for tributes them either to the ill-cultivated under· sition in Prose"; in the narrowest sense, it would from those employed ir t.1,ll+~ . standing of those who maintained them, or to be limited to "Persuasive Speaking." ingly, when I remarked i:'\l ,~\' their arrogant and prelending disposition; i.e., a 1VUC') f\.'\tl \. luded to, that it is a com i;I..L'?)it ~ desire to extol and magnify the Art they pro· Object of the l'rese11tTreatise. gaged in Philosophical ai fessed. In the prci.cnt day, the extravagance of to forget their own pcct such doctrines is so apparent to most readers, that I propose in the present work to adopt a middle that of the Advocate, im it would not be worth while to take much pains in course between these two extreme points; and to to be understood as app: refuting them. It is worthy of remark, however, treat of "Argumentative Composition," ge11er­ forming their own opi11 that the very same erroneous view is, even now, ally, and cxd11si1•cly; considering Rhetoric (in them from advocating b: conclusions at which the• ' Sec Quinctilian. (Au.J •Whately, £/rme11Hof uti:i f!, lrnrml. {Au.I investigation. But if this·

1004 NINETEENTll · CENTURY RlllffOlll C hich has been considered conformity with the very just and philosophical not take place in the first instance, no pains that stem of univenml knowl­ view of Aristotle) as an offshoot from Logic. they may bestow in searching for arguments, will t Argument may be em­ have any tendency to ensure their attainment of truth. If a man begins (as is too plainly a frequent nd that no one can argue Philosophy a,uJ Rlwwric compare,/, ~~"'1 s... ~ I~ he does not understand; 'l'VlbVe..•nO"'f~ mode of proceeding) by hastily adopting, or 1plained of by others for I remarked in treating of that Science, that Rea· strongly leaning to, some opinion which suite;his universal instruction as soning may be considered as applicable to two inclination, or which is sanctioned by some au· have placed within its purposes, which I ventured to designate respec­ thority that he blindly venerates, and then studies :t no one Art or System tively by the terms "Inferring," and "Proving"; with the utmost diligence, not as an Investigator ~ i.e., the a.scertai11111e111of the truth by investiga­ of Truth, but as an Advocate labouring to prove { the same in re,'ipect of tion, and the establishme11tof it to the satisfac­ his point, his talents and his researches, whatever both being instrumemal tion of a11other: and I there remarked, that effect they may produce in making converts to cable lo various kind of Bacon, in his Orgmw11,has laid down rules for his notions, will avail nothing in enlightening his do not properly come the conduct of the former of these processes, and own judgment, and securing him from error. that the latter belongs to the province of Composition, however, of the Argumentative )\)fe K, *~ II or as Quinctilian would J • Rhetoric: and it wao;added, that to infer is to be kind, may be considered (as has been above ve, had he not been car- n · I regarded as the proper office of the Philosopher, stated) as coming under the province of Rhetoric. inale veneration for his ·.:;: or the Judge;- to prove, of the Advocate. It is And this view of the subject is the less open to .ession of building mate- ~f not however to be understood that Philosophical objection, inasmuch as it is not likely to lead to of Architecture, though ,, works are to be excluded from the class to which discussions that can be deemed superfluous,even .vithout materials, so, the 1' Rhetorical rules are applicable; for the Philoso­ by those who may chuse to consider Rhetoric in L'i on which the Orator is 1 pher who undertakes, by writing or speaking, to the most restricted sense, as relating only to "Per­ part of the art of Rhe• 3 convey his notions to others, assumes, for the suasive Speaking"; since it is evident that Arg11• tial to its successful em~ ~ time being, the character of Advocate of the doc- me/II must be, in most cases at least, the basis of gh virtue, and the good ( trines he maintains. The process of i11l'e,fti,:atim1 Persuasion. add materially to the must be supposed completed, and certain conclu· sions arrived at by that process, before he begins { are no more to be, for Pim, of tlw 11re.re111Treati.1-e . ,s belonging to the Ora· 10 impart his ideas lo others in a treatise or li:c­ . rank, or a good person, ture; the object of which must of course be to I propose then lo treat, first and principally,of the tendency lo produce the prol'e the justness of those conclusions. And in Discovery of ARGUMENTS, and of their Arrange­ doing this, he will not always find it expedient to ment; secondly, to lay down some Rules respect· adhere to the same course of reasoning by which ing the excitement and management of what are his own discoveries were originally made; other commonly called the Pa.,·sio11s(including every 11de xtensio11of the J J f *· arguments may occur to him afterwards, more kind of Feeling, Sentiment, or Emotion) with a clear, or more concise, or better adapted lo the view to the attainment of any object proposed,­ .vever, the province of understanding of those he addresses. In explain­ principally, Persuasion, in the strict sense, i.e., :ceptation that would be ing therefore, and establishing the truth, he may the inllui:ncing of the WILL; thirdly, to offer 11prehends all "Compo· often have occasion for rules of a different kind some remarks on STYLE;and, fourthly, to treat of ilrrowest sense, it would from those employed in its discovery. Accord­ ELOCUTION. Speaking." ingly, when I remarked, in the work above al­ •ey.,v,S t-,'()\,\-~(\} kA.N. luded to, that it is a common fault, for those en+ l, te. gaged in Philosophical and Theological inquiries, to forget their own peculiar office, and assume Hi.rwry of Rhetoric. work to adopt a middle that of the Advocate, improperly, this caution is l extreme points; and to to be understood as applicable to the process of It mny be expected that, before I proceed to treat Composition," gener­ forming their ow11opinions ; not, as excluding of the Art in question, I should present the reader Jnsidering Rhetoric (in them from advocating by all fair arguments, the with a sketch of its hislory. Little however is re­ conclusions at which they have arrived by candid quired to be said on this head, because the present •. lntrou. IA11.I investigation. But if this candid investigation do is not one of those branches of study in which we

WHATEI.Y I El.f:MENTS OF RHHTORIC 1005 can trace with interest a progressive improvement the downfall of the Republic had cut off the Ora­ from age to age. It is one, on the contrary, to tor from the hopes of attaining, through the ~rs by ~eing perplexec which more allention appears to have been paid, means of this qualification, the highest political '" the discussion of qu and in which greater proficiency is supposed to importance , that he who was nominally a Profes­ d°<:s not clearly sec h have been made, in the earliest days of Science sor of Rhetoric. had in fact the most important wluch not only leads h and Literature, than at any subsequent period. branches of instruction entrusted to his care. but leaves many of his Many valuable maxims however arc to be found ~evcloped, is his ignorr tJOn of the nature and c Aristotle. in this author; but he wanted profundity of thought and power of analysis which Aristotle possessed. so~c remarks arc mad Among the ancients, Aristotle, the earliest whose The writers on Rhetoric among the ancients Sc1~nce. Rhetoric bein, works arc extant, may safely be pronounced to whose works arc lost, !.eem to have been numer­ ~ogic, that Rhetorician disadvantages who is no be also the best of the systematic writers on Rhc• ous; but most of them appear to have conlined toric. themselves to a very narrow view of the subject: that system, but also u1 deficiency . and to have been occupied, as Aristotle com­ Cicero. plains, with the minor details of style and arrange­ ment, and with the sophistical tricks and petty ar· 3. Cicero il; hardly to be reckoned among the num· tifices of the Pleader, instead of giving a masterly From a general view of • I ber; for he delighted so much more in the prac­ and comprchen,;ive sketch of the essentials. 2:•n~. tice, than in the theory, of his art, that he is per­ tw~ question s natural! which, on examination, \I petually drawn off from the rigid philosophical Baum . analysis of iL,;principles, into discursive decla • ~~nn~cted together: lirst, mations, always eloquent indeed, and often highly Among the modems, few writers of ability have c?relul and exten:.ive cu. interesting, but adverse to regularity of system, turned their thoughts to the subject: and but little ci~ntS, of an Art which th, a11vely neglected; and sc, c,4.,~ and frequently as unsatisfactory to the practical has been added, either in respect of matter, or of m~r or the latter arc to be .5-"~'"~ student as to the Philosopher. He abounds indeed system, to what the ancient s have left us. Bacon's 1 tlus rcspect ;- in other"' -t-. l>t. with excellent practical remarks; though the best "Antitheta" however, - the Rhetorical common- ' be Worth any diligent cul(; lc.A'M-4,t. of them are scattered up and down his works with places, - arc a wonderful specimen of acuteness (I ~~i.-> t1...,t. much irregularity: but his precepts, though of of thought and pointed conciseness of expres­ ,t ...... d-.1 great weight, as being the result of experience, sion .... A.u·it/11011.r c11ltfratio11of Rite, ~ _..,. arc not often traced up by him to first principles; and we are frequently left to guess, not only on With regard lo the first of Campbell mu/ Blair. swer generally given is, what basis his rules are grounded, but in what Government in the ancie cases they are applicable. Of this latter defect a It were most unjust in this place to leave unno· caused a demand for pu remarkable instance will be hereafter cited. ticed Dr. Campbell'!. "Plrilosophy of Rhetoric": a such speakers as should be work which has not obtained indeed so high a de­ not only with educated pc gree of popular favour as Or. Blair's once en­ Q11i11ctilia11. deliberation, but with a p joyed, but is incomparably superior to it, not only and. accordingly it is rcmar Quinctilian is indeed a systematic writer; but can­ in depth of thought and ingenious original re­ ?fliberty brought with it, c not be considered as having much extended the search, but also in practical utility to the student. 11 philosophical views of his predecessors in this The title of Dr. Campbell's work has perhaps de· • the decline of Eloquence (though in a courtly form) I department. He possessed much good sense, but terred many readers, who have concluded it to be alogue .on Oratory , which J this was tinctured with pedantry;-with that pre­ more abstruse and less popular in its character of Tacrtus : "What need tension ... which extend s to an extravagant de­ than it really is. Amidst much however that is 1 courses in the Senate, whc1 gree the province of the art which he professes. A readily understood by any moderately intelligent bcrs speedily come lo a great part of his work indeed is a Treatise on Ed­ reader, there is much also that calls for some ex· n~mcrous harangues lo the ucation, generally; in the conduct of which he ertion of thought. which the indolence of most atro~s on public affairs arc was no mean proficient; for such was the'impor­ readers refuses to bestow. And it must be owned 0 tance attached to public speaking, even long after that he also in some instances perplexes his read· !u!llludc of unskilled persc d1v1dual,and that, the wises

1006 NINET EENTH -CENTURY RHETORIC :public had cut off the Ora­ ers by being perplexed him~df, and bcwi!dercd The ancients hearers rather rha11readers. of attaining, through the in the discussion of questions through wluch he ·ation, the highest political doc~ not clearly sec his way. His great defect, This account of the mutter is undoubtedly corre~t hn was nominally a Profes­ which not only lc:ids him into occasional errors, as far as it goes; but the importance of public in fact the most important hut leaves many of his best ideas but imperfectly ~peaking is so great, in our own, an~ all other 1 entrusted to his care. developed, is his ignoran~e and_uttc~ misconc p­ countries that are not under a despotic Govern­ ims however are to be found tion ol' the nature and object ol Logic; on which7 ment, that the apparent neglect of the study of ,anted profundity of thought some remarks arc made in my Treatise on that . Rhetoric seems to require some further explana­ YhichAristotle possessed. Science. Rhetoric being in truth an offshoot of • tion. Part of this explanation may be supplied by 1ctoric among the ancients Logic, that Rhetorician must labour u~der gr:at the consideration that the difference in this re­ seem to have been numer­ uisudvantagcs who is not only ill-acqu?mted w1~h spect between the ancients and ourselves is not so n appear to have confined that sy~tcrn, but also uuerly unconsc10us of his great in reality as in appeara.nce. When the _011/y ,arrow view of the subject; dcliciency. way of addressing the Public was by orat10n.s, ·cupied, as Aristotle com­ and when all political measures were debated tn details of style and arrange­ popular assemblies, the charac!ers of <;>ra~or,Au ­ '. \ ). . >histical tricks and petty ar­ 3. thor, and Politician, almost entirely comc1ded;he instead of giving a masterly From a general view of the history of Rhetoric, who would communicate his ideas to the world, etch of the essentials. two questions naturally sug~est themselves, or would gain political power, and carry his_leg­ which, on examination, will be lound very closely islative schemes into effect, was necessarily a connected together: lirst, what is the cause of the Speaker; since, as Pericles is made to remark by careful and extensive cultivation, among the an­ Thucydides, "one who form~ a judgment on any few writers of ability have cients, of an Art which the moderns have com~ar­ point, but cannot explain himself clearly to the o the subject; and but little ali vely neglected; and secondly, whether t~e lo_r­ people, might as well have never thought at all on • in respect of matter, or of mer or the latter are to be regarded as the wiser m the subject." s The consequence was, that _alm?st cients have left us. Bacon's ., this respect;-in other words, whether Rhetoric all who sought, and all who professed to give, m­ - the Rhetorical common- \' be worth any diligent cultivation. struction, in the principles of Government, and ·rful specimen of acutenesi; ( \ the conduct of judicial proceedings, cornbin_ed ed conciseness of expres- these, in their minds and in their practice, with t1.1·.vitl11m1.1·c11ltfratim1 of R/11:toric by the a11cie111s. the study of Rhetoric, which was ne~es~ary to With regard to the lirst of these questions, th~ an+ give effect to all such attainmen!s; and m time the swcr generally given is, thut the nat~re of the Rhetorical writers (of whom Aristotle makes that Government in the ancient democrat1cal States complaint) came to consider the Science of Leg­ t this place to leave unno­ caused a demand for public speakers, and for islation and of Politics in general, us a part of 'Philosopl,y of Rhetoric '': a such speakers as should be able t? ga_lninll_uence their own Art. 1tained indeed so high a de­ not only with educated penm~s m d1spass1~natc Much therefore of what was formerly studied Jr m, Dr. Blair's once en­ deliberation, but with a promiscuous muhttude; under the name of Rhetoric, is still, under other ably superior to it, not only and accordingly it is remarked that the extinction names, as generally and as diligently c;tudied as and ingenious original re­ of liberty brought with it, or at least brought after ever. Much of what we now call Literature or ctical utility to the student. it the decline of Eloquence; as is justly remarked "Belles Lettres," was formerly included in what ,ell's work has perhaps de­ (tiiough in a courtly form) by the author of the di­ the ancients culled Rhetorical studies. \lho have concluded it lo be alogue on Oratory, which pas'ies under the na'!le ss popular in its character of Tacitus: "What need is there of long dis­ Di.mvoll'ai tJf rhetorice1lstmlie.r amtJng rile mtJdems. 1dst much however that is courses in the Senate, when the best of its mem­ any moderately intelligent bers speedily come to an agreement? or of IL cannot be denied however that a great differ­ also that calls for some ex­ numerous harangues lo the people, when deliber­ ence, though less, as I have said, than mig~t at ich the indolence of most ations on public affairs are conducted, ~ot b~ a first sight appear, does exist between the ancients .ow. And it must be owned multitude of unskilled persons, but by a smgle in ­ •~lances perplexes his read- dividual, and that, the wisest'!" \l11ucydid1.-s, boo~ ii. See 1hcMono . [Au.J

WIIA"IELY I ELEMCN1S OF RHETORIC 1007 ,,... ~. and the moderns in this point; - that what is that liability to abuse is, neither in this, nor in any more likely to cramp th; strictly and properly called Rhetoric, is much less other case, to be considered as conclusive against of our faculties; - that.: studied , at least less systematically studied, now, the utility of any kind of art, faculty, or profes­ nical skill is more detri, than formerly. Perhaps this also may be in some sion;-because the evil effects of misdirected other pursuit, since by , measure accounted for from the circumstances power require that equal powers should be ar­ tcracts the very purpose which have been just noticed. Such is the distrust rayed on the opposite side; - and because truth, ~les imperfectly compr excited by any suspicion of Rhetorical artifice, having an intrinsic superiority over falsehood, 1zcd by practice, will (v that every speaker or writer who is anxious to may be expected to prevail when the skill of the the case) prove rather ar carry his point, endeavour s to disown or to keep contending parties is equal; which will be the as indeed will be foun out of sight any superiority of !.kill; and wishes to more likely to take place, the more widely such wise; - and that no syt be considered as relying rather on the strength of skill is diffused .<• equalize men whose natl his cause, and the soundness of his views, than But none of these cone on his ingenuity and expertness as an advocate. Eloq11e11ce.mpposetl to l,c .'io111c1l,i11gtl,m lhe positions of Aristotlt Hence it is, that even those who have paid the camwt he taugl,t. ter than others in cxplai greatest and the most successful attention to the bringing over others t study of Composition and of Elocution, arc so far But many. perhaps most persons, arc inclined to merely by superiority of from encouraging others by example or recom• the opinion that Eloquence, either in writing or quired habit; and that mendation to engage in the same pursuit, that they speaking, is either a natural gift, or, at least, is to discover the causes of labour mther to conceal and disavow their own be acquired by mere practice, and is not to be at­ the means by which the c proficiency; and thus theoretical rules arc decried, tained or improved by any system of rules. And all who do attain it,- \.\ even by those who owe the most to them. Whereas this opinion is favoured not least by those (as has of rules capable of gcne1 among the ancients, the same cause did not, for the been just observed) who!.c own experience says he, the proper oflic reasons lately mentioned, operate to the same ex· would enable lhem to decide very differently; so plainly evinces, what tent; since, however careful any speaker might be and it certainly seems lo be in a great degree r.illy be led antecedent) to disown the artifices of Rhetoric, properly so practically adopted. Most persons, if not left en­ right judgment on any s, lkt.'!~,, called. he would not be ashamed to acknowledge tirely to the disposal of chance in respecl of this accompanied by skill in .,;...of .. himself, generally, a student, or a proficient, in an branch of education, arc at least left lo acquire nor the ability to discov, -h,,~~L.~ Art which was understood to include the clements what they can by ,,ractice, such as school or col­ explaining it,- that it mi ..,~V\V\U... of Political wisdom . lege-exercises afford, without much care hcing how any doubt should cv ~ •tblu.-t, taken to initiate them systematically into the possibility of devising, a1 ~~- principles of the Art; and that, frequently, not so mg, a System of Rules fo 11.u,t-.,.~ 4. much from negligence in the conductors of edu­ position" generally; dis1 ,f pt.l•!-t(..!,Utility of Rhetoric. cation , as from their doubts of the utility of any conversant about the subj such regular system. position. With regard to the other question proposed , viz., concerning the utility of Rhetoric, it is to be ob­ Erro11co11s.\)'.l'lems of mies. served that it divides itself into two; first, K11owledge of fa cts no reme, whether Oratorical skill be, on the whole, a pub­ It certainly must be admitted , that rules not con­ I have remarked in the lic benefit, or evil; and secondly, whether any ar­ structed on broad philosophical principles , arc Economy (Leet. 9.), Iha tificial system of Rules is conducive to the allain­ plain, not altogether with ment of that skill. vailing i,.:110ra11ccof foe~ The former of these questions was eagerly de­ ''Arist. Rhet. ch 1. - I-le might have gone funhcr; for ii will very often happen that, before a popular audience. a many other subjects ; an bated among the ancients; on the latter, but little ,:reillcr degree of skill is rct1uisitc for maintaining the cause found that the parties cem doubt seems to have existed. With us, on the con­ of truth than of falsehood. Tl1ercnre cases in which the argu­ of less knowledge than t ments which lie most on the surface, nnd arc, lo superficial tmry, the stale of these questions seems nearly posses~ more lhan they ~ reasoners, the most easily sci funh in II plausihlc fnnn. arc *-reversed. It seems generally admitted thal skill in Their dcliciency in arran! Composition and in speaking, liable as it evi­ those un the wrong side. II is uflch difficult 111 11Writer , aml still more, to a Speaker. to point nut anti cxhihit, in their full knowlcdgc ,- in combin dently is lo abuse, is to be considered, on the strength, the delicate distinctions on which truth sometimes rcctly deducing and cm I whole, as advantageous to the Public; because depcnlls. lAu.] ciples, shall be greater ti

1008 NIN ETEENTH-CENTURY RHETORIC either in this, nor in any more fikely to cramp than to assist the operations facL'i.Now to attempt remedying this fault by im• a:das conclusive t1gainst of our faculties; - that a pedantic display of tech­ parting to them additional knowledge, - to con­ · art, faculty, or profes - nical skill is more detrimental in this than in any fer the advantage of wider experience on those effccts of misdirected other pursuit, since by exciting distrust, it coun­ who have not the power of profiting by experi ­ 1 powers should be ar­ tcr.icts the very purpose of it; - that a system of ence, - is to attempt enlarging the prospect of a le;- and because truth, rules imperfectly comprehended, or not familiar­ short-sighted man by bringing him to the top of a ., t;., :riority over falsehood, ized by practice, will (while that continues to be hill. iii when the skill of the the case) prove rather an impediment than a help; "In the tale of Sandford and Merton, where . ,. ual; which will be the as indeed will be found in all other arts like­ the two boys are described as amusing them· , the more widely such wise;- and that no system can be expected to selves with building a hovel with their own equalize men whose natural powers are different. hands, they lay poles horizontally on the top, and But none of these concessions at all invalidate cover them with straw, so as to make a flat roof: the positions of Aristotle; that some succeed bet­ or course the min comes through; and Master mietllin,:tlr11t ter than others in explaining their opinions, and Merton then advises to lay 011 more straw: but bringing over others lo them; and that, not Sandford, the more intelligent boy, remarks that persons, arc inclined to merely by superiority of natural gifts, but by ac­ ao; long as the roof is flat, the rain must, sooner or cc, either in writing or quircd habit; and that consequently if we can later, soak through; and that the remedy is to ·al gift, or, at least, is to discover the causes of this superior success. ­ make a new arrangement, and form the roof lice, and is not to be at- the means by which the desired end is attained by sloping. Now the idea of enlightening incorrect 1y system of rules. And all who do attain it,- wc shall be in possession reasoners by additional knowledge, is an error ot least by those (as has of rules capable of general application; which is, similar lo that of the flat roof; it is merely laying 1l10sc own experience says he, the proper office of an Art. Experience on more straw: they ought first to be taught the lecide very differently; so plainly evinces, what indeed we might natu­ right way of raising the roof. Of course knowl­ o be in a great degree mlly be led antecedently lo conjecture, that a edge is necessary; so is straw lo thatch the roof: t persons, if not left en- , 1 right judgment on any subject is not necessarily but no quantity of materials will supply the want :hance in respect of this uccompanied by skill in effecting conviction. ­ of knowing how to build. al least left to acquire nor the ability 10 discover truth, by a facility in "I believe it to be a prevailing fault of the pres­ ~. such as school or col­ explaining it, - that it might be matter of wonder ent day, not indeed to seek too much for know!· lhout much care being how any doubt should ever have existed as to the edge, but to trust to accumulation of facts· ao; a systematically into the possibility of devising, and the utility of employ . substitute for accuracy in the logical processes. I that, frequently, not so ing, u System of Rules for "Argumentative Com ­ Had Bacon lived in the present day, I am inclined 1 the conductors of cdu. position" generally; distinct from any system to think he would have made his chief complaint bts of the utility of any conversant about the subject matter of each com ­ against unmethodized inquiry and illogical rea­ position. soning. Certainly he would 11othave complained of Dialectics as corrupting Philosophy. To guard now against the evils prevalent in his time, would K11mvledge of Jaus 1w remedy for logical imu:rnracy. be to fortify a town against battering-rams, in­ ined, that ru Jes not con­ I have remarked in the Lectures on Political stead of against cannon. But it is remarkable that roph ical principles, arc Economy (Lccl. 9.), that "some persons com 9 even that abuse of Dialectics which he complains pluin, not altogether without reason, of the pre· · of, was rather an error connected with the reason­ vailing ignorance of facts, relative to this and to ing process than one arising from a want of ight have gone funhcr; for it many other subjects; and yet it will often be knowledge. Men were led to false conclusions, JCfurc a popular audience, a site for maintaining the cause found that the parties censured, though possessed not through mere ignorance, but from hastily as­ c arc cases in which the argu­ of less knowledge than they ought Lo have, yet suming the correctness of the data they reasoned urfacc, and arc, lo supcrlicial possess more than they know what to do with. from, wiihout sufficient grounds. And it is re­ fonh in a pluusihlt! form, arc Their deficiency in arranging and applying their markable that the revolution brought about in oftendifficult tu a W ritcr, and 11out and c"'hihit, in their full knowledge, - in combining facts, - and cor . philosophy by Bacon, was not the effect, but the ns on which truth sometimes rcctly deducing and employing general prin · cause, of increased knowledge of physical facts: ciplcs, shall be greater than their ignorance of it was not that men were taught to think correctly

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1009 by having new plucnomena brought to light; object in any other way," &c.; which doubtless though ignorant of the i-~ but on the contrary, they discovered new ph:cno· were intended to remind his readers of the nature of all the technical vocal ~<>c<..l mena in c011,rnq11e11ceof a new syslcm of philoso ­ of his design; viz. not lo teach an Art of· Rhetoric, short, of the two premis< phizing." but the Art; not to instruct them merely how con· c\usion contended for, th · , , It is probable that the existing prejudices on viction might be produced, but how it must. can be no possible doubt, .~,._,..._~~ t h c present su b"~eel may b e trace d .m great mcaT If this distinction were carefully kept in view ately proved; and the ot h..oo.c..w-.sure to the imperfect or incorrect notions of some by the teacher and by the learner of Rhetoric, we putable, is tacitly assum, k.;~\..,\"w.. writers, who have either confined their attention should no longer hear complaints of the natur.il Logic, Rhetoric, Gramrr ~ ~ to trilling minutire of style, or at least have in powers being fettered by the formalities of a Sys­ &c. must have been prec ~? some respect failed to take a sufficiently compre - tem; since no such complaint can lie against a speaking, singing, &c., v. hensive view of the principles of the Art. One System whose rules arc drawn from the invari­ can doubt, is earnestly in distinction especially is to be clearly laid down able practice of all who succeed in attaining their system of which this ca and carefully borne in mind by those who would proposed object. quently be mere useless t form a correct idea of those principles; viz., the No one would expect that the study of Sir a paradox, is quietly tai distinction already noticed in the "Elements of Joshua Reynolds's lectures would cramp the gc· least, is supposed to be : Logic, " between an Art, and the Art. "An Art of nius of the painter. No one complains of the rules by repeating, in substa n Reasoning" would imply, "a Method or System of Grammar as fettering Language; because it is that understood that correct use is not founded on of Rules by the observance of which one may . .. all a Rhetorician 's ru reason correctly"; "tlte Art of Reasoning" would Grammar, but Grammar on correct use. A just But leach him how to na1 imply a System of Rules to which every one does system of Logic or of Rhetoric is analogous, in conform (whether knowingly, or not) who rea­ this respect, to Grammar. and by observing that, sons correctly: and such is Logic, considered as points of all, natural gcni do everything, and Systel1 an Art. Popular objectiom . To this latter remarl One may still however sometimes hear - though added, that in 110 dcpartrr A riglitly{ormed system doe,t 1101 crwnp the less, now, than a few years back - the hackneyed equalize men of differc 1wt11ralpoll'ers . objections against Logic and Rhetoric, and even ability and of experience In like manner "an Art of Composition" would Grammar also. Cicero has been gravely cited (as plish all that is aimed at. imply "a System of Rules by which a good Com­ Aristotle might have been also, in the passage position may be produced"; "the Art of Composi ­ just above alluded to, in his very treatise on tion," - "such rules as every good Composition Rhetoric) to testify that rhetorical rules are de· rant of the subject; just as is the must conform lo," whether the author of it had rived from the practice of Or.itory, and not vice now, with Logic (including grci versa: and that consequently •there must have in this volume ), with Political them in his mind or not. Of the former character Pope speaks of what he calls ' appear to have been (among others) many of the been - as there still is- such a lhing as a speaker round the circle"" and "finding i Logical and Rhetorical Systems of Aristotle's ignorant of those rules. A drayman, we arc told, among the fugitive poetry of predecessors in those departments. He himself will taunt a comrade by saying, "you're a pretty fylnthematician as something bcl fellow," without having learnt that he is employ· Swift's Voyage to Laputa evinc, evidently takes the other and more philosophical studies, and likcw ise his utter ig view of both branches: as appears (in the case of ing the figure called Irony; and may employ the Luputans for having their Rhetoric) both from the plan he sets out with, that "will" and "shall" correctly, without being able which he conceived to be the n; of investigating the causes of the success of all to explain the principle that guides him. And it (Newton"s contcmpor-.ll")') indic who do succeed in effecting conviction, and from might have been added, that perhaps he will go Aristotelian System of Astronon home whistling a tune, though he does not know ers, and that various systems v. several passages occurring in various parl'i of his coming into fashion and going 0 treatise; which indicate how sedulously he was the name of a Note; that he will stir his fire, with· Now, the case is altered, as on his guard to conform to that plan. Those who out knowing that he is employing the first kind or pursuits; which arc respected t have not attended to the important distinction just Lever;? and that he will set his kettle on it to boil, them: but those other sciences al ied by a very considerable and alluded to, are often disposed to feel wonder, if still sneered at. - us was fonnc not weariness, at his reiterated remarks, that "all 7lt is a curious circumstance , that no longer ago than the ics,- by many of those who ho men effect persuasion either in this way or in early part of the last century, MarlrematicalStudies were a ing some mathematicians), and that"; "it is impossible to attain such and such an common topic of t ontc:mptuous ridicule among those igno- subject than Swift did of Cycloit

IOIO NINETl:ENTH · CENTURY RHETORIC (\0i-, (.M. l(-(,. 1M, fl>V'PUNl i~\V\ ~,~t.'e5

,," &c.; which doubtless though ignorant of the theory of Caloric, and lure can creale Land; nor can the Art Military his readers of the nature of all the technical vocabulary of Chemistry. In teach us to produce, like Cadmus, armed soldiers teach a,1 Art of Rhetoric, short, or the two premises requisite for the con• out of the Earth; though Land, and Soldiers, are ct them merely how con· clusion contended for, the one about which there as essential to the pmctice of these Arts, as the d, but how it must. can be no possible doubt, is dwelt on, and elabor­ well-known preliminary admonition in the Cook­ re carefully kept in view ately proved; and the other, which is very dis­ ery book, "first take your carp," is to the culinary e learner of Rhetoric, we putable, is tacitly assumed. That the systems of art, Nor can all the books that ever were written ~~ :omplaints of the natural Logic, Rhetoric, Grammar, Music, Mechanics, bring to a level with a man of military genius and '"""t~ · the formalities or a Sys- &c. mu:-.thave been preceded by the practice of experience, a person of ordinary ability who has c.f-ti,,.'.: • 1plaint can lie against a speaking, singing, &c., which no one ever did or never seen service. ,r...-""°"'.... · drawn from the invari­ i:an doubt, il; earnestly insisted on; but that every As for the remark about "naming one's tools," succeed in attaining their .system of which this can be said must consc· which- with fair allowance for poetical exag­ quently be mere m,eless trifling, which is at least geration- may be admitted to be near the truth, ct that the study of Sir a paradox, is quietly taken for granted; or, al it should be remembered, that if an inference be res would cramp the ge­ least, is supposed to be sufliciently established, thence dmwn of the uselessness or being thus ne complains of the rules by repeating, in substance, the poet's remark, provided with names, we must admit, by parity , Language; because it is that of reasoning, that it would be no inconvenience use is not founded on to a carpenter, or any other mechanic, to have no , , , all u Rhetorician' s rules r on correct use. A just But teach him how to name his tools: names for the several operations of sawing, plan • {hetoric is analogous, in ing, boring, &c. in which he is habitually en• and by observing that, for the most difficult gaged, or for the tools with which he performs points of all, natural genius and experience must them; and in like manner, that it would also be no do everything, and Systems of Art nothing. loss lo be without names- or without precise, To this latter remark it might have been appropriate, and brief names - for the various :ometimes hear-though added, that in ,wdepartment can Systems of Art articles of dress and furniture that we use,- for 1rsback-the hackneyed equalize men of different degrees of original the limbs and other bodily organs, and the plants, ; and Rhetoric, and even ability and of experience; or teach us lo accom­ animals, and other objects around us;- in short, as been gravely cited (as plish all that is aimed at. No system ol' Agricul- that it would be little or no evil to have a Lan- !en also, in the passage guage as imperfect as Chinese, or no Language at \.Ue,..u~ in his very treatise on all. rhetorical rules arc de­ rJnt or the subject; just as is thc case, to a certain extent, evcn of Oratory, and not vice now, with Logic (including great part of the matter treated of Tec/111irnllerms. 1uenlly there must have in this volume), wi1h Poli1ical Ecnnnmy, and some nthcrs. Pope speaks of wlmt he calls "mud Math!sis," as "running -such a thing as a speaker mund the circle" and "finding ii s11uarc!"One may find also The simple truth is, l ECHNICAL TERMSare a PART A drayman, we arc told, among Che fugitive poetry of his times, descriplions of a or LANGUAGE.Now any portion of one's Lan­ saying, "you're a pretly Mathematician as something between fool and madman. And guage that relates to employments and situations learnt that he is employ­ Swift's Voyage to Laputa evinces his utter contempt for such foreign from our own, there is little need to be studies, ant.Ilikewise his uner ignorance of them. He ridicules .rony; and may employ thc Laputans for having their bread cut into "Cycloids"; acquainted with. Nautical terms, e.g., it is little :ctly, without being able which he conceived tu he the name of a .m/it/ figure: and he loss to a landman to be ignornnt of; though, to a that guides him. Ami it (Newton's contemporary) indil:ates his conviction that the sailor, they are as needful as any part of Lan­ , that perhaps he will go Aris10tcliunSystem of Astronomy was on a lt:vcl with all oth­ guage is lo any one. And again, a deficiency in •hough he does not know ers, and that various systems would always be successivcly the proper Language of some one department, coming into fashion and going out again, like modes of dress. he will stir his fire, with­ Nuw, the case is altered. as fur as regards mathematical even though one we are not wholly unconcerned mploying the first kind of pursuits; which arc respected even by those not verscd in in, is not felt as a very heavy inconvenience. But set his kettle on it to boil, 1hcm:hut those other sciences above reforrcd to, though stud­ if it were absolutely no disadvantage at all, then, ied hy a very considerable and Juily increasing number, are it is plain the same might be said of a stillfitrrher still sneered at,- as was formerly 1he case with Mathcmat­ deficiency of a like character; and ultimately we ,cc, that nu lunger ago than the ics,- by many of those who have 1w1 studied them (includ­ should arrive al the absurdity above noticed, - , Marllemmiw/ Scudies wen: a ing some mathematicians), and who know nu mnrc of the ' ' . •us ridicule among those: igno- subject than Swift did of Cycloids. IAu. I the uselessness of Language altogether.

WHATEL y I ELEMENTSor RHETORIC IOII Declamation; - that he the productions of learners; it being usual for learn the easier, by prac l th~se who have allaincd proliciency, either to But though this is an absurdity which all would v:nte without thinking of any rules, or to be de­ pcrceivc, - though none would deny the impor · sirous (as has been said), and, by their increased Ill effecrs ofte11rcs11lti11g Jr lance of Language, - the full extent and real cxpcrtnes~, _able, to.conceal their employment of But what is worse, it wi ch~raclcr of lhat importance is far from being art. Now 1t 1s not fmr to judge of the value of any exercises will have fon universally understood. There arc still (as is re­ ~yslcm of rules, - those of a drawing master for together empty commoi marked in the Logic, Introduction.§ 5.) many, ­ mstance, - from the first awkward sketches of mations, - of multiplyi lhough I believe not near so many as a few years tyros in the art. out the matter thin, - ol back, - who, if questioned on the subject, would Still less would it be fair to judge of one ~ys­ tificial, and frigid mann< answer that the use of Language is to communi­ tcm from the ill success of another, whose rules more or less cling thro­ cat~ our thoughts to each other; and that it is pe­ w~rc framed (as is the case with those ordinarily becn thus trained, and culiar lo Man: the truth being that llrat use of laid down for the use of students in Composition) compositions. Lang~ag~ is 1101 pcculi~r lo Man, though enjoyed o~ narrow, unphilosophical, and erroneous prin­ So strongly, it shoul by tum m a much higher degree than by lhe ciples. Brutes; whil~ that which docs distinguish Man pressed with a sense of from Brute, 1s another, and quite distinct, use of led to condemn the use : Language, viz., as an imtrument of 11,ought,- a Choice of.mbjectsfor rhe composirio11of exercises. Composition. In this or alone among all writen system of General Signs, without which the Rea­ But the circumstance which has mainly tended 10 perhaps agree with him, ~oning process could not be conducted. The full produce the complaint alluded lo, is, that in this no other remedy for the 1mp~rtance, :onsequcntly, of Language, and of ~ase, the rc~crse takes place of the plan pursued inclined to think that ti precise technical Languagc, - of having accurate m the learning of other arts; in which it is usual conducted as it often h and well-defined "names for one's tools," - can to begin, for the sake of practice, with what is harm than good. But I r never be duly appreciated by those who still cling etl.\'iest: here, on the contrary, the tyro has usually lice in Composition, be to the thco~y of "Ideas"; those imaginary objects a harder task assigned him. and one in which he men, may be so conduct1 of thought m the mind, of which "Common terms" is less likely to succeed, than he will meet with in many and most essential arc merely the names, and by means of which we the actual business of life. For it is undeniable arc supposed lo be able to do what I am con­ that it is much the most difficult to find either vinced is impossible; to carry on a train of Rea­ propositions to maintain, or arguments to prove Selcctim, of .mbjectr. soning without the use of Language, or of any the~ - to know, in short, what lo say, or how to The obvious and the on! General Signs whatever. say 1_t- on a~y subject on which one has hardly which I have been speak But each, in proportion as he the more fully any mformat10n, and no interest; about which he lous care in the selection embraces the doctrine of No111i11alism,and conse­ knows little, and cares still less. erciscs as arc likely to t quently understands the real character of Lan­ Now the subjects usually proposed for School dent, and on which he ha guage, will become the better qualified to c!ili­ or College -exercises arc (to the learners them­ and without much toil, • matc the importance of an accurate system of selves) precisely of this description. And hence it mation. Such subjects \: nomenclature. commonly happens, that an exercise composed cording to the learner's w!th diligent care by a young student, though it vancement; but they had will have cost him far more pains than a real Jct­ than much above him; tt !er writte? by ~im lo his friends, on subjects that 5. be such as lo induce him mlercst hun, will be very greatly inferior to it. On E.xerd,1·e.r i11C omporirim1. general expressions, con the real occa ,vio11.1·of after life (I mean when the to his own mind, and object proposed is, not to fill up a shc~t. a book, 1 T~c chie_freason ~robably for the existing preju­ which he does not feel. I or a~ hour, but to communicate his thoughts, 10 dice agamst lcchmcal systems of composition, is indeed from other writet convince, or persuade), - on these real occa· to be found in the cramped, meagre, and feeble lake root in the soil of hi~ sions, for which such exercises were designed 10 character of most of such essays, &c. as arc never be tempted to coll, prepare him, he will find that he writes both bel­ avowedly composed according to the rules of any must also be encouragec ier, a~d with ~ore facility, than on the artificial such .~ystem. It should be remembered however correct language indeed, in the first place, that these are almost \nvariabl; occasion, as It may be called, of composing a

IOIZ NINETEENTH-CENTURY RHETORIC ~~W\{, VV\l.,-{ {U\\'\Lt,hovi', !l.~AA"i'w,ak

Declamation; - that he has been attempting lo ;; it being usual for and simple style; which of course implies (con ­ learn the easier, by practising the harder. ,roficiency, either to sidering who and what the writer is supposed to 1y rules, or to be de · be) such a style us, in itself, would be open to se­ 1d, by their increased J/1eflecl .v often re.willi111:Jm111e:wrcise.v . vere criticism, and certainly very unfit to appear their employment of in a book. But what is worse, it will often happen that such •e of the value of any Compositions on such subjects, and in such a exercises will have formed a habit of stringing ; drawing master for style, would probably be regarded with a disdain ­ together empty commonplaces, and vapid decla T 1wkward sketches of ful eye, us puerile, by those accustomed to the mations, - of multiplying words and spreading opposite mode of teaching. But it should be re~ out the matter thin, - of composing in a stiff, ar­ · to judge of one sys ­ membered that the compositions of boys must be tificial, and frigid manner: and that this habit will another, whose rules puerile, in one way or the other: and 10 a person more or less cling through life lo one who has with those ordinarily of unsophisticated and sound taste, the truly con­ been thus trained, and will infect all his future lcnts in Composition) temptible kind of puerility would be found in the compositions . , and erroneous prin - other kind of exercises. Look at the letter of an So strongly, it should seem, was Milton im­ intelligent youth to one of his companions, com ­ pressed with a sense of this danger, that he was municating intelligence of such petty matters as led lo condemn the use altogether of exercises in are interesting to both - describing the scenes he 1m"itir111of excrcise .f. Composition. In this opinion he stands perhaps has visited, and the recreations he has enjoyed alone among all writers on education. I should has mainly tended to during a vacation; and you will see a picture of perhaps agree with him, if there were absolutely Jed to, is, that in this the youth himself-boyish indeed in looks and no other remedy for the evil in question; for I am c of the plan pursued in stature-in dress and in demeanour; but inclined lo think that this part of education, if ;; in which it is usual lively, unfettered, natural, giving a fair promise conducted us it often is, does in general more ,ractice, with what is for manhood, and, in short, what a boy should be. harm than good. But I am convinced, that prac­ y, the tyro has usually Look at a theme composed by the same youth, on tice in Composition, both for boys and young , and one in which he "Virtus est medium vitiorum," or "Natura beatis men, may be so conducted as to be productive of 11 n he will meet with in omnibus esse dedit," and you will see a picture many and most essential advantages. For it is undeniable of the same boy, dressed up in the garb, and ab­ 1ifficult to find either surdly aping the demeanour, of an elderly man. r arguments to prove Selec1io11of .mbject.s. Our ancestors (and still more recently, I believe, vhat to say, or how to the continental nations) were guilty of the absur ­ The obvious and the only preventive of the evils which one has hardly dity of dressing up children in wigs, swords, which I have been speaking of is, a most scrupu­ crest; about which he huge buckles, hoops, ruffles, and all the elaborate lous care in the selection of such .mbjec:tsfor ex­ less. full-dressed finery of grown -up people of that ercises us are likely to be imeresting 10 the stu­ r proposed for School day." It is surely reasonable that the analogous dent, and on which he has (or may, with pleasure, to the learners them­ absurdity in greater matters also,-umong the and without much toil, acquire) sufficient infor­ cri ption. And hence it rest in that part of education I um speaking mation. Such subjects will of course vary, ac­ n exercise composed of, - should be laid aside; and that we should in cording to the learner's age and inlcllectual ad­ mg student, though it all points consider what is appropriate to each van~ement; but they had better be rnther below, : pains than a real let- different period of life. than much above him; that is, they should never 1ends, on subjecLo;that be such as to induce him lo string together vague ·catly inferior to it. On Cla.1·.1·esof.mbject.r f or exerci.l'e.l'. general expressions, conveying no distinct ideas life (l mean, when the to his own mind, and second-hand sentiments ill up a sheet, a book, The subjects for Composition to be selected on which he does not feel. He may freely transplant 1icate his thoughts, to the principle I am recommending, will generally indeed from other writers such thoughts as will -on these real occa­ fall under one of three classes: first, subjects take root in the soil of his own mind; but he must :ises were designed to never be templed to collect dried specimens. He iat he writes both bet­ ""Vinuc i~ Lhcmiddle way bctwccn \frees"; "Nature gaw must also be encouraged lo express himself (in , than on the artificial it tu all men to be happy." IEd.J correct language indeed, but) in a free, natural, 9 11led, of composing a Scc "Sundford and Mcrtun.Mrw ,uim. IAu.]

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC IOIJ drawn from the studies the learner is engaged in; clearly the several heads of the composition, the Tcsti111011ya ki11d of sig11. relating, for instance, to the characters or inci· better: because it is important that the whole of it Of these last, one spe, dents of any history he may be reading; and be placed before the eye and the mind in a small Testimony: the prcmi sometimes, perhaps, leading him lo forestall by compass, and be taken in as it were at a glance: the Testimony; the Co conjecture, something which he will hereafter and it should be written therefore not in sen­ is attested; which is co come to, in the book itself: secondly, subjects tences, but like a table of contents. Such an out­ of the Testimony havi drawn from any conversation he may have lis­ line should not be allowed to Jetter the writer, if, evident that so far onl} tened to (with interest) from his seniors, whether in the course of the actual composition, he find far only as it is allo addressed to himself, or between each other: or, any reason for deviating from his original plan. It would not have been g· thirdly, relating to the amusemenL'i, familiar oc­ should serve merely as a track to mark out a path can this Argument hav currences, and everyday lrnnsactions, which arc for him, not as a groove to confine him. But the of various kinds; and likely to have formed the topics of easy conversa ­ practice of drawing out such a skeleton will give grccs of force, 1 1 not or tion among his familiar friends. The student a coherence to the Composition, a due proportion intrinsic character, but of iL'iseveral parts, and a clear and easy arrange­ should not be confined exclusively lo any one of kind - of conclusion ment of them; such as can rarely be attained if one these three classes of subjects. They should be in­ support .... termingled in as much variety as possible. And begins by completing one portion before thinking the teacher should frequently recall to his own of the rest. And it will also be found a most useful mind these two considerations; first, that since the exercise for a beginner, to practise-if possible Testimonyof Adversaries. benefit proposed docs not consist in the intrinsic under the eye of a judicious lecturer-the draw­ The Testimony of Advc value of the composition, but in the exercise to ing out of a great number of such skeletons, more this term all who wou the pupil's mind, it matters not how insignificant than he subsequently fills up; and likewise to the conclusion to whic~ the subject may be, if it will but interest him, and practise the analysing in the same way, the Com­ has, of course, great we: thereby afford him such exercise; secondly, that positions of another, whether read or heard. cumstancc. And as it \I the younger and backwarder each student is, the If the syslcm which I have been recommend­ under the head of "undc more unfit he will be for abstract speculations; ing be pursued, with the addition of sedulous search will often be need and the less remote must be the subjecLo;proposed care in correction - encouragement from the from those individual objects and occurrences teacher - and inculcation of such general rules which always form the first beginnings of the fur­ as each occasion calls for; then, and 1101 other­ Cross-Exami11atio11. 1 wise, Exercises in Composition will be of the niture of the youthful mind. n In oral examination of, most important and lasting advantage; not only in examiner will often cli, respect of the object immediately proposed, but Drawing up of 0111/incsor skclc1

1014 NINETEENTll·CENTURY RHETORIC .,, • , n Co~cl,~ •O~ .. \J$ • C4. lA.Jt.,"

,f the composition, the Testimony a kind of si,:11. witness is most easily barned and confused. I ant that the whole of it h~ve seen the experiment tried, of subjecting a Of t~1esclast, one species is the Argument from nd the mind in a small w1tn~ss to such a kind of cross-examination by a Teslimony: the premiss being the existence of as it were at a glance: p~acused lawyer, as would have been, I am con­ the Testimony; the Conclusion, the truth of what therefore not in .re11- vmced, the most likely to alarm and perplex is attested; which is considered as a "Condition" ::ontents. Such an out­ man~ an honest witness; without any effect in of.the Testimony having been given: since it is to fetter the writer, if, shakmg the. testimony: and afterwards, by a to­ evident that so far only as this is allowed (i.e., so l composition, he find tally opposlle mode of examination, such as far only as it is allowed, that the Testimony Jm his original plan. It would not have at all perplexed one who was would.not have been given, had it not been true), m:k to mark out a path honestly telling the truth, that same witness was can th~s Arg~ment have any force. Testimony is , confine him. But the drawn on, step by step, to acknowledge the utter of vanous kmds; and may possess various de­ ;h a skeleton will give falsity of the whole. grees of force,'' not only in reference to its own ition, a due proportion Generally speaking, I believe that a quiet, intri~sic character, but in reference also to the lear and easy arrangc ­ gentle, and straightforward, though full and care­ kind of conclusion that it is brought to arely be attained if one ful examination, will be the most adapted to elicit support. ... mrtion before thinking trut/1,·and that the manl.l!uvres, and the browbeat­ be found a most useful ing, which are the most adapted to confuse an pmctise - if possible Testimo11yof A,Jioer.mries. honest witness, are just what the dishonest one is 1s lecturer - the draw ­ the best prepared for. The more the stonn blus­ T~e Testimony of Adversaries, - including under ,f such skeletons, more ters, the more carefully he wraps round him the tlus tenn all who would be unwilling 10 admit , up; and likewise to cloak, which a warm sunshine will often induce the conclusion to which their testimony tends, ­ e same way, the Com­ him to throw off. er read or heard. has, of course, great weight derived from that cir­ ave been recommend- cumstance. And as it will, oftener than not, fall Tt'sli111011yof Ad1•er.wrie .1·umally i11ddenwl. addition of sedulous under the head of "undesigned," much minute re­ search will often be needful, in order to draw it out. ,umgement from the In a~y. testimony (whether oral or written) that is of such general rules unw1lhngly borne, it will more frequently consist ; then, and not other • Cro.vs-Examimllio11. i~ something inc:idema/ly implied, than in a dis­ 1sition will be of the tinct statement. For instance, the generality of In oral examination of witnesses, a skilful cross­ advantage; not only in men, who are accustomed to cry up Common examiner will often elicit from a reluctant wit­ ?diately proposed, but sense -as preferable to Systems of Art, have been ness most important truths, which the witness is :bought, and in giving brought to bear witness, collectively (see Preface desirous of concealing or disguising. There is an­ 1d if this branch of ed• ?f "Elements of Logic"), on the opposite side; ot~er ki~d of skill, which consists in so alarming, , then, and not otl,er­ inasmuch _aseach o~ them gives the preference to m1sleadmg, or bewildering an honest witness as e present treatise will, the latter, in the subJect,- whatever it may be - to throw discredit on his testimony, or pervert the uch less adapted to the in which he is most conversant. ' effect of. it. Of this kind of art, which may be ing for practice' sake, Sometimes, however, an adversary will be characterised as the most, or one of the most, meeting the occasions compelled_ disti.ncll7 to admit something that ba~e and depraved of all possible employments makes agamst him, m order to contest some other of mtellectual power, I shall only make one fur­ point. .Thus, the testimony of the· Evangelists, that ther observation. I am convinced that the most the m_1raclesof Jesu~ were acknowledged by the effectual mode of eliciting truth, is quite different unbelievers, and attnbuted to magic, is confinned from that by which an honest, simple Tminded by the Jews, in a Work called "Toldoth Jeschu"; (the "Generation of Jesus") which must have ".Lucke has louched on this subject, though sliglnly and been compiled (al whatever period) from tradi­ scanllly. He says, '"In lhe testimony or others, is to he consid ­ me which from a cer­ tions e:ci.wi11gfrom the 1•ery1 first; since it is in• , infer the "Cause" of e~d,- 1. TI1e numhcr . 2 . The inlcgrity. 3. TI1e skill or the w11nc~scs.4. 111~design or 1hc author. where it is a tcslimony credible that if those contemporaries of Jesus ;e manner, infer some out of a book cited . 5. The consistency of 1hc part~ and cir­ w~o oppose~ Him, had denied the fact of the 1e Cause. wmslam :es or the relation . 6. Contrary testimonies ." !Au.] miracles havmg been wrought, their desce11da11t.1·

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1015 ~.; •::m'\-5• ~ )"t.+~...~ \ . ~AS~ ~,. should have admitted the facts, and resorted lo dieted testimony of all who have made, or who other hand, of their ha ~ the hypothesis of magic. might make, the examination; both unbeliever!,, or invented by the pcrs S~) and believers of various hostile sects; any one of Ncgatil'e Testi111011y. whom would be sure to seize any opportunity to expose the forgeries or errors of his opponcnl

1016 NINETEENTH•CENTURY RHETORIC l • r,oho have made, or who other hand, of their having been either imagined been inventing, adds great weight to what he mtion; both unbelievers, or invented by the persons attesting them. does say. hostile sects; any one of seize any opportunity to Superior force of negative probabilities. rors or his opponents. Thing.I'i111ri11.l'icall y improbable, the less likely he more important, be­ to be Jeig11ed. And it is to be observed that, in many cases, si­ lence, omission, absence of certain statements, liable to be startled and Anything unlikely to occur, is, so far, the less &c. will have even greater weight than much that 1ointed out to them that likely to have been feigned or fancied: so that its we do find stated. E.g., Suppose we meet with 1g something - as they antecedent improbability may sometimes add to something in a passage of one of Paul's Epistles, 1cry insufficient reasons; the credibility of those who bear witness to it. which indicates with a certain degree of probabil ­ ps that they have been Ami again, anything which, however likely to ity the existence of such and such a custom, insti­ wke place, would not have been likely, other ­ tution, &c., and suppose there is just the same de­ e of the testimony of ad­ wise, to en1er the mind of those particular per­ gree of probability that such and such another ,c and negative, - has sons who attest to it, or would be at variance with custom, institution, or event, which he does not estions respecting penal their interest or prejudices, is thereby rendered mention anywhere, would have been mentioned character of the system the more credible. Thus, as has been above re­ by him in the same place, supposing it to have re­ Jublications, and subse ­ marked, when the disciples of Jesus record oc­ ally existed, or occurred; this omission, and the tmittees of the House of currences and discourses, such as were both for­ negative argument resulting, has incomparably timony of persons who eign to all the notions, and al variance with all the more weight than the other, if we also find tern: the report and cvi ­ the prejudices, of any man living in those days, that same omission in all the other epistles, and .e committees was pub- and of Jews more especially, lhis is a slrong con­ in every one of the Books of the New Testament. 1ined uncontradicted for firmation of their testimony. eing made for the aboli­ E.g., The universal omission of all notice of ons had the effrontery to the office of Hiereus (a sacerdotal priest) among the Christian ministers'5-of all reference to one vcnth hour and deny the 171i11gs,wt wulerstood, or 11otbelieved, by tho.rewho supreme Church bearing rule over all the ns given: thus pronounc ­ 1111e.1·tthem , !avy condemnation, for rest - of all mention of any transfer of the Sab­ 1rescntation - supposing It is also, in some cases, a strongly confirmatory bath from the seventh day to the first-are in­ ::,long unrcfuted, or else, circumstance that the witness should appear not stances of decisive arguments of this kind. to be true. tn believe, himself, or not to wulerstand, the So also, the omission of all allusion to a Future :ain, of argumcnt, - al· thing he is reporcing, when it is such as is, to us, State, in those parts of the writings of Moses in dence, or to silence a 1101 unintelligible nor incredible. E.g., When an which he is urging the Israelites to obedience by ·cviling and personality, ancient historian records a report of certain voy­ appeals to their hopes and fears; and again, in the 1ese are presumptions of agers having sailed to a distant country in which whole of the early part of the Book of Job, in which :ause against which they they found the shadows falling on the opposite that topic could not have failed to occur to persons opinion of adversaries al side to that which they had been accustomed to, believing in the doctrine,-this is a plain indica­ he side of truth. and regards the account as incredible, from not tion that no revelation of the doctrine was intended being able to understand how such a phenome­ to be given in those Books; and that the passage, ,. non could occur, we- recognising at once what often cited, from the Book of Job, as having refer­ we know takes place in the Southern Hemi­ ence to the resurrection, must be understood as re­ .he particular things that sphere, and perceiving that he could not have in­ lating to that temporal deliverance which is nar­ ·sted, it is plain that we vented the account - have the more reason for rated immediately after: since else it would (as ,ability or improbability, believing it. The report thus becomes analogous Bishop Warburton has just remarked) make all the r being real, and, on the 10 the copy of an inscription in a language un­ rest of the book unintelligible and absurd. known to him who copied it. The negative circumstance also, of a wit­ :cch on Tmnspona1inn, deliv. '55cc Discourse on the Christian Priesthood appended to 1 the 19th of May, 1840," &c. ness's omitting to mention such things as it is the Bampton Lectures. Also, Bernard's translation of Viuinga morally certain he would have mentioned had he on the "Synagogue and the Church." IAu.l

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1017 Again, "although we do not admit the positive It ever a nation did emerge, unassisted, from the that it should be k11ow11 authority of antiquity in favour of any doctrine or savage state, all memory of such an event is to­ the cause should be csti1 practice which we do not find 1,anctioned by tally lost. According to the mm Scripture, we may yet, without inconsistency, ap­ Now the absence of all such records or tradi­ a "Presumption" in fm peal to it 11cgatfrcly, in refutation of many tions, in a case where there is every reason to ex• means, not (as has bee, errors . . .. ll is no argument in favour of the Mil­ peel that an instance could be produced if any imagined) a prcpondcra lennium, that it was a notion entertained by had ever occurrcd,- this negative circumstance favour, but, such a preo Justin Martyr, since we do not believe him to (in conjunction with the other indications there as implies that it must sl have been inspired, and he may therefore have adduced) led me, many years ago, to the conclu­ cicnt reason is adduced drawn erroneous inferences from certain texts of sion, that it is impossible for mere Savages to the Burden of proof lies Scripture: but it is an argument against the doc­ civilize themselves- that consequently Man would dispute it. trine of Transubstantiation. that we find no traces must al some period have received the rudiments Thus, it is a wcll-kno of it for above six centuries; and against the ado­ of civilization from a s11perl111ma11instructor. ­ that every man (includir ration of the Virgin Mary, that in like manner it and that Savages arc probably the descendants of for trial) is to be pre.mm docs not appear to have been inculcated till the , civilized men, whom wars and other afflictive is established. This docs sixth century. It is very credible that the first visitations have degraded. we arc to wkc for grant Christian writers, who were but men, should that were the case, he wo have made mistakes to which all men arc liable, diate libcrntion: nor doc in their interpretation of Scripture: but it is not It might seem superfluous to remark that none tcccdently more likely ti credible that such important doctrines as Tran­ but very general rules, such as the above, can be cent; or, that the majority substantiation and the adoration of the Virgin profitably laid down; and that to attempt to super­ arc so. It evidently mcar Mary should have been transmitted from the sede the discretion to be exercised on each indi­ of proof" lies with the ac Apostles, if we find no trace of them for five or vidual case, by firing prt.'Cisely what degree of to be called on to prove six centuries after the birth of our Saviour.''HI weight is to be allowed to the testimony of such dealt with as a criminal and such persons, would be, al least, useless tri­ that they arc to bring tht fling, and, if introduced in practice, a most mis­ which if he can repel, he : Abse11cc

1018 NINETEENTH•CENTURY RHETORIC rgc, unassisted, from the thut it should he k11ow11,and that the strength of of a fortress against any attack that may be made y of such an event is to- the cuusc should be estimated accordingly. on it; and yet, if, ignorant of the advantage they According to the most correct use of the term, possess, they sally forth into the open .field to en ­ all such records or trndi­ a "Presumption" in favour of any supposition, counter the enemy, they may suffer 'a repulse. At cre is every reason to cx­ means, not (as has been sometimes erroneously any rate, even if strong enough to act on the of. Juld be produced if any imagined) a preponderance of probability in its fensive, they ought still to keep possession of is negative circumstance favour, but, such a preoce11patio11of the ground, their fortress. In like manner, if you have the e other indications there as implies that it mu st stand good till some sufti ­ "Presumption" on your side, and can but refwe years ago, to the conclu­ cicnt reason is adduced against it; in short, that all the arguments brought against you, you have, ble for mere Savages to the Burden of proof lies on the side of him who for the present at least, gained a victory: but if .hat consequently Man would dispute it. you abandon this position, by suffering this Pre ­ ,e received the rudiments Thus, it is a well -known principle of the Law, sumption to be forgotten, which is in fact leaving uper/111111a11instructor, - that every man (including a prisoner brought up 0111one of, perhaps, your strongest arg11111e11ts, ibably the descendants of for trial) is to be presumed innocent lill his guilt you may appear to be making a feeble attack, in­ "Jars and other afflictive is established. This docs not, of course, mean that stead of a triumphant defense. d. we arc to take for ~1w11ed he is innocent; for if Such an obvious case as one of those just 1hat were the case, he would be entitled to imme ­ stated, will serve to illustrate this principle. Let I .. diate liheration: nor docs it mean that it is an ­ any one imagine a perfectly unsupported accusa­ ,uous to remark that none tecedently more likely them 1wt that he is inno­ tion of some offence to be brought against him­ ) , '"'"" mch as the above, can be cent; or, that the majority of these brought to trial self; and then let him imagine himself-instead d that to attempt to super­ arc so. It evidently means only that the "burden of replying (as of course he would do) by a sim­ exercised on each indi­ e of proof" lies with the accusers; - that he is not ple denial, and a defiance of his accuser to prove 'Jrecisc/y what degree of to be called on to prove his innocence, or to be the charge,-setting himself to establish a nega­ to the testimony of such dealt with as a criminal till he has done so; but tive, - taking on himself the burden of proving be , at least, useless tri­ u that they arc to bring their charges against him, his own innocence, by collecting all the circum­ : in practice, a most mis­ which if he can repel, he stands acquiltt!d. stances indicative of it that he can muster: and a right decision. But at­ Thus again, there is a "presumption" in fa­ the result would be, in many cases, that this evi­ e actually been made, in vour of the right of any individuals or bodies­ dence would fall far short of establishing a cer· dence of some countries; corporate to the property of which they are in ac­ tainty, and might even have the effect of raising a ; might have been antici­ tut1lpossession. This docs not mean that they arc, suspicion against him; 17 he having in fact kept nd an instructive account or are not, likely to be the rightful owners: but out of sight the important circumstance, that these egislation in an article on merely, that no man is to be disturbed in his pos­ probabilities in one scale, though of no great :" in the Edinburgh Re- sessions till some claim against him shall be es­ weight perhaps in themselves, are to be weighed tahlishcd. He is not to bt! called on to prove his against absolutely nothing in the other scale. right; but the claimant, to disprove it; on whom The following arc a few of the cases in which consequently the "burden of proof' lies. it is important, though very easy, to point out where the Presumption lies.

Importance of ,/eciding 011 ll'hic/Jside lie.1·the if proof. onusprobwuli. Pre.rn111ptio11i11faw111r of e.risti11gill.1·titllliom. mrtance to decide in each A moderate portion of common sense will enable There is a Presumption in favour of every exist- \\ mr own mind, and clearly any one to perceive, and to show, on which side ing institution. Many of these (we will suppose, :r, as occa sion may serve, the Presumption lies, when once his attention is the majority) may be susceptible of alteration for 1111ptionlies, and to which called to this question; though, for want of allen­ the better; but still the "Burden of proof' lies .ndi] Burden of Proof. For tion, it is often overlooked: and on the determina­ with him who proposes an alteration; simply, on ! expedient to bring for­ tion of this question the whole character of a dis­ ;an be fairly demanded of cussion will often very much depend. A body of '7Hcncc 1hc French prnvcrh, ..Qui s •excuse, s' accuse." ole, when this is the case, troops may be perfectly adequate to the defence !Au.I

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1019 the ground that since a change is not a good in il• dox and nonsense" brought forward, as if there The Rcfor111atio11. self, he who demands a change should show were some close connexion between the two. The Burden of prool And indeed, in one sense this is the case; for to cause for it No one is called mi (though he may of the Refonnation: those who arc too dull, or too prejudiced, to find it advisable) to defend an existing institution, cause for every chan, till some argument is adduced against it; and that admit any notion at variance with those they have admitted the fairness argument ought in fairness to prove, not merely been used to entertain, that may appear nonsense, cepted the challenge. an actual inconvenience, but the possibility of a which to others is sound sense. Thus ''Christ cru­ show cause for retain change for the better. cified" was "to the Jews, a stumbling block" The Presumption wa (paradox), "and to the Greeks, foolishness"; be­ side; and they had c Prc.rnmpliEngland as presumed harmless (and conseq~ently the .cop~· ophy. tion," in the mass, wi right protected by our courts) till something 1s tered from the unalter proved against il. It is a hardship to require a man Christia11ity,pre.mmptiGospel in its first announcement. A Jewish the practice, but left i1 Burden of proof, in each case, lies fairly on the ac­ peasant claimed to be the promised Deliverer, in ing the burden to lie c cuser. I cannot but consider therefore as utterly un­ whom all the nations of the Earth were to be istence in the primith reasonable the decisions (which some years ago blessed. The Burden of proof lay with Him. No did arise. excited so much attention) lo refuse the interfer­ one could be fairly called on to admit his pre­ The case of Episco , ence of the Court of Chancery in cases of piracy, tensions till He showed cause for believing in Hooker seems to ha, whenever there was even any doubt whether the Him. If He "had not done among them the tage: he set<;himself t1 book pirated might not contain something of an works which none other man did, they had not of the institution, as if immoral tendency. had sin." duce it. 19 Whalevcr fc Now, the case is reversed. Christianity ex­ ments so adduced, it i Pre.mmplionagainst a Paradox. i,rt.r; and those who deny the divine origin at­ more force if the impc tributed to it, are bound to show some reasons in view, that the insti There is a "Presumption" against any thing para ­ for assigning to it a human origin: not indeed lo doxical, i.e., contrary to the prevailing opinion: it istcd many ages, and prove that it did originate in this or that way, there had been no dir may be true; but the Burden of proof lies with without supernatural aid; but to point out some him who maintains it; since men arc not expected coeval with Christian conceivable way in which it might have so least supposed to be to abandon the prevailing belief till some reason arisen. is shown. should be pointed out , It is indeed highly expedient to bring forward duced as an innovation Hence it is, probably, that many arc accus­ evidences to establish the divine origin of Chris­ tomed to apply "Paradox" as if it were a term of tianity: but it ought to be more carefully kept in reproach, and implied absurdity or falsity. But mind than is done by most writers, that all this Tradition. correct use is in favour of the etymological sense. is an argument "ex abundanti," as the phrnse In the case of any de, If a Paradox is unsupported, it can claim no at­ is, - ovcr and above what can fairly be called tention; but if false, it should be censured on that to be essential parts 1 for, till some hypothesis should be framed, to ac­ the fair presumption ground; but not for being new. If true, it is the count for the origin of Christianity by human more important, for being a truth not generally such distinctly declare, means. The Burden of proof, now, lies plainly on in respect of commar admitted. "lnterdum vulgus rectum videt; est ubi him who rejects the Gospel: which, if it were not l peccat." 18 Yet one often hears a charge of "para- established by miracles, demands an explanation "'On the ambiguous e111J 'I of the greater miracle, - its having been estab· origin" - a great source of cc 1""S0mc1imcsthe moh secs clearly: thal is where it sins." lished, in defiance of all opposition, by human gians- 1 have offered some (&I.I contrivance. Kingdom of Christ,"§ 17. 411

1020 NINETEENTH-C ENTURY RHETORIC hl forward, as if there The Reformation. any point, which our Lord or his Apost~e~ did de­ liver, there is a presumption that Christians are ion between the two. The Burden of proof, again, lay on the authors bound to comply. If any one maintains, on the this is the case; for to of the Reformation: they were bound to show ground of Tradition, the necessity of some ad­ or too prejudiced, lo cause for every c:lumgethey advocated; and they ditional article of faith (as for instance that of :e with those they have admitted the fairness of this requisition, and ac­ may appear nonsense, Purgatory) or the propriety of a departure from cepted the challenge. But they were 1101bound to the New Testament precepts (as for instance in !nse. Thus "Christ cru­ show cause for retaining what they left unaltered. the denial of the cup to the Laity in the Eucharist) ., a stumbling block" The Presumption was, in those points, on their the burden of proof lies with him. We are not !eks, foolishness"; be• side; and they had only to reply to obj ctions. called on to prove that there is no tradition to the a sign" of a different This important distinction is often lost sight7 of, purpose; - much Jess, that no tradition can have !ared; and the others by those who look at the "doctrines, &c. of the any weight at all in any case. It is for him to .heir schools of philos - Church of England as constituted at the Reforma­ prove, not merely generally, that there is such a tion," in the mass, without distinguishing the al­ thing as Tradition, and that it is entitled to re ­ tered from the unaltered parts. The framers of the spect, but that there is a traditio~ rel~tive to each uinst and for . Articles kept this in mind in their expression re­ of the points which he thus mamtams; and that specting infant-baptism, that it "oug~t by all such tradition is, in each point, sufficient lo es­ Presumption against means to be retained." They did not mtroduce tablish that point. For want of observing this rule, 1ouncement. A Jewi sh the practice, but left it as they found it;_co~sider­ the most vague and interminable disputes have promised Deliverer, in ing the burden to lie on those who dented its e~­ often been carried on respecting Tradition, gen ­ the Earth were to be istence in the primitive church, to show when it erally. ·oof lay with Him. No did arise. It should be also remarked under this head, I on to admit his pre• The case of Episcopacy is exactly parallel: but that in any one question the Presumption will ;ause for believing in Hooker seems to have overlooked this advan­ often be found to lie on different sides, in re~ one among them the tage: he sets himself to prove the apostolic ~rigin spect of different parties. E.g., In the question 11an did, they had not of the institution, as if his task had been to mtro­ between a member of the Church of England, duce it. •!I Whatever force there may be in argu­ and a Presbyterian, or member of any other rsed. Christianity ex­ ments so adduced, it is plain they must have far Church, on which side does the Presumption lie? . the divine origin at­ more force if the important Presumption be kept Evidently, to each, in favour of the religio~s .o show some reasons in view that the institution had notoriously ex­ community to which he at present belongs. He ts n origin: not indeed to isted m;ny ages, and that consequently, even if not to separate from the Church of which he is a e in this or that way, there had been no direct evidence for its being member, without having some sufficient reason but lo point out some coeval with Christianity, it might fairly be at to allege .... ch il might have so least supposed to be so, till some other period should be pointed out at which it had been intro ­ :dient to bring forward duced as an innovation. Gro1111dsof defcre11ce. divine origin of Chris ­ more carefully kept in Admiration, esteem, &c. are more the result of a st writers, that all this Tradition. judgment of the 1111dersta11di11g(though often of an erroneous one); "Deference" is apt to depend 1danti," as the phrase In the case or any docrrines again, professing on feeli11gs;- ot'tcn, on whimsical and ~nae• tl can fairly be called to be essential parts of the Gospel revelation, countable feelings, It is often yielded to a vigor­ muld be framed, to ac­ the fair presu111ptio11is, that we shall find all ous claim,- to an authoritative and overbearing : hristianity by human such distinctly declared in Scripture. And again, demeanour. With others, of an opposite characT of, now, lies plainly on in respect of commands or prohibitions as to :I: which, if it were not ter, a soothing, insinuating, flattering, and seem­ ing submissive demeanour will often gain great emands an explanation 1•1011the ambiguous cmplnymc111nf lhc phrase "divine its having been estab • origin" - a great source of confused reasoning among theolo · influence. They will yield to those who seem to opposition, by human gians- 1 have offered some !'!!marks in Essay 11, "On the yield to them; the others, to those who seem r~­ Kingdomof Christ,"§ 17. 41h edit. [Au.) solved to yield to no one. Those who seek to gam

WHATELY I ELEMENTS mi RHETORIC IOZI adherents to their School or Party by putting Mc11nftc11 sclf-deccfred m to theirfeelings of self an evil; and therefor, forth the claim of a11tiq11ityin favour of their deferc11cc. favour of iLc;removal, un tenets, arc likely to be peculiarly successful It is wonh remarking, as a curious fact, that men sary for prevention of sc among those of an arrogant disposition. A book are liable to deceive themselves as to the degree bound to allege any spc. or a Tradition of a thousand years old, appears to of Deference they feel towards various persons. ~estriction is 1111necessary be rather a thing than a 11er.wm,· and will thence But the case is the same (as I shall have occasion 1Lo;abolition: iL-;defender: often be regarded with blind deference by those hereafter lo point out) with many other feelings on to prove its necessity.' who arc prone to treat their contemporaries with also, such as pity, contempt, love, joy, &c.; in Again, in reference to s insolent contempt, hut who "will not go to com­ respect of which we arc apt to mistake the con­ the "Nathanael" of John' . pare with an old man."~" They will submit read­ i>ictionthat such and such an object desen•cs son as the Apostle "Barth ily to the authority of men who Oourished fifteen pity, contempt, &c. for the feeling itself; which others , an intelligent fricn, or sixteen centuries ago, and whom, if now liv­ often docs not accompany that conviction. And two names afford a "pri1 ing. they would not treat with decent respect. so also, a person will perhaps describe himself two persons. But the nan With some persons, again, Authority seems to (with sincere good faith) as feeling great Defer­ a "Patronymic," (like S1 act according lo the law of Gravitation; inversely ence towards some one, on the ground of his be· Bar-Jona,and Joseph's S as the squares of the distcmces. They arc inclined lievi11ghim to be entitled lo it; and perhaps being tioned in AcL<;;- he bein lo be of the opinion of the person who is nearest. really indignant against any ,me else who docs the Apostle "Joseph Ba· Personal Affectio11,again, in many minds, gener­ not manifest it. Sometimes again, one will mis­ Counterprcsumption that I ates Deference. They form a habit of first, wish­ take for a feeling of Deference his L'011c11rre11ce name, to distinguish him fl i11g,secondly, /roping,and thirdly, believing a per­ with another's views, and admiration of what is thus we arc left open to tt son to be in the right, whom they would be ,\·orry• said or done by him. But this, as has been ob­ the omission, by the other lo think mistaken. In a state of morbid depression served above, docs not imply Deference, if the of Nathanacl, - evidcntl· of spirits, the same cause leads to the opposite ef­ same approbation would have been bestowed on ciplc,- lhc omission by· fect. To a person in that state, whatever he would the same views, supposing them stated and Apostle Bartholomew - : be "sorry to think" appears probable; and con­ maintained in an anonymous paper. The con­ with the Apostle Philip ... sequently there is a Presumption in his mind verse mistake is equally natural. A man may against the opinions, measures, &c. of those he is fancy that, in each case , he acquiesces in such a Pre,\·11111p1i011sfor and agaill. most attached to. That the degree of Deference one's view or suggestions from the dictates of felt for any one's Authority ought to depend not judgment, and for the reasons given ("What Again, there is (accordin on our feelings, but on our judgment, it is almost she docs seems wisest, virtuouscst, discreetest, "pcritis crcdendum est in 1 superfluous lo remark; but it is important to re­ 21 (and a fair one), in respe: best" ); when yet perhaps the very same rea­ member that there is a danger on both sidcs;-of sons, coming from another, would have been re­ ~avour of the judgment ol an unreasonable Presumption either on the side jected .... in the department it pc, of our wishes, or against them. ~hysicians, e.g., in rcsr OM-~ llons, - of theologians. i1 ~ by this presumption mai "'4,4 Deference a.\· lo 1wr1icular poim.r. Trcmiferri11gthe Jl,m/r11of proof. etuwr<,;'\J Lord's time seem to have <,r~? It is obvious that Deference ought lo be, and usu­ It is to be observed, that a Presumption may be re­ they said, "have any of ally is, felt in reference to particular points. One butted by an opposite Presumption, so as to shift the Pharisees believed on Hin -· ha~ a deference for his physician, in questions of Burden of proof to the other side. E.g., Suppose you But there is a count medicine; and for his bailiff. in questions of farm­ had advised the removal of some ,_.xistillgrestric­ from the circumstuncc th ing; but not vice ver.\'a.And accordingly. Defer­ tion: you might be, in the first instance, called on to department arc likely to n ence may be misplaced in respect of the subject, take the Burden of proor, .md allege your reasons one who professes to brint as well as of the person. It is conceivable that one for the change, on the ground that there is a Pre­ known to themselves; esp may have a due degree of Deference, and an ex­ sumption against every Change. But you might s1111ersede,if established cess of it, and a ,It:jiciem:yof it. all towards the fairly reply, "True, but there is another Presumption have been uccustomcd to same person, but in respect of different points. which rebut!>the fonncr: every Rcstric1io11is in it- practise. And moreover, ir profcs!>ion, there is an obv .,,Shakespeare,T11 ·elft/1Ni RIii. !Au.I "Mihon , IAu.l being regarded as a dan

I022 NINETEENTll ·CENTURY RHHOlllC o tlll'irfcelinN.\ of self an evil; and therefore there is a Presumplionin who adopts any novelty, and of his thus losing favour nf its removal, unless it can be shown neces­ practice even among such as may regard him sary for prevention of some greater evil: I am not with admiration as a philosopher. In confirmation a curious fact, that men bound to allege any .111edjicinconvenience; if Che of this, it may be sul'ficiencco advert to the cases nsdves as to the degree res1rictionis 11111w,·es.mry, 1hm is reason enough for of Harvey and Jenner. Harvey's discovery of the :>wardsvarious person!.. icsabolition: its defenders thereforearc fairly c,lllcd circulation of the blood is said to have lost him (as I shall have occasion on 10prove its necessity." most of his praccicc,and to have been rejected by •ith many other fceling1, Again, in referenceto the prevailingopinion, that every physician in Europe above the age of forty. :mpt, love, joy, &c.; in the "Nmlumae/" of John's Gospelwm; the same per· And Jenner's discovery of vaccination had, in a apt lo mistake the con- son as the Apostle"/Jartlwlomew" mentioned in the minor degree, similar results. uch an object tle.1·e11•e,1· others,an intelligentfriend once remarkedto me that There is also this additional counlerpresump· the fee/in~ itself; which two ,wmes afford a "prima facie" Presumptionof tion against the judgment of the proficients in ny that conviction. And two persons. But the name of /Jar1fw/0111ew,being any department; that Cheyare prone co a bias in erhaps describe himself a "Patronymic," (like Sinton Peter's designation favour of everything that gives the most palpable , as feeling great Defer­ /Jar-Jona,and Joseph·s Simame orBcirsabas, men­ .mperioril)• to chemselves over the uninitiated on the ground of his be­ tioned in Acts;- he being probably the same with Ithe ldioc:c], and affords the greatest scope for ' to it; and perhaps being the Aposllc "Joseph Barnahas," &c.,) affords a the employment and display of their own pecu­ ,my one efre who docs Counterpn>sumption.. that he must have had ,mother liar acquirements. Thus, e.g., if there be two pos· ,cs again, one will mh;­ name, to distinguishhim from his own kindred. And sible interpretations of some Clause in an Act of !"erencc his co11c1irre11ce thus we arc leli open to the argumentsdrawn from Parliament, one of which appears obvious to d admiration or what is the omission, by the ocher Evangelists,of the name every reader of plain good sense, and the other JI this, as has been oh­ of Nathanacl,- evidently a very eminent dis· can be supported only by some ingenious and imply Deference. if the ciple.- the omission by John of Chename of the far-fetched legal subtlety, a practised lawyer will have been bestowed on Apo1,tlcBartholomcw, - und the recordedintimacy be liable to a bias in favour of the latter, as set­ >sing them stated and with the Apostle Philip. ... ting forth the more prominently his own peculiar •mous paper. The con· qualifications. And on this principle in great mea­ y natural. A man may sure seems founded Bacon's valuable remark; he acquiesces in such a l'resumprim,1'for mul again i-rthe Teamed. , "harum artium sa:pe pravus fit usus, ne sil nu/­ ns from the dictates ol Again, there is (according to che old maxim of Im." Rather than let their knowledgeand skill lie reasons given (''Whal "pcritis credendum est in ane 1,ua")a presumption idle, they will be tempted to misapply them; like virtuousesl, discreetest, (and a fair one), in respect of each question, in a schoolboy, who, when possessed of a knife, is aps the very same rea­ favour of the judgment of Chemost eminent men for trying its edge on everything that comes in his er, would have been re- in the department it pertains to;- of eminent way. On the whole, accordingly, I think that of physicians, e.g., in respect of medical ques­ these two opposite presumptions, the counterpre· tions,- of theologians, in theological, &c. And sumption has often as much weight as the other, ·,roof. by this presumplion many of the Jews in our and sometimes more.... Lord's time seem to have been inlluenccd, when Presumption may be re· they said, "have any of the Rulers, or of the umption,so as to shift the Phurbces believed on Him'!" 7. :rside. E.g., Suppose you But there is a counlerpre!.umption, arising Refirratim1. of some e:d\ti11grestric ­ from Checircum,;tuncc that men eminent in any irst instance, called on to department arc likely to regard with jealousy any Refucation of Objections !>houldgenerally be and allege your reasons one who professes to bring to light somelhing un­ placed in the midst of the Argument; but nearer ound that there is a Prc­ known to themselves; especially if it promise to the beginning than the end. Change. But you might supersede, if c.,;tablished, much of what they If indeed very strong objections have obtained re is another Presumption have been accustomed to learn, and teach, and much currency, or have been just stated by an op­ !VeryRe .mic:1io11is in it- practise. And moreover, in respect of the medical ponent, so that what is asserted is likely to be re­ profession, there is an obvious danger of a man's garded as paradoxical, it may be advisable to being regarded us a dangerous expcrimentalbt begin with a Refutation; but when this is not the

WHATELY I ELEM ENTS OF RHETORIC 1023 case, the mention of Objections in the opening in this place. In the first place, it is to be observed jection is often supp< will be likely to give a paradoxical air to our as­ that there is 22 no distinct class of refutatory Ar­ which it is expressed, t• sertion, by implying a consciousness that much gument; since they become such merely by the when perhaps it does m may be said against it. If again all mention of 0~ circumstances under which they arc employed . tradiction of a Premiss; jections be deferred till the last, the other argu. say, "'I admit your princ ments will often be listened to with prejudice by Two mode,t of refuting. to such a consequence" those who may suppose us to be overlooking it has no force as an Ari what may be urged on the other side. There arc two ways in which any Proposition clusion"; this sounds m Sometimes indeed it will be difficult to give a may be refuted; first, by proving the contradic· soning itself; but it , i:_,\- satisfactory Refutation of the opposed opinions, tory of it; secondly, by overthrowing the Argu· found Io amount only ....\l"'tH~ till we have gone thro.ughhthe arghumentsi~ sup- ments by which it has been supported. The for· pres.~ed Premiss of an I f., port of our own: even in t at case owever 1t w11 1 mer of these is less strictly and properly called which is admitted bcin -cY'·~ be better to take some brief notice of them early Refutation; being only accidellfally such, since it miss, whose "force as i-,.,.t~ in the Composition, with a promise of afterwards might have been employed equally well had the course depend on the o• considering them more fully, and refuting them. opposite Argument never existed; and in fact it derstood?5 Thus Wart ~ This is Aristotle's usual procedure. will often happen that a Proposition maintained ~ '"''""'-' Law of Moses the doct by one author, may be in this way refuted by an· not revealed; but conte other, who had never heard of his Arguments . ~ S.op h1st1ca' . I cva.tw11. . disproving, as the Deisl Thus Pericles is represented by Thucydides as sion, docs, on the cont A sophistical use is often made of this last rule, proving, in a speech to the Athenians, the proba­ objection is not to the [ when the Objections are such as cannot really be bility of their success against the Peloponnesians; so called, but to the oth """.tu... satisfactorily answered. The skilful sophist will and thus, virtually , refuting the speech of the hastily took for granted ~ often , by the promise of a triumphant Refutation Corinthian ambac;sador at Sparta, who had viz. "that a divinely hereafter, gain attention to his own statement; laboured to show the probability of their speedy would have been sure 1"•t¾Ph--f 21 Ot4,f( which, if it be made plausible, will so draw off downfall. In fact, every one who argues in The objection is then ~r(.. the hearer's auention from the Objections, that a favour of any Conclusion is virtually refuting , in against the Reasoning very inadequate fulfilment of that promise will this way, the opposite Conclusion. that, granting all that pass unnoticed, and due weight will not be al· But the char-.icter of Refutation more strictly side, whether cxpresse , lowed to the Objections. belongs to the other mode of proceeding; viz. in Conclusion contended f It may be worth remarking, that Refutation which a reference is made, and ao answer given, the Premises; either on will often occasion the introduction of fresh to some specific argument s in favour of the oppo· ity in the Middle Tern Propositions; i.e., we may have to disprove site Conclusion . This Refutation may consist ei­ that class. Propositions, which though incompatible with ther in the denial of one of the Premises , l 4 or an the principal one to be maintained , will not be di­ objection against the co11cl11sive11essof the rea­ Fallacic,\'. rectly contradictory to it: e.g., Burke, in order to soning. And here it is to be observed that an ob- the establishment of his theory of beauty, refutes This is the proper plac, the other theories which have been advanced by ies; but as this has be those who place it in "fitness" for a certain » As Aristotle remarks. Rlret, Book ii. apparently in oppo· sition to some funner writers . (Au.) MENTS or LOGIC ," I hU\ end - in "proportion" - in "perfection," &c.; and •JTI1e speechc..~inde ed appear to he in great part the com· to it (Book iii). Dr. A. Smith, in his "Theory of Moral Senti· po~ition of the historian ; hut he professes lo give the suh­ ments," combats the opinion of those who make stance of what was e ither actually said, or likely lo he said, on "expediency the test of virtue" - of the advo­ each occasion : and the arguments urgctl in the speeches now Direct mu/ lmlirect ref111m in question arc undoubtedly such .is the respective speaker~ cates of a "Moral sense," &c., which doctrines would he likely to employ. (Au .) It may be proper in this respectively are at variance with those of these ••If the Prcmis~ 10 he refuted he u "Universal.'' (SOC direct Reasoning" is so: authors, and imply, though they do not express . a u ,Ric. b. ii. ch. ii. § 3) it will he suflicicnl In estnhlish ilS contradiction of them. Contradictory, which will he a l'artiLUlar: which will often he done by un urgumcnt that will n:llur.illy he exhibited in the Though I am at present treating principally of "h has been remarked 10 third figure, whose conclusions arc always Particular s, Hence. the proper col/ocatio11of Refutation, some re­ in common discourse the ...., thi ~ mny he called the crJtatil', or rcfi,wtory Figure. (Sec ployed 10 designnl c the 111oj1 marks on the conduct of it will not be unsuitable L11giL', h. ii. ch. iii.§ 4. J !Au.I "'Rc:mm .'' the 111i1111r. lA11.1

1024 NINETEENTH -CENTURY RHETORI C , / :0,/'' ' '

ace, it is to be observed jcction is often supposed, from the mode in "Refutation," or supposed to be peculiarly con­ class of refutatory Ar- which it is expressed, to belong to this last class, nected with it; which is not the case; either Direct 11e such merely by the when perlmps it does not, but consists in the con­ or Indirect Reasoning being employed indiffer­ h they arc employed. tradiction of a Premiss; for it is very common to ently for Refutation, as well as for any other pur­ say, "I admit your principle, but deny that it leads pose. The application of the term "elenctic" to such a consei1uence"; "the assertion is true, but (from elencheill to refute or disprove) to Indirect it has no force as an Argument to prove that Con­ Arguments, has probably contributed to this con­ which any Proposition clusion"; this sounds like an objection to the Rea­ fusion; which, however, principally arises from proving the contradic- soning itself; but it will not unfrequently be the very circumstance that occasioned such a use 1verthrowing the Argu­ found to amount only to a denial of the sup­ of that term; viz., that in the Indirect method the :en supported. The for­ pressed Premiss of an Enthymeme; the assertion absurdity or falsity of a Proposition (opposed to tly and properly called which is admitted being only the expressed Pre­ our own) is proved; and hence is suggested the cide11tallysuch, since it miss, whose "force as an Argument" must of idea of an adversary maintaining that Proposi­ !d equally well had the course depend on the other Premiss, which is un­ tion, and of the Refutation of that adversary · existed; and in fact it derstood.~s Thus Warburton admits that in the being necessarily accomplished in this way. But Proposition maintained Law of Moses the doctrine of a future stale was it should be remembered, that Euclid and other this way refuted by an­ not revealed; but contends that this, so far from mathematicians, though they can have no oppo­ :ard of his Arguments. disproving, as the Deists pretend : his divine mis­ nent to refute, often employ the Indirect Demon­ 1ted by Thucydides as sion, docs, on the contrary, establish it. But the stration; and that, on the other hand, if the Con­ e Athenians, the proba­ objection is not to the Deist's Argument properly tradictory of an opponent's Premiss can be nst the Peloponnesians; so called, but to the other Premiss, which they so satisfactorily proved in the Direct method, the ing the speech of the hastily took for gmnted, and which he disproves, Refutation is sufficient. at Sparta, who had viz. "that a divinely commissioned Lawgiver bability of their speedy would have been sure to reveal that doctrine." TIie Indirect metliod .wmetimes preferred. -y one who argues in The objection is then only properly said to lie is virtually refuting, in against the Reasoning itself, when it is shown It is true, however, that while, in Science, the Di- ...--•1, ...... 1clusion. that, granting all that is assumed on the other reel method is considered preferable, in Contro - cw-Cr- 0 ~w/ tefutation more strictly side, whether expressed or understood, still the versy, the Indirect is often adopted by choice, as ~ ~ of proceeding; viz. in Conclusion contended for would not follow from it affords an opportunity for holding up an oppo- -. !, and ao answer given, the Premises; either on account of some ambigu­ nent to scorn and ridicule, by deducing some ol,.wrd L.. .s in favour of the oppo­ ity in the Middle Term, or some other fault of very absurd conclusion from the principles he 1 f ··'1 ·utation may consist ei­ that class. maintains, or according to the mode of arguing M:~ 2 >f the Premise,\·, 4 or an he employs. Nor indeed can a fallacy be so ~· •elusiveness of the rca­ Fa/lades . "'""4l,, ~ ½,-. 1. clearly exposed to the unlearned reader in any 1 be observed that an ob- 0 other way. For it is no easy matter to explain, to \. bw\­ This is the proper place for a treatise on Fallac ­ one ignorant of Logic, the grounds on which you \>i..,..,."" A. ies; but as this has been inserted in the "ELE­ . Book ii. apparently in oppo­ object to an inconclu.~ive argument; though he w·~' ., ,u.J MENTS OF Lorne," l have only lo refer the reader will be able to perceive its correspondence with 1r to be in grcul part the com ­ Lo it. (Book iii). another, brought forward to illustmte it, in which e professes to give the suh­ an absurd conclusion may be introduced, as y said, or likely to be said , on drawn from true premises. Is urged in the speeches nuw Direct and llulirell ref111a1io11. ~h as the respective speakers It may be proper in this place to remark, that "In­ I Prm •illg too 11111d1. med he u "Universal," (see dire ct Reasoning" is sometimes confounded with be sufficient 10 establish its It is evident that either the Premiss of an oppo ­ 'articular; which will often be nent, or his Conclusion, may be disproved, either nalUrJlly be exhibited in the •s1t has been remarked tu me by an intelligent friend, that ire al ways Particulars . Hence, in common discourse the word "'Principle" is usually cm · in the Direct, or in the Indirect method; i.e., ei· ·, or reft1tme1ryF igure. (Sec ployed to designate the 11wje1rprcmi~s of an Argument, and ther by proving the truth of the Contradictory, or "Reason," the 111i11or. IAu.J by showing that an absurd conclusion may fairly

WHATIZLY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1025 l>o" ..~u :s ~ fo;,h-~ b.,.__.~ G.S 'k,'t:- ~ t.t.s..(>\....; h-=·· b- h.u ~""'--'" be deduced from the proposition you arc combat ­ ing to the Premises, and the Consequent to the that, in an ironical forn ing. When this !alter mode of refutation is Conclusion; and neither of them being asserted ago, in a pamphlet < adopted with respect lo the Premiss, the phrase as true, only, the dependence of the one on the merely for the prcscrva · by which this procedure is usually designated, is, other; the alternative then is, to acknowledge as a ter), whose object was that the "Argument proves too much"; i.e., that it conclusion , either the truth of the Consequent, as ("Historic Doubts") sir proves, besides the conclusion drawn, another, in the Constructive Syllogism, or (as in the de­ Scripture -history, and which is manifestly inadmissible. E.g .• The Ar­ structive) the falsity of the Antecedent: and the might be urged against gument by which Dr. Campbell labours to prove former accordingly corresponds to Direct re.ison­ of Napoleon Buonapart , that every correct Syllogism must be nugatory, as ing, the latter to Indirect; being, as has been said, It is in some respe, involving a "pctitio pri11cipii,"proves, if admit­ :1 mode of slating it in the Direct form; as is evi­ this latter method, and i ted at all, more than he intended; since it may dent from the examples adduced . that the sophistry of a, easily be shown lo be equally applicable to c,/1 exposed by it in a ludi Reasoning whatever. lro11icaleffect of indirect arg11111c11t.r. this even where no sue It is worth remarking, that an Indirect argu­ very essence of jest be· ment may easily be altered in fonn so ac; to be The difference between these two modes of stat­ This will often give adc stated in the Direct mode. For, strictly speaking, ing such an Argument is consider.iblc, when ment, by the vivid im1 that is Indirect reasoning in which we assume as there is a long chain of reasoning. For when we images produce ; but ; true the Proposition whose Contradictory it is our employ the Categorical form, and assume as true quently have this disad object to prove; and deducing regularly from it the Premises we design to disprove, it is evident ~ perceiving the wit, arc ; an absurd Conclusion, infer thence that the Pre­ we must be speaking ironically, and in the char­ ing but wit is designed; miss in question is false; the alternative proposed acter, assumed for the moment, of an adversary; a solid and convincing , in all correct reasoning being, either to admit the when, on the contrary, we w,e the hypothetical gard as no more than a Conclusion, or to deny one of the Premises. But form, there is no irony. Butler's Analogy is an in­ warned that "ridicule is by adopting the fonn of a Destructive Condi­ stance of the lauer procedure; he contends that if "that wisdom and wit" tional,' "' the same argument as this. in substance, such and such objections were admissible against they distrust every thini may be stated directly. E.g., We may say, "let it Religion, they wo11ldbe applicable equally to the gardcd as witty; not ha, be admitted, that no testimony can satisfactorily constitution and course of Nature. Had he, on the the combination, when establish such a fact as is not agreeable to our ex­ other hand, assumed, for the argument's sake, sound Reasoning . The perience; thence it will follow that the Eastern that such objections against Religion are valid, conceals from their vie\l Prince judged wisely and rightly, in at once re­ and had thence proved the condition of the nat­ jecting, as a manifest falsehood, the account ural world to be totally different from what we Danger of irony. given him of the ph:cnomenon of ice; but he was see it to be, his arguments, which would have evidently mistaken in so doing; therefore the been the same in substance, would have assumed And moreover if sucl Principle assumed is unsound." Now the sub­ an ironical form. This form has been adopted by be employed on seric stance of this Argument remaining the same, the Burke in his celebmted "Defence of Natural So­ brethren" arc sometime : form of it may be so altered as to make the Argu ­ ciety, by a late noble Lord" ; in which, assuming pears to them a profan~ ment a direct one; viz .• "if if be true that no testi­ the person of Bolingbroke, he proves, according ment to perceive when i mony, &c. that Eastern Prince must have judged to the principles of that author, that the argu­ and when it docs not, af wisely, &c., but he did not; therefore that prin~ ments he brought against ecclesiastical, would self . But for the rcspcc ciplc is not true." equally lie against civil, institutions . This is an Argument from Analogy, as well as Bishop But­ ler's, though not relating to the same point; But­ Character of comlitimwl propo.ritim,.r. •7'fo these examples may ler's being a defence of the Doctrine.<;of Reli­ lo some Members of the Un Universally indeed a Conditional Proposition gion; Burke's, of itc; /11.\"lillltimu· and practical fir.st published in 1835, and nt may be regarded as an assertion of the validity of effects. A defence of the El'iJences of our reli­ Bishop Dickinson." It is the a certain Argument; the Antecedent correspond - gion, (the third point against which objections vcrificutitm of the predictions nppenrcd, many were dispose, have been urged,) on a similar plan with the work •ftscc Ltiglc, Chapter on ><•SeeLogic, h. ii, c. iv. § 6, IAu.J of Burke just mentioned, and consequently, like (Au .}

~ 5~1l •/f>0~ G. 1026 NINETEENTH-CENTURY RHETORIC '* ~~\.l.C...«- ,1,tt..... r... k4. tS . .,, ~ r;.\-.-.\~ -"r~ 1.i.s~i>i.....;\-._c:;I•6-,..,<'.S A tc,\,l k...~ the Consequent lo the that, in an ironical fonn, I attempted some years taunt or Elijah against the prophets of Baal, and if them being asserted ago, in a pamphlet (published anonymously, Isaiah's against those who "bow down lo the •nee of the one on the merely for the preservation or its ironical charac­ stock of a tree," would probably appear to such is, to acknowledge as a ter), whose object was lo show, that objections persons irreverent. And the caution now implied 1 of the Consequent, as ("Historic Doubts") similar to those against the will appear the more important, when it is con• ~ism, or (as in the de­ Scripture-history, and much more plausible, sidered how large a majority they are, who, in e Antecedent: and the might be urged against all the received accounts this point, come under the description of "weak 2 lOnds to Direct reason­ of Napoleon Buonaparte. ., brethren." He that can laugh at what is ludicrous, l( •eing, as has been said, h is in some respects a recommendation of and at the same time preserve a clear discernment * Direct form; as is evi­ this latter method, and in others an objection lo it, of sound and unsound Reasoning, is no ordinary Juced. that the sophistry of an adversary will often be man. And moreover the resentment and mortifi· exposed by it in a ludicrous point of view; and cation felt by those whose unsound doctrines, or imems. this even where no such effect is designed; the sophistry, are fully exposed and held up to con- very essence of jest being its mimic sophistry.2 H tempt or ridicule, - this, they will often disguise !Se two modes of stat­ This will often give additional force lo the Argu­ from others, and sometimes from themselves, by ' considerable, when ment, by the vivid impression which ludicrous representing the contempt or ridicule as directed 1soning. For when we images produce; but again it will not unfre­ against serious or sacred subjects, and not, :r.._. , m, and assume as true quently have this disadvantage, that weak men, against their own absurdities: just as if those idol· ~ disprove, it is evident perceiving the wit, are apt to conclude that nolh- alors above alluded lo had represented the :;:,., cally, and in the char­ ,t. ing but wit is designed; and lose sight perhaps of Prophets as ridiculing devotional feelings, and H nenl, of an adversary; a solid and convincing Argument, which they re· not, merely the absurd misdirection of them to a : use the hypothetical gard as no more than a good joke. Having been log of wood. And such persons will often in this ler's Analog y is an in- warned lhal "ridicule is not the test of truth," and way exercise a powerful innuence on those 1re; he contends that if "that wisdom and wit" are not the same thing, whose understanding is so cloudy that they do ere admissible against they distrust every thing lhal can possibly be re­ not clearly perceive against what the ridicule is plicable equally to the garded as willy; not having judgment to perceive directed, or who are too dull to understand it at -.Jature. Had he, on the the combination, when it occurs, of Wit with all. For there are some persons so conslituled as the argument's sake, sound Reasoning. The ivy wreath completely to be altogether incapable of even comprehend- sl Religion are valid, conceals from their view the point of the Thyrsus. ing the plainest irony; though they have not in condition of the nat­ other point~ any corresponding weakness of in· fferenl from what we Da11gerof irony. lellect, The humorous satirical pamphlet, (attrib· s, which would have uted lo an eminent literary character,) entitled would have assumed And moreover if such a mode of Argument "Advice to a Reviewer," I have known persons -'$t' has been adopted by be employed on serious subjects, the "weak read without perceiving that it was ironical. And !fence of Natural So- brethren" are sometimes scandalized by what ap· the same, with the "Historic Doubts" lately re· '; in which, assuming pears lo them a profanation; nol having discern­ ferred to. Such persons, when assured lhal such and he proves, according ment lo perceive when it is that the ridicule does, such a Work contains ridicule, and that it has some uthor, that the argu­ and when it does not, affect the solemn subject it­ references to matters of grave importance, take for ecclesiastical, would self. Bul for lhc respect paid to Holy Writ, the granted lhal it must be a work of profane levity. stitution s. This is an There is also this danger in the use of irony; ; well as Bishop But~ that sometimes when titles, in themselves fa­ the same point; But­ •rr o these examples may be udded the "Pustoral Epistle vourable, are applied (or their application re· e Doctrines of Rcli• 10 some Members of !he UniVel'$ity of Oxford, " (Fellowc,~) tained) lo any set of men, in biller scorn, they utions and practical lirst published in 1835, und now reprinted in the ..Remains of will then sometimes be enabled lo appropriate vidences of our reli- Bishop Dickinson." It is the more vuluable, now, from the such titles in a serious sense; the ironical force 1sl which objection s 1•erifict11io11of the predictions it conluins, which, when it first gradually evaporating. I mean, such titles as "Or· 1r plan with the work appeared, muny were disposed lo regard us extravagant [Au.I •~see Logic, Chapter on Fa/Jacies, at the conclusion. lhodox," "Evangelical," "Saints," "Reformers," d con sequently, like !Au.] "Liberals," "Political-Economists," "Rational,"

.f ~ s~ll •/,. c:,frC..\l,c.vh WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1027 4M~ .\L.\-l~\A,:,~ ' . .. -tk Dl1 s«.,.,ss1 '1.Vft.•.,..St>o• i~v ~~,-bl'1 &c. The advantage thus given may be illustrated against every other supposition. This is a most the Conclusion itsell by the story of the cocoanuts in Sinbad the important caution for those who arc studying the guments brought fo Sailor's fiflh voyage. Evidences of Religion. Let the opposer of them he been satisfactorily re It may be observed generally, that too much called on, instead of confining himself to de­ haps there is no grm stress is often laid, especially by unpractised rea­ tached cavils, and saying, "how do you answer these are all the argu soners, on Refutation; (in the strictest and nar ­ this?" and "how do you explain that?" to frame This may be considet rowest sense, i.e., of Objections to the Premises, some consistent hypothesis to account for the in~ the Consequent of or to the Reasoning;) I mean, that they arc apt troduction of Christianity by human means; and from the Anteceden both to expect a Refutation where none can fairly then to consider whether there arc more or fewer such and such an Ari be expected, and to attribute to it, when satisfac ­ difficulties in his hypothesis than in the other. sertion in question is torily made out, more than it really accomplishes. inadmissible; therefo, Hence the injury don, So11his1icalRef111utio11 . a.lwol.\c ~ ~~tA t vocate; the cause itse l Ummswerable arg11111e111smay exist m1 bmh sides. On the other hand, one may often meet with a be overthrown, when For first, not only specious, but real and solid ar• sophistical refutation of objections, consisting in ward are answered. guments, such as it would be difficult, or impos ­ counter ~objections urged against something else "Hence the dangc ..,,, sible to refute, may be urged against a Proposition which is taken for granted to be, though it is not. than can be well mair which is nevertheless true, and may be satisfacto­ the 011/yalternative. E.g., Objections against an ~~~ t"'-4,b,-u,

rily established by a preponderanceof probabil ­ unlimited Monarchy may be met by a glowing 2 . ~r : J "Another fonn or i,:11 ity.~9 It is in strictly scientific Reasoning alone description of the horrors of the mob-govern · .~ion), which is rather the rr that all the arguments which lead to a false Con - ment of the Athenian and Roman Republics. If respondent, is, In prove or d clusion must be fallacious. In what is called moral an exclusive attention to mathematical pursuits required. and dwell on that. or probable Reasoning, there may be sound argu ­ be objected to, it may be answered by deprecat ­ "Thus, if a University is JI mere clements of Malhcm 0 ments, and valid objections, on both sides.J E.g., ing the excl11,Iim1 of such studies. It is thus that a hooks studied then: is pro<.lu It may be shown that each of two contending par , man commonly replies to the censure passed on books be 1101e/eme11tary, th , tics hac;some reason to hope for success; and this, any vice he is addicted to, by representing some the Sophisl may then cam, by irrefragab\c arguments on both sides; leading other vice as worse; e.g., if he is blamed for books are elementary ~ and question, , i;:..whether they being a sot, he dilates on the greater enormity of to conclusions which arc not (strictly speaking) the answerer of II book : su contradictory to each other; for though only one being a thief; as if there were any need he should work to be irrcfragable, ii v. party can obtain the victory, ii may be true that be either. And it is in this way alone that the ad~ of them. or some subor<.limll each has some reason to expect it. The real ques­ vacates of Transportation have usually defended a plausible objcclion ; the op it: describing some very ill-managed peniten­ these incidental quest ions, a tion in such cases is, which event is the more lo such and such a work." - probable; - on which side the evidence prepon ­ tiary system, and assuming, as self-evident and dicnt which cm.rwererssome derates. Now it often happens that the inexperi ­ admitted, that this must be the only possible sub­ likely lo remain pcnnanentl3 enced reasoner, thinking it necessary that every stitute for Penal Colonies. J• This fallacy may be exhibiting staten1cnL~ wilho objection should be satisfactorily answered, will slated logically, as a Disjunctive Hypothetical, sions with out their proofs, - out of their original order; - have his attention drawn off from the arguments with the Major, false. of falsehood. confusion, or of the opposite side, and will be occupied perhaps boldest step is for the "'ans\l in making a weak defence, while victory was in Overe.rtimate of the for ce of ref111atio11. ment or absurd remark. and his hands. The objection perhaps may be unan ­ And even this artifice will st. Secondly, the force of a Refutation is often over­ cause many persons do not ! swerable, and yet may safely be allowed, if it can lure upon it. Again, it is no u1 be shown that more and weightier objections lie rated: an argument which is satisfactorily an­ ous sophist. when there is sor swered ought merely to go for nothing: it is pos­ &c. which he c:mnnt dircctl) sible that the conclusion drawn may nevertheless cordiality, but with some exc, 2~See above, cl1, ii. i 4. and al~u ltlg ic, Part iii, § I 7. be true: yet men are apt lo take for granted that (as e.g .• an additional clause [Au.J ingly unimponant, shall cnti, J"Bacon, in his rhetorical t ommonp !ates - hends o r urgu• been humorously compared 1 mcnts pm and comm , on .~cvernl que~Hons - has some ad· .J•See Lellcrs lo Earl Grey on the subjccl. - Rcport of well -known talc, who "look mirahlc illustrnlion$ nr what has heen here remarked . [Au.I Commiuee , and "Substance of a Speech." &c. [Au.) (Au.(

1028 NINIHE l:NTl·I -Cl::NTURY RHETORIC sition. This is a most the Conclusion iL'ielf is disproved, when the Ar­ of that will oflen quash the whole. A guilty per­ : who are studying the guments brought forward to establish it have son may often escape by having ,loo much laid to the opposer of them be been satisfactorily refuted ; assuming, when per­ his charge; so he may also by having too much fining himself lo de­ haps there is no ground for the assumption, that evidence against him, i.e., some that is nol in it• "how do you answer these are all the arguments that could be urged.;,~ self satisfactory: thus a prisoner may sometimes Kplain that?" to frame This may be considered as the fallacy of denying obtain acquittal by showing that one of the wilr nesses against him is an infamous informer and . 10 account for the in• the Consequent of a Conditional Proposition, by human means; and from the Antecedent having been denied: "if spy; though perhaps if that part of the evidence 1ere are more or fewer such and such an Argument be admitted, the As• had been omitted, the rest would have been suffi r s than in the other. sertion in question is true; but that Argument is cient for conviction."JJ inadmissible; therefore the Assertion i.f not true. " The maxim here laid down, however, applies Hence the injury done to any cause by a weak ad­ only to those causes in which (waiving the con ­ Ill\{' ~ .\kl, ~t' vocate; the cause it.'ielf appearing to the vulgar to sideration of honesty) first, it is wished to pro· my often meet with a be overthrown, when the Arguments brought for­ duce not merely a temporary, but a lasting im~ 1jections, consisting in ward are answered. pression, and that, on readers or hearers of some 1gainst something else "Hence the danger of ever advancing more judgment; and secondly, where there really are to be, though it is not, than can be well maintained ; since the refutation some weighty arguments to be urged. When no Objections against an p.~k M bnll.t1,.-i:.\'Aw~~ 'ot~ charge e.g., can really be substantiated, and yet it is desired to produce some present effect on the be met by a glowing 11·• Another fon n of ig111m1tia ..tc11tlii ( irrelevant conclu­ ; of the mob-govem- sion), which is ruthcr the more serviceable on the side of the unthinking, there may be room for the applicaA Roman Republics. If respondent , i~. to prove or disprove some 11anof thut which is tion of the proverb, "Slander stoutly, and some• required , am! dwell on tlrtll, ~uppres sing all the re,~t. thing will stick": the vulgar are apt lo conclude, mathematical pursuits ..Thu s, if a University is charged with cultlvuting mil}' the mswered by deprecat­ that where a great deal is said, .w11wthingmust be mere clement s of Muthenuatk s, und in reply a list of the true; and many are fond of that lazy contrivance tudies. h is thus that a hook.\ studied there is produced , should even an}' ,me of those the censure passed on books be not elementary, the charge is in fairness refuted; but for saving the trouble of thinking, - "splitting by representing some the Sophist may then earnestly contend that some of those the difference"; imagining that'thcy show a laudA books are elementury : and thus keep out of sight the reul , if he is blamed for able caution in believing only a part of what .is question, viz. whether they are all so. This is the great urt of said. And thus a malignant Sophist may gain he greater enormity of the answerer of a book : suppo ~c the muin po~itions in uny :re any need he should work to be irrefrugable, it will be strange if some illustration such a temporary advanlage by the multiplicity way alone that the ad­ of them, or some subordinate part, in short , will no\ admit of of his auacks, as the rabble of combatanL,; de• a plausible objection; the opponent then joins issue on one of scribed by Homer sometimes did by their show­ have usually defended these incidental questions, and comes forward with 'a Reply' ill•managed peniten­ ers of javelins, which encumbered and weighed to such and such 11 work ." - 1.ogic, b. iii. § 18. Anothcr expe­ down the shield of one of his heroes, though they g, as self -evident and dient which answererssometimes resort to, und which is less the only possible sub- likely to remain permanently undetected, is to garble a book; could not penetrate it. exhibiting statements without their e1'plunutions, - conclu ­ 11 This fallacy may be sions without their proofs, - and passages brought together junctive Hypothetical, out of their original order ; - so us to produce an appearance Objections sl,011/dbe stated ill their /11/1forc e. of falsehood , confusion, or inconclusiveness . The last and boldest step is for the ..answerer " to muke some false state ­ On the above principle,-lhat a weak argument ment or absurd remark, und then father it upon the author . is positively hurtful, is founded a most important efutatio11. And even this urtifkc will somet imes succccd for a time , be, maxim, that it is not only the fairest, but also the cause many persons do nut suspect that any one would ven­ !futation is often over- wisest plan, to state Objections in their Juli ture upon it. Again, it is no un,ommon man

WHATELY I ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC 1029

• k arc unanswerable. It is but a momentary and in­ when it appears that lhe advocate is a"hamed to Maria W. effective triumph that can be oblained by abandon what is unsound. And such an honest manreuvrcs like !hose of Tumus's churiolecr, avowal as I have been recommending, though it 1803-1879 who furiously chased the feeble stragglers of the may raise al first a feeble and brief shout of exul­ army, and evaded the main front of the battle. tation, will soon he followed by a general and in· And when the objections urged arc not unan­ creasing murmur of approbation. UncamJid as lhe Born to free Afric swerable, but (what is more) deci.1·ive,-when world often is, it i,eklom fails lo applaud lhc Miller was left an c some argument that has been adduced, or some magnanimity of conrcssing a defect or a mislake. Protestant clergymar portion of a system, &c. is perceived to be really and to reward it with an increase of confidence. fifteen, when she be•j unsound, it is the wisest way fairly and fully to Indeed this increased confidence is often rashly formal schooling wa confess this, and abandon it altogether. There arc beslowed, by a kind of over ~generosity in the until she was twenty. many who seem to make it a point of honour Public; which is apl too ha,.tily to consider lhe of Morality ( 183 1). ~ never to yield a single point,-never lo retract: confession of an error as a proof of universal sin­ i ng so that the studer or (if this be found unavoidable) "lo back cerity. Some of the most skilful !tophists accord­ rian of rhetoric Shirlt out"-as the phrase is - of an untenable posi­ ingly avail themselves of this; and gain credence tion, so as to display their reluctance to make any for much that is fabe, by acknowledging with ;m cess to books, includi concession; as if their credit wa~ staked on pre­ air of frankness some 011e mistake; which, like a she grew up in the he serving unbroken lhc lalisman of professed infal­ tub thrown to the whale, they sacrifice for the avid desire for educa libility. But there is little wisdom (the question of sake of persuading us that they have commit1cd when one is exhaustc honesty is oul of the province of this trealise) in 011/y 011e error. I fear il can hardly be aflirmcd a~ literacy as a young \I such a procedure; which in fact is very liable to yet, that "thi~ trick has been .so long used in con­ tached lo an 1879 edi cast a suspicion on that which is really sound, troversy, a~ 10 be almost worn out." publications to a youn Maria married Jam years old and he was '""'- Sf u,\,o r .F ~ {~\) ':~ +-\A. hA l.­ well as his surname, ~L""-~ n.,..J..,... ~~ the War of 1812 on rt business as an outline African American co, more than 3 percent Stewart was brought i, was the clergyman wt Thomas Paul, one of church lo avoid the rac the African Baptist Ch in the African Meetin African American chi! Abolitionist Society in Even more impona other community Icade eled widely before sett ncss. James S1ewart ac, Walker was a passion and he embodied his "

'Shirley W1bon Logan, " agy of Ni111amh,Cc11111ryAJ 1995). Jl. ,_

1030 NINETl:ENTl -1-Cf:NTURY RHETORIC