setting up an individual despot, (d) even though it does not go so far as this, it enfeebles the public administration, (e) foments insurrection, and (f) opens the door to foreign interference. This also illustrates the kind of proof called the chain of reasoning from cause to effect.

Another kind of proof is the specific instance. The specific instances of disorder, insurrection, governmental embarrassment, foreign interference supported by domestic faction, were too recent to require mention they were matters of common knowledge. The appeal to common knowledge or to universal exexperience is often offered in this way as a substitute for specific instances. One form of this appeal is the proverb and the maxim.

Instead of, or in addition to, the specific instances cited or the common knowledge appealed to, reference may be made to the testimony of individuals or to the authority of books or of experts. It is usually necessary in employing this argument-the argument from authority-to show that the authority quoted is competent to speak to the point in issue, is disinterested and unprejudiced and entirely worthy of confidence. We note that Douglas in explaining the mistake with which Lincoln had charged him, is careful to attend to these matters (p. 139, ll. 10-20). The argument derived from what we know of human nature, which Franklin employs in the first three pages of his speech (pp. 3941) and which Washington employs repeatedly in the Farewell Address, is a common form of the argument from cause to effect.

The order in which arguments shall be arranged must be determined anew for every address. Each address has its own logic, its own natural order, and the re

quirements of coherence are supreme. The advice is often given, not to place a weak argument first; but there is really no good place for a weak argument; a weak argument will not knowingly be used at all if a speaker discovers its weakness in time. The subject itself, the form of statement which the proposition. takes, will always suggest some logical order for the argument, and this order will in general be the best and the most economical. But this order may be modified to meet the state of mind of the audience. It is well, for instance, to begin with an argument with which people are familiar; rather than with one that has been developed by research. It is well to begin with an argument that can be dealt with briefly, conclusively and simply, rather than with one that requires nicety of distinction and extended reasoning. It is well to close with the argument that the speaker himself values most. But all of these suggestions must give way in favor of logic and coherence.

The work of refutation is as important as the work of affirmation or direct proof. It consists not merely in replying to arguments that have actually been advanced, but also in considering unspoken objections that naturally suggest themselves. An argument is refuted either by disproving the fact on which it is based, or by disproving the inference that has been drawn from the fact. Lincoln (pp. 114-115) answering the seven interrogatories put to him, first denies point-blank the fact on which each inference is based; and then (pp. 116-118) takes up each question a second time, explaining more fully his position on each and guarding himself against too broad or too narrow an inference from his first answers. On page 120, the refutation is a denial of the fact. When the fact is admitted to be

true and the inference drawn from it is true in part, and false in part, the refutation is effected by pointing out the distinction as Washington does (p. 59, 11. 9-23) in admitting the advantage of party spirit in a monarchy but denying its advantage in a republic. It does not follow (non sequitur), he says, that because party spirit is useful in Europe, it should be encouraged in America.

In Hamilton's speech (p. 46, 11. 20-25) we have another device of refutation-the dilemma. Hamilton has shown that the states cannot be depended upon to coerce one another. Then if delinquent states are to be coerced at all, they must be coerced by a Federal Army, or the Federal Treasury will be left unsupplied with funds. But it would be unsafe to put the army and the taxing power under the control of a single chamber like that provided for in the Articles of Confederation. We must, therefore, adopt the new Constitution which provides for two chambers, a Senate and a House, with other checks and safeguards. Here one dilemma follows another in quick succession.

In connection with refutation, sometimes as a substitute for it, the personal argument and the retort, are likely to appear. The Lincoln-Douglas debate supplies several instances of each (pp. 113, 114, 120, 121, 123, 127, 129, 130, 137, 140). The destructive work of refutation is so closely interwoven with the constructive work of affirmation that each part of it is naturally associated with some one of the direct proofs and the two should be usually presented together or in close sequence. It often happens that the refutation of some prejudicial argument that is widely believed, is necessary at the beginning of the argument.

3. The Conclusion. One purpose of the conclusion is

to sum up in brief the whole matter that has been discussed. In an argumentative discourse the summary will often be bare and formal, recalling in order the points argued in the discussion. In an expository discourse the summary will not be made as an exact repetition, but will be presented with some variation and addition. Thus Phillips (p. 241, ll. 4-11) while summarizing his points, makes a direct call for action; and Stephens (pp. 172-173), while summarizing his, makes them count as an appeal to patriotism and self-interest. Often in an expository address the place of the summary is occupied by an enforcement of the theme as a whole, or by a heightened treatment of the one chief point of the discussion, as in Grady's address (p. 253). Another purpose of the conclusion is to afford opportunity for a final appeal to the feelings. Here, if anywhere, the audience is prepared to receive such an appeal. The conclusion of Lincoln's First Inaugural (pp. 187-188) and that of Grady's address (p. 253) are highly persuasive partly on account of the introduction of the prophetic element and the element of faith in the supremacy of man's better impulses. An apt quotation often does this work most effectively. The conclusion should be brief and direct. It should be closely related in thought and spirit to the thought and spirit of the whole discourse.

SUMMARY OF THE PLAN OF STUDY.

The topics discussed in the preceding pages are the principal things to consider in the study of a speech. First of all, it is profitable to learn something of the speaker, the audience, and the occasion for speaking; then it is wise to place the speech in its class; next, it is well to mark the most conspicuous evidences of the

oral quality in the speech and the favorite devices of the speaker. Finally will come the division of the speech into its logical parts and a study of its rhetorical and literary methods. In all of this work the student should keep in mind the fact that those who made these speeches were men with a message, men with a purpose to bring things to pass, men whose chief interest was in ideas rather than forms of expression, in thought rather than style. The chief prerequisite, therefore, to an appreciation of their work is a mastery of their ideas and their principles.