ence has a natural tendency to doubt the modesty of a speaker. For the moment he is on a plane a little above his auditors; he stands as their leader in thought and action. Now an audience are willing to be led, but they object to being driven. They will accept leadership, but they will rebel against dictation, and they are quick to notice any assumption of superiority or command. The line between leadership and dictation, between equality and assumed superiority, is the dead-line of friendship with the audience, and a speaker who crosses the line has lost much of the power of persuasion. This is the essence of the art of persuasion; the relation of the speaker to his audience and of the writer to his reader must always be an attitude of leadership.

Assuming that the arguer knows the character of his audience, has learned by study of human nature how to reach the emotions he sees before him, and is keeping in sympathy with the men he is seeking to persuade, it still remains for him to apply his own particular subject to the particular audience. In order to do this, he needs to consider carefully what ideas in his proof will most forcibly affect the emotions of his hearers or readers. There are in every question certain phases of it that have a particular interest for any particular audience. The workingmen of Liverpool in 1863 were most interested in the industrial side of the slavery question, and Beecher showed his consummate tact in choosing this as the one phase to be treated above all others at the mass

meeting in Philharmonic Hall (see p. 192). It would have been folly to have discussed the question from the standpoint of American patriotism. On the other hand, before a council of clergymen in the United States, it would have been the immorality of "man owning man" that would have been the theme of persuasion.

It often happens that speakers and writers treat their subjects from too many points of view. They turn the question over and examine it on every side, when the men whom they address are moved in mind or heart by only one aspect of it all. Intellect may be the same in every audience, varying only in the degree of its keenness; but the emotional interests of audiences differ widely in their very nature. In any subject there are only certain phases that can touch these varying emotions, and it is a fundamental duty of one who would persuade, to consider well what these interesting phases are. Then his appeals will be well directed toward the vulnerable points, and his blows will be of some effect on the will of his audience.

The work of persuasion as here outlined takes varied forms in the different parts of the presentation. These particular forms are best discussed in the following chapters, on the introduction, the discussion, and the conclusion.

CHAPTER II

THE INTRODUCTION

THE duty of the introduction is to prepare the way for the work of the discussion proper. This duty

of the introduction is twofold. Both the intellect and the emotions must be reached in the discussion, and so both must be made ready by the work of the introduction. The intellect must be prepared, so that all the proofs may have their fullest effect; the emotions, in order that the speaker or writer may, from the first, be brought into harmony with the forces that will ultimately sway his audience. So the introduction must contain both conviction and persuasion.

Conviction

We have seen that, with respect to conviction, it is the duty of the introduction to give all the information necessary for an understanding of the discussion; also that the parts usually necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose are, briefly: (1) a definition of terms; (2) an explanation of the question in such a way as to lead up to (3) the issues, and (4) the partition or statement of the points to be proved in the discussion.

I. Definition.

Definition in argumentation serves two purposes. It serves, first, to enable the writer himself, in the beginning of his work in preparation, to find out the real meaning of the question. Secondly, it serves to make the meaning of the question clear to the reader or hearer. In the execution of the former of these two purposes the definitions do not need to be expressed at all; it is sufficient that the investigator find and understand them himself. But in presenting his proofs to others, the arguer must consider the methods he will need to use, in order to make his definitions effective with the persons he is seeking to convince.

To present a definition forcibly is not always easy. A mere dictionary definition, which we have seen to be of little or no value in finding out the meaning of the question, is of even less value in the work of presentation. If a person does not understand the meaning of a word or phrase, his confusion will not usually be cleared away by the quotation of a mere sentence from a dictionary. In the first place, such a definition is nearly always too short and too compact to be grasped in its full meaning, in the short time given for the statement of it. Moreover, it will probably not be convincing. If the person who is being argued with is to be made to accept fully the definition, he must be persuaded of its reasonableness; he must be made to see why the term means what the disputant says, and so be brought to accept it without

mental reserve or qualification. It is for these reasons that we find all the best argumentative writers and speakers taxing the resources of their ingenuity for interesting, clear, and forcible methods of presenting their definitions.

The following are some of the most common and effective

ways:

(1) Definition by authority.

The argument from authority, which we have already considered elsewhere, may be used with good effect in the explanation of definitions. We have seen that a dictionary statement is of little value; but there are few ways of defining more persuasive with an audience, than to quote to them an explanation of the term, as given by some recognized specialist in that branch of human affairs with which the word or phrase is concerned. The quotation, however, should not be too short or too dogmatic in form. It should be an explanation rather than a mere sentence statement. Also, care should be taken, as in any argument from authority, that the reliability of the person quoted is fully recognized, so that the definition may have the full force of expert evidence. In using this method, also, it is usually desirable to explain the quotation, either before or after reading it, in order to be sure that it is understood and accepted by the persons addressed. It will be noticed that in the selection that follows, the speaker, after citing his definition, goes on at considerable length to comment on the reasonableness