fatherly love. But he would certainly not have permitted his son Absalom to run at large, capable of doing mischief, and at the same time by small measures of degradation inciting him to do it. And that is just the policy we have followed. We have permitted the late rebels to run at large, capable of doing mischief, and then by small measures of degradation, utterly useless for any good purpose, we incited them to do it. Looking at your political disabilities with an impartial eye, you will find that, as a measure of punishment, they did not go far enough; as a measure of policy they went much too far. We were far too generous to subjugate the hearts of our late enemies by terror; and we mixed our generosity with just enough of bitterness to prevent it from bearing its full fruit. I repeat, we can make the policy of generosity most fruitful only by making it most complete. What objection, then, can stand against this consideration of public good?1

Refutation and persuasion. Persuasion, too, plays an important part in refutation. It obviously affects the placing of general refutation through the relation of the audience to the subject, as has been pointed out on pages 188-195. It also may determine whether or not to use the foregoing rhetorical devices. But perhaps persuasive considerations most profoundly affect refutation in determining the attitude and the temper of the writer toward the various attacks he has to meet, and these in turn greatly affect the style to be employed. There are certain persuasive considerations, moreover, which every writer should take into account in refutation. In the first place, men skilled in argumentation have always recognized the value of granting to a reasonable opposition as much as possible of their case, for thus a writer produces at the outset belief in his fairness, sureness, and mastery of his task. Secondly, one should never intentionally misrepresent an opponent, saying, for example, that he has committed himself to an idea perhaps like his state

1 The Forms of Public Address, pp. 367-368. Henry Holt and Company, 1904. For another illustration of this method see Specimens of Argumentation, pp. 15-16, 1. 25 et seq.

ment but not it exactly. Intentional misrepresentation is likely to have the effect it deserves, to destroy a reader's confidence; but misrepresentation, even when honest, is injurious, for to a reader who sees the mistake it suggests doubt as to whether the writer is keen or just. Moreover, keep your temper. Righteous indignation is justifiable, for of course there are times when palpable trickery or dishonesty deserves excoriating, but irritability is always petty, and anger is safe only when one is sure that a reader must share heartily in it. The underlying facts in all this are that leadership must rest largely on a constant effect of perfect control of one's self and one's material, and that both anger and irritability mean lack of self-control.

Refutation not easy. It is now clear, probably, why refutation is not easily mastered. Depending as it does on analysis, structure, evidence, knowledge of certain methods of presentation, and some persuasion, it can be used with sureness only by him who has mastered all these divisions of argumentation. Practice in it may and should begin early in the study of the subject, but mastery of it inevitably comes late.

The relation of analysis, evidence, and structure. In actual practice there is, of course, no such sharp division between analysis and the use of direct proof and refutation as has been made in the preceding chapters, for even as anyone reads widely in order to inform himself correctly on the history of a question, in order ultimately to find the issues involved in the case, he must meet much evidence. In practice he does not thrust it aside, pressing on with an eye only for the issues, but values it roughly, even as it appears, and stores it away for use if, when the issues have been determined, it shall really prove serviceable to his case. This double and time-saving process is, however, possible only for a person who understands what has already been pointed out in regard to evidence, assertion, and the kinds and the tests of evidence. When, too, analysis has done its

work, a knowledge of all these matters becomes essential, for the outline of the case given by the issues and the related ideas, both found through the history of the question and the clash in opinion, can be developed only through direct proof and refutation, and thoroughly developed only with evidence well selected and valued. Therefore, again, the division between evidence and the next subject to be treated - brief-drawing — is pedagogic, not actual. Really a good brief is a framework provided by analysis and made firm and solid by evidence.

EXERCISES

1. Let the class familiarize itself with the brief, printed herewith, of part of the speech of Eschines vs. Ctesiphon, and with the citation from the reply of Demosthenes to it. In class let the students answer these questions: (1) Does Demosthenes reply to all the charges of Æschines? (2) If not, has he good cause to omit? (3) Does he keep to the order of ideas of Æschines? (4) If not, is there justification for his change of order, and does he gain by it? (5) What is the probative value of the answers he makes?

1" After the battle of Charonea . . . nothing less was expected than an immediate invasion of Attica by Philip; and strong measures were taken, under the advice of Hyperides, to put the city in a posture of defense. One of the most important was the repair of the walls and ramparts. Demosthenes at this time held the office of conservator of walls, having been appointed by his own tribe at the end of the year B.C. 339. The reparation, which had been commenced before, but suspended during the late campaign, was now vigorously prosecuted. He himself superintended the work, and expended on it three talents of his own money, beyond what was allowed out of the public treasury. . . Not many months after the battle, Ctesiphon introduced a bill to the Council of Five Hundred, proposing to reward Demosthenes for his gifts of money to the public, and for his general integrity and good conduct as a statesman. It is not unlikely that the very object of this measure was to stop the attacks upon Demosthenes [by the party favoring the Macedonians], and to give him the opportunity, in case it should be opposed, of justifying the whole course of his political life. With that view was inserted the clause eulogizing his general character as a statesman. The Macedonian party naturally regarded this clause as a reflection upon themselves, and

SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL CHARGES OF ÆSCHINES
AGAINST DEMOSTHENES

The decree granting a crown to Demosthenes breaks the law, for A. Demosthenes cannot make the excuse that he was to be crowned after the accounts had been examined.

B. His office cannot be called a commission or agency, rather than a magistracy, for

1. It is not true that those only are magistrates who are appointed by lot by proper officers, or elected by the people in proper assemblies.

C. He cannot say that he needed to give no account for spending his own money, for

1. A public officer must account for the smallest of public money

expended.

2. Trierarchs, for instance, are expected to account even if they have not spent public money.

a virtual condemnation of the policy which they had for so many years espoused. . . . They resolved upon a course, which was open to them according to the Athenian laws, of indicting Ctesiphon as the author of an illegal measure. His bill, having been approved by the council, and then brought before the popular assembly, was passed in the shape of a decree, by which it was declared to be the will of the council and people of Athens, that Demosthenes should be presented with a golden crown, and that a proclamation should be made in the theatre, at the great Dionysian festival, at the performance of the new tragedies, announcing that Demosthenes was rewarded by the people with a golden crown for his integrity, for the good-will which he had invariably displayed toward all the Greeks and toward the people of Athens, and also for his magnanimity, and because he had ever both by word and deed promoted the interests of the people, and been zealous to do all the good in his power.' This decree, as the opposite party conceived, was open to three objections, two of which were chiefly of a legal nature; the other, while it equally assumed a legal form, called in question the real merits of Ctesiphon's motion. An indictment, embodying all the objections, was preferred before the archon, the chief magistrate of Athens, to whose cognizance a criminal proceeding of this kind appertained. The prosecutor was Eschines, the second of Athenian orators, the deadly enemy of Demosthenes, who would not only be considered by his party as the fittest person to conduct the cause, but was stimulated to it by every motive of rivalry and revenge.. The indictment of Ctesiphon was, however, suffered to lie dormant for more than seven years, and was not brought to trial till the year B. C. 330." Condensed from pages 1-3 of Demosthenes' The Oration on the Crown (C. R. Kennedy). Hinds & Co.

3. The objection that he cannot render any account for a gift is false, for

a. The law provides a form for such cases.

D. He is accountable, for

1. He was the manager of public theatrical funds.

2. He was inspector of fortifications.

3. His objection as to the form of elections (cf. B) does not hold. E. The place of presentation is wrong, for

1. The law names a different place.

2. The objections as to the festivals do not hold, for

a. It is odd that contradictory laws should exist side by side.

b. It is impossible that they should so exist, for

(1) The people would have changed one or the other.

c. It is true only of crowns presented by Athenians to foreign states.

ANSWER OF DEMOSTHENES TO THE CHARGES OF ESCHINES

I conceive it remains for me to speak of the proclamation and the accounts: for, that I acted for the best—that I have throughout been your friend and zealous in your service—is proved abundantly, methinks, by what I have said already. The most important part of my policy and administration I pass by, considering that I have in regular course to reply to the charge of illegality; and besides - though I am silent as to the rest of my political acts—the knowledge you all have will serve me equally well.

As to the arguments which he jumbled together about the counterwritten laws, I hardly suppose you comprehend them—I myself could not understand the greater part. However I shall argue a just case in a straightforward way. So far from saying that I am not accountable, as the prosecutor just now falsely asserted, I acknowledge that I am all my life accountable for what as your statesman I have undertaken or advised; but for what I have voluntarily given to the people out of my own private fortune, I deny that I am any day accountable- do you hear, Eschines? nor is any other man, let him even be one of the nine archons. For what law is so full of injustice and inhumanity as to enact, that one who has given of his private means, and done an act of generosity and munificence, instead of having thanks, shall be brought before malignants, appointed to be the auditors of his liberality? None. If he says there is, let him produce it, and I will be content and hold my tongue. But there is none, men of Athens. The prosecutor in his malice, because I gave some of my own money when I superintended the theatre fund, says the Council praised him before he had rendered his account." Not for any matters of which I had an account to render, but for what I spent of my own, you malignant!