d in
proper form and that that defect which offends them is above all
things to be avoided namely, that of introducing what is self evident
into the summing up.

But this will be possible to be effected if we come to a right
understanding of the different kinds of summing up. For we shall
either sum up in such a way as to unite together the proposition and
the assumption, in this way--"But if it is right for all laws to be
referred to the general advantage of the republic, and if this man
ensured the safety of the republic, undoubtedly he cannot by one
and the same action have consulted the general safety and yet have
violated the laws,"--or thus, in order that the opinion we advocate
may be established by arguments drawn from contraries, in this
manner--"It is then the very greatest madness to build hopes on the
good faith of those men by whose treachery you have been so repeatedly
deceived,"--or so that that inference alone be drawn which is already
announced, in this manner--"Let us then destroy their city,"--or so
that the conclusion which is desired must necessarily follow from the
assertion which has been established, in this way--"If she has had a
child, she has laid with a man. But she has had a child." This then is
established. "Therefore she has lain with a man." If you are unwilling
to draw this inference, and prefer inferring what follows, "Therefore
she has committed incest," you will have terminated your argumentation
but you will have missed an evident and natural summing up.

Wherefore in long argumentations it is often desirable to draw
influences from combinations of circumstances, or from contraries. And
briefly to explain that point alone which is established, and in
those in which the result is evident, to employ arguments drawn from
consequences. But if there are any people who think that argumentation
ever consists of one part alone they will be able to say that it is
often sufficient to carry-on an argumentation in this way.--"Since
she has had a child, she has lain with a man." For they say that
this assertion requires no proof, nor assumption, nor proof of an
assumption, nor summing up. But it seems to us that they are misled
by the ambiguity of the name. For argumentation signifies two things
under one name, because any discussion respecting anything which is
either probable or necessary is called argumentation, and so also is
the systematic polishing of such a discussion.

When then they