r his dignity puts him above your trifling, or he is of a
peevish humor, he will oblige you to speak to the purpose, and perhaps
do so in disrespectful terms.

PITFALLS IN ARGUMENT

Many doubt the desirability of this kind of defense: "If I had killed
him, I should have done well; but I did not kill him." Where is the
occasion, say they, for the first proposition if the second be true?
They run counter to each other, and whoever advances both, will be
credited in neither. This is partly true, for if the last proposition be
unquestionable, it is the only one that should be used. But if we are
apprehensive of anything in the stronger, we may use both. On these
occasions persons seem to be differently affected; one will believe the
fact, and exculpate the right; another will condemn the right, and
perhaps not credit the fact. So, one dart may be enough for an unerring
hand to hit the mark, but chance and many darts must effect the same
result for an uncertain aim. Cicero clears up this matter in his defense
of Milo. He first shows Clodius to be the aggressor, and then, by a
superabundance of right, adds that tho he might not be the aggressor, it
was brave and glorious in Milo to have delivered Rome of so bad a
citizen.

Tho division may not always be necessary, yet when properly used it
gives great light and beauty to a discourse. This it effects not only by
adding more perspicuity to what is said, but also by refreshing the
minds of the hearers by a view of each part circumscribed within its
bounds; just so milestones ease in some measure the fatigue of
travelers, it being a pleasure to know the extent of the labor they have
undergone, and to know what remains encourages them to persevere, as a
thing does not necessarily seem long when there is a certainty of coming
to the end.

ESSENTIALS OF GOOD ARGUMENT

Every division, therefore, when it may be employed to advantage, ought
to be first clear and intelligible, for what is worse than being obscure
in a thing, the use of which is to guard against obscurity in other
things? Second, it ought to be short, and not encumbered with any
superfluous word, because we do not enter upon the subject matter, but
only point it out.

If proofs be strong and cogent, they should be proposed and insisted on
separately; if weak, it will be best to collect them into a body. In the
first case, being persuasive by themselves, it would be improper to
obscure them by the confusion of