5. Lastly, the introduction should be accommodated, both in length and character, to the discourse that is to follow: in length, as nothing can be more absurd than to erect an immense vestibule before a diminutive building; and in character, as it is no less absurd to overcharge with superb ornaments the portico of a plain dwelling-house, or to make the entrance to a monument as gay as that to an arbor. The "Division" is that part of a discourse in which the writer [or speaker] makes known to his hearers the method to be pursued, and the heads he intends to take, in treating his subject. There are many cases in which the Division is unnecessary; some, in which its introduction would even be improper: as, for instance, when only a single argument is to be used. * * * The third division of a discourse is the Statement, in which the facts connected with the subject are laid open. This generally forms an important part of legal pleadings. The statement should be put forth in a clear and forcible style. The writer [speaker] must state his facts in such a way as to keep strictly within the bounds of truth, and yet to present them under the colors that are most favorable to his cause; to place in the most striking light every circumstance that is to his advantage, and explain away, as far as possible, such as make against him. The fourth division is the Reasoning; and on this everything depends. It is here that the arguments are found which are to induce conviction, and to prepare for which is the object of the parts already discussed. The following suggestions should be regarded:
1. "The speaker should select such arguments only as he feels to be solid and convincing. He must not expect to impose on the world by mere arts of language; but, placing himself in the situation of a hearer, should think how he would be affected by the reasoning which he proposes to use for the persuasion of others."
2. "When the arguments employed are strong and satisfactory, the more they are distinguished and treated apart from each other, the better; but, when they are weak or doubtful, it is expedient rather to throw them together, than to present each in a clear and separate light."
3. "When we have a number of arguments of different degrees of strength, it is best to begin and close with the stronger, placing the weaker in the midde, where they will naturally attract least attention."
4 "Arguments should not be multiplied too much, or extended too far. Besides burdening the memory, and lessening the effect of individual points, such diffuseness renders a cause suspected."
5. "The fifth division is the Appeal to the Feelings. This should be short and to the point. All appearance of art should be strictly avoided. To move his hearers, the speaker must be moved himself. The last division of a discourse is the peroration; in which the speaker sums up all that has been said, and endeavors to leave a forcible impression on the hearer's mind." (Course of Composition and Rhetoric, Quackenbos, pp. 385-89.)
The "Appeal" and the "Peroration," I suggest, should be combined and called "the conclusion," and if in that conclusion there is to be an "appeal" it should, in argumentative discourses, be made to the reason rather than to the feelings, since argument is addressed to the intellect rather than to the emotions.
One other suggestion I offer in the argumentative discourse—let the statement of the theory you intend to overthrow be presented in absolute fairness; so fair that those who are advocates of it could have no possible grounds of complaint against you if they were present and listening to your discourse. Assume that they are present, and so proceed as if they were to answer you. Remember, that not only in argumentative discourse, but also in expository discourse, and in all things else, truth only will endure. Let truth, then, its unfolding, its exposition, its establishment be the object of your endeavor.
Clearness: In Lesson VI. I called attention to the importance of clearness in thought expression, or speech. I now return to the subject. The quality of clearness in the expression of thought "consists of such a use and arrangement of words or clauses as at once distinctly indicate the meaning of the writer" [or speaker] (Quackenbos). "A writer [or speaker] should choose that word or phrase which will convey his meaning with clearness. It is not enough to use language that may be understood; he should use language that must be understood." "Any writer who has read even a little will know what is meant by the word 'intelligible.' It is not sufficient that there be a meaning that may be hammered out of the sentence, but that the language should be so clear that the meaning should be rendered without an effort of the hearer; and not only some proposition of meaning, but the very sense, no more and no less, which the speaker has intended to put into his words." (Principles of Rhetoric, Hill, p. 82.)
Perhaps one of the most forceful writers of English wras Lord Macaulay; remembered chiefly by his History of England, though his essays and speeches in Parliament are well nigh of equal literary value. The one quality of his literary style which stands out more prominently than any other is the quality of clearness: "What he saw at all he saw distinctly; what he believed he believed with his whole strength; he wrote on subjects with which he had long been familiar; and he made lucidity his primary object in composition. For him, in short, there was no difficulty in securing clearness, except that which is inherent in the nature of language. This difficulty he overcame with unusual success, as all his critics admit." (Hill's Rhetoric, p. 83.)