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 others: they should appear in their
due light. In the second case, being naturally weak, they should be made
to support each other. If, therefore, they are not greatly effective in
point of quality, they may be in that of number, all of them having a
tendency to prove the same thing; as, if one were accused of killing
another for the sake of inheriting his fortune: "You did expect an
inheritance, and it was something very considerable; you were poor, and
your creditors troubled you more than ever; you also offended him who
had appointed you his heir, and you know that he intended to alter his
will." These proofs taken separately are of little moment, and common;
but collectively their shock is felt, not as a peal of thunder, but as a
shower of hail.

The judge's memory, however, is not always to be loaded with the
arguments we may invent. They will create disgust, and beget distrust