exercises should be carefully criticized in reference to each of the general laws of explanation.

EXERCISES IN EXEMPLIFICATION.

1. Exemplify the theme plant, in respect of its attribute of growth, by the example of a vine.

2. Exemplify the theme intelligence, in respect of its attribute of growth, by the same example.

3. Exemplify gravitation by the revolution of a planet. 4. Exemplify instinct by the bee.

5. Exemplify patriotism by the story of Regulus.

6. Exemplify filial affection in Ruth.

7. Exemplify philanthropy in Howard.

8. Exemplify luxury in Rome.

9. Exemplify by instances to be selected, the following themes: Fickleness of fortune; danger of parleying with temptation; growth of corruption in republics; timidity of guilt; respect for law in free republics; force of example; female heroism; insecurity of arbitrary power; power of habit; the rewards of honesty.

CHAPTER VII.

OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST.

§ 105. COMPARISON AND CONTRAST is that process of explanation which exhibits the theme in the light of its resemblances or differences in reference to another object of the same class.

The precise relationship in which this process stands to the other processes of explanation, it will not be difficult, after the expositions that have been given of those others, to determine. The first two of those processes, narration and description, respect objects as they are given us by the faculties of original cognition - perception and intuition. The other four respect cognitions that are the pure product of thought, being formed by the combination of the subjects of several judgments having a common predicate, or of the predicates of judgments having a common subject; in other words, by the combination into classes of objects having a common attribute, or into a composite attribute, of attributes belonging to a common object. Notions so formed by combination, may be explained by exhibiting the individual objects which, being combined, formed the class, or the simple attributes which by their union formed the composite attribute. In the one case, we have the process called Division; in the other case, that called Partition. But it is obvious that the class may be explained by the indication of the common attribute of the class as it is found in some individual of the class familiarly known. This process is Exemplification. Still further, it is obvious that the individuals

which compose the class must have some attribute or attributes in common; in respect of which they so far resemble one another. The indication of this common attribute in one of the class is so far an explanation of any other of the class, the attribute in one being the same as in the other. This process is rhetorical Comparison. But as no two objects are alike in all respects, any two in a class must have differences as well as resemblances; and the indication of these differences is a kind of negative explanation. This process is rhetorical Contrast.

Besides these processes, it is clear that there can be no others, unless, indeed, there be modifications of one or another of these, or a notion given us by some other faculty than those named, the perceptive, the intuitive, and the discursive. Some psychologists, indeed, seem to have reckoned among the faculties of the intelligence, also, the faculty of imagination. But the objects that come into our minds through the agency of this faculty, are simply the wholes of form, the three constituent elements of which are the idea, embodied in the form, the matter in which it is embodied, and the embodiment itself as the act of the imagination. The nature of this process, so far as it demands consideration in an art of rhetoric, will be discussed elsewhere. far as a product of this faculty is a theme for explanation, it seems unnecessary to make it the ground of admitting a distinct process, for any important rhetorical purpose. Besides, the present immature condition of psychological science in reference to this faculty forbids any proper treatment in the art of rhetoric which presupposes psychological science as settled, and grounds itself upon it. It must suffice simply to indicate this other kind of whole in thought which the processes enumerated do not directly respect.

But so

§ 106. In Comparison the theme is explained by the exhibition in another individual belonging to the class of the attribute or attributes common to the class, the

attention being turned on the resemblances between the two.

In Contrast, the theme is explained by the exhibition in another individual belonging to the class of the attribute or attributes which do not belong in common to them, the attention being turned on the differences between the two.

In other words, the process is by Comparison when the resemblances are given in the explanation; by Contrast, when the differences are presented.

The chief magistracy of a republic may thus be explained in comparison by an exhibition of the functions, relations, and influences of the kingly office in unlimited monarchy, so far as they are common to both. It represents the nation; is the center of unity to them; is first among them; leads them; administers law for them, and the like. It may be explained in contrast by the points of opposition. The king in a pure monarchy is the end, and the state the means; the president in a republic is the means, the state the end. The one absorbs the state in himself; the other is absorbed in it. The one uses all the energies of the state for his own pleasure; the other uses his for the state.

Thus, also, truth and error may be compared as states of mind, occasioned and determined by similar causes, etc. They may be contrasted in their opposite natures and influ

ences.

§ 107. In Comparison and Contrast, the resemblance in the one case and the opposition in the other may lie in the constituent natures, the properties of the objects compared or contrasted, or in the relations which they sustain. In the former case the process is denominated DIRECT COMPARISON AND CONTRAST; in the latter case, it is denominated ANALOGICAL COMPARISON AND CONTRAST, or generally, ANALOGY.

Virtue and vice are compared or contrasted directly when represented as moral states resembling or differing from each other in respect of their essential character or properties. As virtue, thus, implies intelligence and free choice, so also does vice. But as virtue consists in a regard paid to the principles of rectitude, vice consists in a disregard of them.

They are analogically compared or contrasted when exhibited in their relations to some third thing. Virtue is related to happiness as its appropriate and natural consequence; vice to misery.

§ 108. THE THEME in Comparison and Contrast is ever a part of a class, a species, a variety, or an individual.

This character of the theme suggests at once the necessity of apprehending the theme in this light in order to recognize the attribute or attributes belonging to the class through which the theme is to be explained. The first thing to be done in undertaking explanation by this process, is to get a clear notion of the class to which the two objects of thought compared and contrasted alike belong. The common attributes that belong to the class will be the resemblances or points of comparison; the others will be the differences or particulars of contrast.

§ 109. The Law of Unity in Comparison and Contrast requires, besides singleness in the theme, singleness also in the other part of the class through which it is explained.

This law is not to be understood as requiring strictly individuals in the theme and in the object through which it is explained. They must be single parts-single species, single varieties, or individuals. The logical principle in which the law is grounded, is that any part of a generic whole may be represented by any complementary part. The planet Uranus, thus, may be explained through any other one or through