CHAPTER III THEMES AND EXERCISES (The section numbers correspond to those of the text.) 90. Draw up a petition to authority for the correction of some abuse or the granting of some favour, stating in a proposition exactly what is wished and subjoining reasons. 91. Topics for brief argumentative plans to be written in class without research, as follows: (a) expressed in propositions. (b) scrutinized as to the terms (e.g. on the blackboard) in themselves and as expressing a real issue. (c) worked out in argumentative plans. (d) tested and corrected in this form. 1. “Imperialism” or “expansion.” 3. Large colleges and small. 4. College education for a business man. 5. The comparative importance of religious creed. 6. Shortening the college term to three years. 7. Church fairs. 8. The noisy celebration of Independence Day. 10. Going to a college far from home. II. Rules as to eligibility for intercollegiate athletics. 12. Restrictions on signs and placards for advertising. 13. Game laws. In like manner notes brought into class on propositions chosen or assigned may be revised on the basis of class discussion and arranged in argumentative plans. 92. From their argument, as cited by Chief Justice Marshall, draw up an argumentative plan for Ogden's side. Draw up an argumentative plan for either side of the discussion given at § 129. 93. Draw up an argumentative plan from: I. notes of a line of argument dictated for refutation. 2. a speech as reported in a newspaper. 3. a selection assigned from argumentative literature (this last to be analyzed in full by careful subdivision). Draw up an argumentative plan of the following, and another in refutation of it: THE FLUMMERY OF COLLEGE CAPS AND GOWNS By way of such explanation as may avert confusion of mind, the Springfield Republican has thought it well, in its issue of October 20, to devote half a column of space to an explanation of the meaning of academic costumes, in the matter of stuffs, colours, forms, facings, linings, and the like. In our very practical age one wonders as to the why and wherefore of these things; and, very reverently and respectfully, I venture to ask Columbia University, whose statutes are cited as authoritative in such matters, why it should pass any such statutes, and why it should not recognise popular education and the universal ability to read, instead of cherishing those means of communication which were necessary in medieval times when kings who knew not how to write dipped their hands into ink and impressed them upon documents as a verification of their validity. We all know how the cotton-velvet-clad stage king certifies his will by giving his signet ring to the hero as an attestation. We wonder what he does for another signet ring in the meanwhile. But in our time men know how to read and write. If King Edward of England or John D. Rockefeller or J. P. Morgan or any other ruler of men wishes to make his will known, he takes up a pad and writes on it what he wishes to say and signs his name at the bottom, and that half sheet of paper is potent to transfer multitudinous millions or to change the policy of great corporations or to do anything else that the writer directs. Why should our colleges and universities—which are founded upon the idea of the ability of men to read and write cherish and preserve the traditions of a more ignorant age and dignify them with the recognition of university statutes? Why should not these great agencies of modern education be the foremost leaders in the use of modern means for the communication of ideas? Thus we are told that on a college platform a hood faced with scarlet means that its wearer has a degree in divinity; that one faced with purple means a degree in law; one in green a degree in medicine, and so on to the end of the curious chapter. But why all this flummery in an age when all men know how to read? Why should not the several bachelors and doctors of divinity, law, medicine, and the rest simply inscribe their respective degrees on the dressing-gowns or bath robes that they wear at commencements and upon other occasions of scholastic state? Then everybody would understand. Or, better still, why should not our universities put aside this mediæval flummery altogether and stand bravely upon their merits as institutions that educate modern men for modern life? The cap and gown are simply relics of a time when education was monastic and its recipients were clerics. In our time they are lies. Why not be honest and abolish them? The newspapers every year record the names of those who receive degrees at the hands of our great universities—whether real degrees, conferred as the recognition and reward of actual study, or honorary degrees, conferred for less worthy reasons. The cyclopædias and dictionaries of biography never omit to give one who achieves anything worth while credit for all his degrees, as well as for all his actual achievements in scholarship. Why not leave the matter at that? What is the use of all this millinery of caps and gowns, with their silk or their fustian, their purples and yellows, their dark and light blues, their scarlets, and all the rest of it? Are not these flummeries distinctly unworthy of the universities of an age and country that looks more to the future than to the past and regards condition as a thing of greater worth than tradition ? Is it not the duty of our educational institutions to teach young men to "look forward, not backward, out and not in, up and not down ?" GEORGE CARY EGGLESTON, in New York Times (Saturday Review), November 2, 1901. Compare opposing argumentative plans (1) as to fairness and fulness in meeting on the main issues, (2) as to relative emphasis of certain points, (3) as to relative force. This may be done by exchange of plans, by reading aloud in class, and by assigning outside study for summary report. For this last may be used: 1. The speeches of Brutus and of Antony in Julius Cæsar. 2. Macaulay's refutation of arguments for the Civil Disabilities of Jews (Essays, Vol. i.) 3. Mr. J. Charton Collins's summary of the question whether Swift married Stella (in his Jonathan Swift, pages 146– 157). 4. The appendix to the Federalist; i.e. the letters of Pacificus (Hamilton) on Washington's proclamation of neutrality in 1793, and those of Helvidius (Madison). After such analysis, the two opposing plans may be combined in one plan for either side, thus to secure fulness in refutation. 129. For a proposition given in class draw up a trial introduction (see § 136) by a priori analysis; i.e. what are the main issues? the line of proof? of refutation? What evidence will be sufficient (for the necessary degree of proof)? Where is it to be found? Sum up in a trial plan (fifteen minutes) the results of this discussion. Exchange these plans for brief endorsement of criticism in class. Are For example, The consecration of Archbishop Parker was valid. What is the ultimate question here? The validity of Anglican orders, Anglicans claiming unbroken apostolic succession, Roman Catholics claiming a breach, a schism. the terms, then, precise? Do not consecration and Archbishop beg the question, which is whether he was really consecrated and thereupon really archbishop? Can both sides agree as to what constitutes a consecration? If not, there can be no argument. Supposing agreement possible, try more precise wording; e.g. The forms and persons concerned in the elevation of Parker constituted a valid consecration. (In seeking precision, however, be careful to avoid quibbling.) Is this simply a question of fact, of what happened at a certain time; or is it also a question of right? The evidence, manifestly, will be conflicting. If the opposing briefs are to be more than arrays of counter-assertions, there must be sought (1) points in which both sides agree (for example, they may be found to agree on most of the facts. Then the issue is mainly as to right); (2) historians belonging to neither camp and generally accepted as |