Rhetorical Analysis and Synthesis [pp. 456-483]

470
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS.
IJly
applied be that of population, New York must stand first,
Pennsylvania next, and the lest in the order of their populations.
Sometimes the order may be determined by the similarity
of the parts to each other. After we have fixed upon the parts
with which to begin the enumeration, often it will be convenient
to arrange the others in the order of their similarity to the first.'
Thus in the case of man analyzed upon the principle of color,
we begin with white man, for the preceding reasons, and follow
with the parts, yellow, red, brown, black. For if we should say,
white, black, brown, yellow, red, the mind must leap over all the
intermediate parts between white and black, and then return
upon its movement to pick them up, in consequence of which
the mental view would be confused. Thus, also, in arranging
the parts of house analyzed upon the principle of the materials
of which houses are built, and beginning with stone, we should
arrange the other parts in the order of brick or iron, and wood,
because there is a stronger resemblance between brick or iron
and stone than between stone and wood.
XIV. In the analysis of individual themes, the arrangement
of the parts commonly depends upon their contiguity or mutual
dependence.
The order required by contiguity and by the mutual dependence of the parts will commonly be the same, but in concrete
themes the former is the more easily applied, and in abstract
and spiritual themes, the latter. Thus in the analysis of a
house into foundation, walls and roof, and of a tree into roots,
trunk, branches and leaves, the parts which touch, and those
which immediately depend upon each other, are obviously the
same. Consequently, in all such cases, it is a matter of indifference which of these ideas be applied. Also in the analysis
of a moral act into intelligence, freedom,"motive and choice,
this order is required alike by the analogy of contiguity in
space [VII. 2. (2)] and by the dependence of the parts. But
in this and similar cases the latter is the more easily applied,
for the immediate dependence of freedom upon intelligence, of
motive upon freedom, and of choice upon motive, is more
obvious than the analogy of contiguity. Sometimes, however,
the order prescribed by these two ideas will not be the same,
in which case the analogy is overruled by the dependence.
.For example, in the analysis of a judgment of the mind, or a