by picking out the separate steps of the process, the separate causes of the political situation, the separate traits of the character type. Thus one writer whose purpose it is to explain the handling of garden land divides the process into several steps: draining, trenching and subsoiling, preparation of the surface, saving the moisture, weeding and subsequent tillage, and enriching. Another writer who seeks to explain the opportunities of journalism as a profession divides his material into four parts: the opportunities due to the number of publications issued, those due to specialization, those due to the power of the press, and those due to the value of press experience. Or, again, a critic who attempts to weigh an author's claim to literary permanence divides his study into three parts: style, romance, and morality. Indeed since the object of all exposition is to simplify and make clear, there is often no better way of explaining a matter which is complicated than to resolve it into its natural or logical parts.

This method is without value, however, unless the analysis is sound. In the first place, the division into parts must be complete; if not in an absolute or exhaustive sense, at least complete for all practical purposes. An analysis of athletic eligibility, for example, which did not include physical fitness, would be seriously incomplete. Then again, there must be no cross division, that is, no change in point of view during the analysis. To divide college students into loafers, sports, athletes, and vegetarians is worse than incomplete; it is inconsistent, and if less ridiculous it would be confusing, because the basis of classification is changed in the process of analysis. Moreover, the parts into which anything is divided must be mutually exclusive. In the example just cited, the analysis is worthless, not only because the classes enumerated do not include all college students and because the point of view is shifted, but also because the classes overlap. Indeed cross division and the overlapping of parts almost inevitably go

1 L. H. Bailey, Manual of Gardening, Chap. IV.

2 Walter Raleigh, Robert Louis Stevenson.

together. Finally, it is essential that the parts be of similar rank. Thus an analysis of athletic eligibility under five conditions, university enrollment, physical fitness, scholarship, amateur record, and time of participation, is imperfect because it does not recognize the parts which are logically coördinate and those which are logically subordinate; and explanation based upon such an analysis would be obscured. In reality, students who wish to participate in college athletics must undergo four main tests: they must be properly enrolled in the institution which they mean to represent, they must be physically fit for the sport in question, they must be in good scholastic standing, and they must be in good athletic standing. This last test includes both their previous record in athletics and the length of their participation in college athletics. In view of all these requirements, then, it is evident that although analysis may be a very effective method of explanation, it is not an easy one. In fact, to use it in more than an elementary way requires a distinctly analytic mind. And analytic power is about as rare as it is practically important.

B. DEFINITION

A second method of exposition is definition. The logicians seem to differ among themselves about the essential nature and form of a definition, but we need only to understand that one way of making a matter clear is by showing its limits. This is just what the father does when he improvises an answer to his child's question, "What is a dynamo?" It is just what the teacher does when he seeks to give his pupil an adequate conception of a participle or an infinitive. It is just what everyone must be doing continually in meeting the demands of life, since all are called upon to make definitions of one kind or another. It may be that a single word needs brief explanation because it is new and strange. It may be that a term is used-like catholic, democratic, realism, or beauty which needs full and explicit interpretation because it can easily be understood

in different ways. Or it may be that the whole problem is to state some fundamental conception; for instance, to define a gentleman, the classic spirit, or the rights of labor. In all such cases the explanation is made largely, if not entirely, by definition, since it is plain that to define is the surest way of gaining clearness and accuracy.

Nevertheless, a definition cannot be satisfactory unless it sets true limits and is clearly phrased. If one should say, for example, that a square is a figure with four equal sides, or a figure with four right angles, he would have an imperfect definition, because in either case it would fail to set limits that would exclude all figures other than rectangles with equal sides. Or again, if one should say that a chair is a movable seat, made of wood, with back and arms, intended for the accommodation of one person, the definition would be bad, because it would not include chairs without arms and chairs made of some material other than wood. Furthermore, if one should define narration as that kind of writing which narrates, obviously no real explanation would be effected, because the reader would still need to know the meaning of "narrate." Finally, if we should define a gyroscope as an instrument designed to illustrate the dynamics of rotating bodies, the definition would scarcely help matters much, since the terms of the definition would be familiar to few except trained scientists. It is evident, then, from these simple examples that if a definition is to be valuable as a means of explanation, it must accurately exclude all that should be excluded; it must include all that should be included; it must be free from derivatives of the words denoting the idea to be defined; and it must be expressed in terms altogether familiar to the reader.

C. EXEMPLIFICATION

A third means of exposition is exemplification. Perhaps no method of explaining is simpler and more natural than this. How inevitable it is may be seen in our daily experience when we meet an inquirer with such a remark as, "Wait a little and

I'll show you one," or "Why, this is one right here." Suppose that we are asked to explain what chintz is, or the meaning of the term "begging the question," or our idea of a "good fellow"; it will undoubtedly be easier to cite particular instances of each than to frame a satisfactory definition, or to make complete analysis. This method is effective, too, because it is absolutely specific. The concrete and the specific usually mean more to the ordinary person than the abstract and the general, and touch his interest more directly and vitally. One may write page after page explaining the importance of imagination in business, defining imagination and analyzing its part in business success, and yet fail to be altogether clear; but when two bootblacks are introduced, one of whom used imagination to his practical advantage over the other, the whole matter is lighted up and made impressive.1 Consequently this method is much used, especially in any explanatory writing which must enlist the interest of a wide variety of readers. Indeed in popular exposition the method is often pushed to an extreme which is close to narrative.

But exposition by exemplification has its drawbacks. It is quite possible that a particular instance cited will not always be completely typical, in which case the explanation will be misleading or inaccurate. If one were to name the essays of Elia to explain the nature of exposition, there would be an obvious fault in the reader's consequent conception. Even if several instances are used, instead of one, in order to make the exemplification more perfectly representative, it is impossible to be sure of accuracy; one cannot be certain of his reader's power of generalization, that is, his power to infer for himself the exact nature of the matter under explanation. Not everyone who sees a square drawn on a piece of paper can infer for himself that a square must always have equal sides and equal angles. Likewise it is by no means certain that everyone who hears the specific instances which Cardinal Newman cites in his famous explanation of the gentleman can generalize on his own 1 Lorin F. Deland, Imagination in Business. Harper and Brothers, 1909.

account sufficiently to get Newman's definition of a gentleman as one who never inflicts pain. Hence careful explanation often requires that exemplification be used in combination with some other method, usually analysis or definition.

D. COMPARISON

Then again, explanation can be effected by comparison. This method, seen in the figurative word as well as in the more elaborate illustration, is so simple that it needs little comment. Whenever anything strange is to be explained, it is obviously helpful to find something which is essentially similar and also familiar to the reader, and then to make the one clear through its likeness to the other. For instance, it is easy to understand how the Iroquois built his house, if it is compared with an arbor overarching a garden walk; and there is no better way of explaining the operation of habit than by the old comparison with a creased sheet of paper. This method is valuable, too, even when it is not the only means of securing clearness; comparisons are perforce concrete, and besides making the explanation more intelligible they grip the reader's mind. In the expository writings of Franklin, Lowell, Macaulay, and Stevenson comparison contributes largely to effectiveness; and it is well known how Lincoln used anecdotes to show his point of view and simplify difficult explanations. To be useful, however, any comparison, like any figure of speech, must be familiar to the reader and it must be based on a real likeness; a likeness in essentials, not incidentals; a likeness clear enough to seem naturally drawn. Still, even the most perfect comparison, like the most perfect example, can hardly carry an entire explanation. Both are most valuable when they supplement analysis or definition.

E. CONTRAST

Finally, effective explanation can be gained through contrast, the negative of comparison. Although it is the likeness of two 1 Parkman, The Jesuits in North America. Introduction.