Such in the main are the views about proof which I have either heard
from others or learned by experience. I would not venture to assert that
this is all there is to be said; indeed I would exhort students to make
further researches on the subject, for I admit the possibilities of
making further discoveries. Still anything that may be discovered will
not differ greatly from what I have said here.
It has generally been laid down that an argument to be effective must be
based on certainty; for it is obviously impossible to prove what is
doubtful by what is no less doubtful. Still some things which are
adduced as proof require proof themselves. You killed your
husband, for you were an adulteress.
cp. v. xi. 39. Your javelin was found in
the body of the murdered man.
He denies that it was his. If
this point is to serve as a proof, it must itself be proved. It is,
however, necessary in this connection to point out that there are no
stronger proofs than those in which uncertainty has been converted into
certainty. You committed the murder, for your clothes were
stained with blood.
'This argument is not so strong if the
accused admits that his clothes were bloodstained as if the fact is
proved against his denial. For if he admits it, there are still a number
of ways in which the blood could have got on to his clothes: if on the
other hand he denies it, lie makes his whole case turn on this point,
and if his contention is disproved, he will he unable to make a stand on
any subsequent ground. For it will be thought that he would never have
told a lie in denying the allegation, unless he had felt it a hopeless
task to justify himself if he admitted it.
In insisting on our strongest arguments we must take them singly,
whereas our weaker arguments should be massed together: for it is
undesirable that those arguments which are strong in themselves should
have their force obscured by the