simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it.  But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.  It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism.  This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application.  Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself.  For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect—­a process which occurs in every dialectical victory—­you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression.  Why is this?  Because, as Hobbes observes,[1] all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage.  Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it.  Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on.  The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy.  Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness.  A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, “That has no bearing on the point in dispute,” and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults.  Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades—­Strike, but hear me.  But such demeanour is not given to every one.

[Footnote 1:  Elementa philosophica de Cive.]

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views.  But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal.  If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist.  If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.