ded the popular feeling referred to was correct.
And here we see where the fallacy of Junius lies, whenever he is in the
wrong. It is in _taking for granted_ one of the steps of his reasoning.
He does not, in this case, even mention the feeling alluded to, in
direct terms. He knew it was beating in the hearts of the people; his
whole preceding train of thought was calculated to justify and inflame
it, and he therefore leaps at once to the conclusion it involves, and
addresses them as actually filled with _resentment_ "to see such a
temper insulted and abused." The feeling, in this instance, was to a
great extent well founded, and so far his logic is complete. In other
cases his assumption is a false one. He lays hold of some slander of the
day, some distorted statement of facts, some maxim which is only half
true, some prevailing passion or prejudice, and dexterously
intermingling them with a train of thought which in every other respect
is logical and just, he hurries the mind to a conclusion which seems
necessarily involved in the premises. Hardly any writer has so much art
and plausibility in thus misleading the mind.

[C] 3. Here is the central idea of the letter--the
_proposition_ to be proved in respect to the king and his ministers. The
former part of this paragraph contains the major premise, the remainder
the minor down to the last sentence, which brings out the conclusion in
emphatic terms. In order to strengthen the minor, which was the most
important premise, he rapidly contrasts the condition of England before
and after the king ascended the throne. In doing this, he dilates on
those errors of the king which led to, and which account for, so
remarkable a change. Thus the conclusion is made doubly strong. This
union of severe logic with the finest rhetorical skill in filling out
the premises and giving them their utmost effect, furnishes an excellent
model for the student in oratory.

[D] 4. In this attack on the king, there is a refined artifice,
rarely if ever equaled, in leading the mind gradually forward from the
slightest possible insinuation to the bitterest irony. First we have the
"uniting of all parties," which is proper and desirable; next "trying
all characters," which suggests decidedly a want of judgment; then
"distributing the offices of state by _rotation_," a charge rendered
plausible, at least, by the frequent changes of ministers, and involving
(if true) a weakness little short of absolute