the Oration on the Crown. It is considered by critics as a masterpiece of eloquence. It is valuable as a linguistic performance, and as teaching a lesson too frequently lost sight of, and that is, that failure does not necessarily mean disgrace. It was upon this theory that Eschines hoped to succeed, and it is fortunate for mankind that he met an adversary who not only could surpass him in the mere power of speech, but in the higher and nobler sphere of moral excellence. So completely did Demosthenes answer his accuser, hurling back his taunts with such withering sarcasm, showing up his sophistries with such matchless skill, exposing his insincerity with so much ingenuity, that Eschines, failing to secure a one-fifth vote in favor of his bill, was banished from Athens, to which he never returned.

This speech is greatly admired. It can be appreciated only in the original Greek, and hence it is popularly but little known. We must be content to take what authorities say of it. It should not be imagined that other equally great, perhaps greater, speeches have not been made. It is enough to know that the reputation of the speaker has never waned after more than twenty centuries have passed away. It is simply, as all great speeches should be, great, elevating, ennobling thoughts expressed in clear, pure, forcible, strong language. There is no effort at humor, no straining after effect, no heaping up of ornament. He possessed the judgment to see the weak points of his adversary, the

skill to plant his batteries in commanding positions, and the fulminating power to use his missiles with destructive effect. He not only answered his antagonist, he demolished him. He did not leave him a road by which to retreat. The contest will suggest the controversy between Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne. They have many points of semblance. We need not attempt here to draw any comparison, as the student, from reading the debate, can best judge for himself. We leave him to do so. All that the Webster-Hayne debate was the Grecian contest was, and something more. Demosthenes reached the climax of eloquence when, in replying to the taunts of Eschines in regard to the final failure of the efforts of the former to successfully defend Grecian liberty, he said: "If you condemn Ctesiphon, and thereby decree that I did not administer your government in the best possible manner it will appear that all your calamities are due to yourselves and not to the cruel mandate of fortune. But it is not possible, it is not possible, O men of Athens, that you were wrong in following my counsels when you risked your lives and fortunes for the sake of freedom and safety. No! by the shades of our ancestors, who first met danger at Marathon. No! by those who fought in battle array at Plataca. No! by those who braved death at the naval victory of Salamis, and at Artemisium; by the many more brave men who lie entombed in monuments erected by their grateful country, all

of whom the city has buried, deeming all alike worthy of never-fading renown, not alone those who survived, but those who perished on the field of glory."

An American orator, however, on one occasion at least, reached the Demosthenian heights of eloquence in a speech delivered at the dedication of the Military Cemetery on the battlefield of Gettysburg. In elevation of sentiment, energy of expression, compactness and fitness of language, Lincoln's short. address on that occasion has a marked similarity to the style of Demosthenes. It is given hereafter. The student will perceive a strong resemblance to the passage from Demosthenes just given. As Mr. Lincoln was not a classical scholar, the likeness must be deemed accidental.

Demosthenes, like most of the eminent men of those stormy periods, was an object of envy to many of his countrymen. At one time he was banished, but in a few years he was recalled amid great rejoicing. He was compelled to fly a second time, and rather than submit to capture by his enemies, he put an end to his own life. Centuries of study and criticism have not lessened his reputation as a statesman or as an orator. As both he stands pre-eminent, and will as long as men retain any respect for devotion to duty and self-sacrificing patriotism.

Although the greatest he was by no means the only Grecian orator. His light was so resplendent,

however, that the lesser ones seem obscure.

It is one

of the peculiarities of eloquence that unless it is of the very highest order, a successful rival has ample opportunity to surpass it, and drive it completely out of remembrance.

The doctrine of the survival of the fittest nowhere finds better illustration than in this art. If Demosthenes had made an inferior speech to that of Eschines, the latter's effort would be the model to be studied instead of that of the former. Hayne's speech would have been the object of untold admiration had it not elicited Webster's reply. It did, in fact, produce a very great sensation, so much so that one of his friends moved an adjournment of the Senate, in order that its effect might not be disturbed by other business.

This point is worthy of careful attention. A reply to a previous speech should be exceptionally good, else it will injure rather than subserve the cause it is intended to promote. If not, the first effort and the first speaker will receive increased applause. It will not do, either, to be simply good. It must surpass the other to such a degree that it will leave no room for comparison. The triumph should be complete. The contest should not result in a drawn battle. The victory in that event is then mostly on the side of your opponent. Having the advantage of sleeping on your adversary's speech, your attempt at a reply raises a presumption that your side is stronger than his and it must

be so presented, not in an equivocal manner, but with completeness and skill.

The nation which ranks next to Greece in the eloquence of her orators is Rome. Her success, however, came long after that of Greece. When Demosthenes was rousing his countrymen against the machinations of Phillip, Rome was measuring swords with the neighboring nations in her march to universal empire. It was nearly two hundred years before her oratory attained a high degree of perfection.

Her greatest orator was Marcus Tullius Cicero, who shares with Demosthenes the supremacy of the ancient world in this noble art. No other Roman orator is ever presented to the student's consideration, though there were many others of great eminence and celebrity. Hortensius, Crassus, and Antonius are names familiar to students of that period. Julius Cæsar also had high claims to oratorical distinction. If, however, we have a fair comprehension of what Cicero wrote and said in his peculiar province, we can leave all the others of his time without notice.

The great orator and philosopher, for he was preeminently both, was born at Arpinum, a Latin city, the inhabitants of which enjoyed the rights of Roman citizenship. Marius, the great general, was also a native of this town. The father of Cicero was desirous of giving him and his brother Quintus every advantage of education to enable them to at