have that deep insight into public policy or the formation of civil communities as a Jefferson or a Hamilton, yet it is highly important that he should understand and explain, if necessary, what the theories of those great statesmen were on that subject. Again, but few of us could demonstrate the law of gravitation, though we are all conversant with the fact, but it should be a part of our education to know it and to explain it if required.

Similar views were entertained by Cicero; in fact, they are self-evident to everyone, but we will give his language so that the student can at the same time have the benefit of his apt illustrations. He says: "Indeed, in my opinion, everything falls within the profession of an orator that affects the interests of his countrymen, the manners of mankind, whatever regards the habits of life, the conduct of government, civil society, love of the public, nature, morals. At least, though he is not obliged professedly to discuss, like a philosopher, these subjects, yet he ought to know how to interweave them dexterously while pleading at the bar; he ought to speak of these things as they did who founded laws, inst tutions, and states, with simplicity, with perspicuity, without long-continued disputation, without barren controversies about words."

Take, for example, the subject of history. This he should understand not merely as to dates, but events. What brought them about? Who controlled them? What lessons does an important

event teach? Thus the first thing to know is what actually did take place. This, though not the most important part of our knowledge of history, it is well to understand. There can be no controversy that there were such events in history as the French Revolution, the American Revolutionary War, or the American Civil War, nor as to the leading features of, or the principal characters in, those important epochs. By far the harder part of his task is to have the correct order of events, and particularly their causes and effects. Here he is performing the work of the philosopher, finding the true cause of things as they occur, and from this formulating safe maxims for the future. For instance, let the student ask himself, What was the cause of the American Civil War, the French Revolution, or the American Revolutionary War? This will immediately impose upon him the duty of examining every fact of those periods with care and attention. The history of a matter is frequently the very point in dispute, and the person who is the best informed upon the question will appear to the greatest advantage in an address or discussion relative to it. The cause of events is of very great importance to the orator, for two reasons: First, to enable him to treat correctly of such as are past; and second, to draw proper comparisons with matters present and to come. For instance, in the Webster-Hayne debate, Mr. Hayne likened the treatment of the West by the people of the East to

that of the colonies by Great Britain. Mr. Webster took up the question and endeavored to show that the comparison was very far-fetched and greatly overdrawn.

In dealing with intricate questions, the first thing an orator is apt to do, and it is a very proper thing to be done, is to indulge in comparisons of this character, because experience is the great and very often the only guide men have, either in their public or private affairs. How important it is, then, that he who in fact puts himself forward as an adviser, as a counselor, should understand past events with exactness, not loosely and disjointedly. As in nature, so in history and in morals, no two events are identical in all their bearings and consequences, so that if an orator attempts to compare one with another, an antecedent with a subsequent one, he must be sure he is correct before he draws his comparison, else a wily opponent will retort on him with unpleasant effect.

A good illustration of this is to be found in the contest between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. The latter asked the question in one of his speeches, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or, rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" This raised the issue, How did our fathers make it? The answer to this was simply a historical one, a question of fact. Lincoln took it up, and in a very ingenuous manner endeavored to

show that they made the government with a view to the abolition or extinction of slavery rather than to its preservation.

Examples might be multiplied. Thus, to the English statesmen who controlled British politics during the American Revolutionary War, the Americans were simply rebels from a kind, paternal government, rebelling without just cause; to us they are patriots, with the strongest grounds for their rebellion. This very question was raised in the British Parliament. A speaker on the part of the government urged that the people of the United States, being British colonists, "planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of England, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned." To this Colonel Barré replied: "They planted by your care? Your oppression planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny, and grew by their neglect of them. So soon as you begun to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance."

The value of a correct knowledge of history to the student is, therefore, very important. By this we do not mean a knowledge simply of events, such as the dates of battles, the contentions of ambitious leaders, the rivalries of great nations, the campaigns of great generals and commanders.

These are valuable in themselves, but the principal thing to be sought after is the history of social, political, and moral forces. It is with these the orator has principally to deal. While the identity of many nations has been lost, what of their arts, their manners, their literature, their economy? From these the student can draw endless lessons and comparisons that may be interwoven into the most abstract discussions to give them life and beauty.

For example, we have but little use now for many of the battles that were fought by the petty states of Greece. But there is a strong interest still attaching to the defense of the Pass of Thermopylæ, because of the moral grandeur of Leonidas and his companions. The same might be said of Marathon and the naval battle of Salamis, where the Grecian fleet, though much smaller in number, overcame that of the Persians. A few events like these are remembered out of the innumerable conflicts in which the people of the ancient world were engaged, either in their domestic history or in their careers of conquest. In those that are not forgotten it is the moral quality that gives them significance. In philosophy, art, and literature, we find even better illustrations of this quality. Thus, Socrates is still a living character in the domain of morals and ethical philosophy, and the accounts we have of him in the writings of Xenophon and Plato are the models we study at school. Plato and Aristotle have lost none of their charm for successive ages.