works of Shakespeare. No writer, ancient or modern, has shown such a complete mastery of human thought and feeling. He has sounded every phase of life from the king who lays his head on a sleepless pillow to the slumbering sea-boy on the rude, tempestuous surge. There is no thought either of vaulting ambition, far-seeing statecraft, vanished hopes, disappointed desires, impassioned love, down to the vaporings of the harlequin, which do not receive the touch of his master hand. The statesman, lover, lawyer, poet, philosopher, and orator can take counsel from his luminous pages. As the last has occasion probably more than any of the others to give a thought a good, appropriate dressing, he can nowhere find a better pattern than in Shakespeare, and in the multitudinous occasions that arise for just this necessity he will never turn to him in vain. A great many examples might be given where quotations from Shakespeare have been used with effect, and others might be cited where they proved disastrous. For instance, in the debate between Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne, hereafter given, the latter made an allusion to Shakespeare which the former took up and used to great advantage.

It is not altogther for the purpose of quotation however, that this and other great literary works are needed. As a general thing, it is much better for the speaker to mould his own thoughts in his, own language. The appropriate sphere of a knowl

edge of literature in its highest forms in the makeup of an orator is to enlarge his vocabulary and extend his range of thought, and in addition to be able to retort on an adversary when he makes unhappy allusions. The works of all our great poets, dramatists, and novelists, no less than Shakespeare, should be studied for the same purpose. They are the language makers of the race, as well as the photographers of the ages in which they lived.

To the study of history and literature should be added, as above intimated, that of every department of knowledge, keeping in view, of course, that there are some subjects more closely related to the speaker's vocation than others. To the lawyer, a knowledge of jurisprudence is particularly essential, that is, jurisprudence in its higher and broader forms, beyond mere citations and decisions. The debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas turned very largely upon a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court decided that negroes could not be prohibited by Congress from being taken as slaves into United States territory. Judge Douglas declared he was willing to bow to that decision. Mr. Lincoln declared he was willing to accept it as conclusive in the trial of one case, but would not submit to it as a rule of political action. Great skill and ingenuity are therefore displayed by these orators over the proposition: How far is a person bound in his political action by a decision of the

Supreme Court? Were the contestants not well grounded in civil law and court decisions, the discussion would have been a mass of miserable jargon, but being conducted by men of acknowledged ability, it presents one of the most beneficial studies in which a young orator can engage.

Next to the education of the orator, attention should be paid to his character. When a person arises to address an audience, the first question uppermost in men's minds is, "Who is he?" If he be a man of wide reputation, great talent as a speaker, steady in his political or religious convictions, earnest in his efforts, incorruptible and uncorrupted, he will obtain an attentive hearing, and may hope for the success of his measures, the adoption of his arguments. If he be wanting in these qualities, it will detract from his influence.

How to form character, what principles it is necessary to follow to make it strong, sound, and pure, are questions that open a very wide field for thought and study. It is a matter upon which it is very easy to be led astray. Men of very good character frequently are unable to influence a jury, a court, or an assembly, because they are wanting in eloquence, and men of eloquence frequently win the favor of an audience though deficient in character. Yet it should not be supposed that it is of no consequence at all. We cannot say that the advocate who is notoriously corrupt, immoral, or licentious, has the same weight as one of pure, unselfish mo

But what we

tives, with equal oratorical powers. said first is frequently true, that high moral character will not supply the place of great eloquence in cases where eloquence alone is demanded. If a person of irresolute, changeable, venal nature can sway an audience, how much more powerful will be the effect of a strong, steady, unpurchasable character to give emphasis to every word uttered by the speaker? But how to obtain this desirable quality is a difficult question to decide. Much of it will depend upon the education, which we have just considered. Take, for example, a speaker's reputation for consistency, that is, for uniformity in his advice and conduct as a leader of public opinion. It needs no argument to show it adds greatly to his influence if he can truthfully say that the advice he is now giving is the same that he offered ten, twenty, or thirty years ago that the principles he now advocates are the same that he has always maintained. The great object of such a claim is to win the confidence of his hearers, to show that the speaker has not shifted his views to suit the varying and uncertain tides of popular opinion, but that, in his early career, he took his stand on certain solid grounds of public action, and has pursued his course with unfaltering courage and fidelity. Such a title, if well founded, cannot fail to win favor. It is in matters of this kind that the speaker shows his character as distinct from the mere power of oratory. It is a quality higher even than this gift itself. It serves

as a plummet by which his speech can be measured. The great importance of this element is very apparent from the readiness with which an advocate is assailed by an opponent for the want of it. If at any time any one has made a speech differing in sentiments from that under consideration, a watchful adversary will always be ready to find out and make the charge of inconsistency, and it is often very difficult and sometimes impossible to successfully meet an attack of this kind. In fact, this is almost the only element of character that it is deemed courteous to avert to in debate. While private malice and an unlicensed press bring almost every unfortunate weakness of a prominent man before the broad gaze of the public, in forensic discussion there is a greater and better tendency to throw a mantle over many of the minor shortcomings common to all men, and indulge only in such criticisms of an opponent as are in some way connected with the matter in dispute.

A fine example of the force of this claim to a uniform course of conduct is to be found in the eloquent outburst of E. D. Baker. In speaking of his general tendency to follow the cause of freedom, the orator said:

"Here, then, long years ago, I took my stand by freedom, and where in youth my feet were planted, there my manhood and my age shall march. And, for one, I am not ashamed of freedom. I know her power; I rejoice in her majesty; I walk beneath the banner; I