longman's english classics lincoln's inaugurals, addresses and letters (selections) edited with an introductory memoir and notes by daniel kilham dodge, ph.d. professor of the english language and literature at the university of illinois longmans, green, and co. fourth avenue & th street, new york prairie avenue & th street, chicago copyright, , by longmans green and co. first edition, july, reprinted, june, , may, , march, contents introduction bibliographical note chronological table--lincoln inaugurals, addresses, and letters address to the people of sangamon county, march , the perpetuation of our political institutions, january , speech at springfield, illinois, june , second joint debate at freeport, august , the cooper institute address, monday, february , farewell address at springfield, illinois, february , farewell address at springfield, illinois, february , address in independence hall, philadelphia, february , first inaugural address, march , response to serenade, march , letter to colonel ellsworth's parents, may , letter to horace greeley, august , extract from the second annual message to congress, december , the emancipation proclamation, january , thanksgiving proclamation, july , letter to j. c. conkling, august , gettysburg address, november , letter to mrs. bixby, november , second inaugural address, march , last public address, april , appendix. autobiography, december , notes introduction the facts of lincoln's early life are best stated in his own words, communicated in [see appendix] to mr. j. w. fell, of bloomington, illinois. unlike many men who have risen from humble surroundings, lincoln never boasted of his wonderful struggle with poverty. his nature had no room for the false pride of a mr. bounderby, even though the facts warranted the claim. indeed, he seldom mentioned his early life at all. on one occasion he referred to it as "the short and simple annals of the poor." lincoln himself did not in any way base his claims to public recognition upon the fact that he was born in a log cabin and that he had split rails in his youth, although, on the other hand, he was not ashamed of the facts. more, perhaps, than any other man of his time he believed and by his actions realized the truth of burns' saying, "the man's the goud, for a' that." the real lesson to be drawn from lincoln's life is that under any conditions real success is to be won by intelligent, unwavering effort, the degree of success being determined by the ability and character of the individual. still less profitable is the attempt to contrast the success of lincoln with that of washington, or jefferson or of any other american whose early circumstances were more favorable than lincoln's. in each case success has been worthily won, and we americans of the present generation should rejoice that our country has produced so many great men. true patriotism does not consist in the recognition of only one type of americanism, but rather in the grateful acceptance of every service that advances the fortunes and raises the reputation of the republic. peculiar interest attaches to the character of lincoln's early reading and especially to the small number of books that were accessible to him. in these days of cheap and plentiful literature it is hard for us to realize the conditions in pioneer kentucky and indiana, where half a dozen volumes formed a family library and even newspapers were few and far between. there was no room for mental dissipation, and the few precious volumes that could be obtained were read and re-read until their contents were fully mastered. when sir henry irving was asked to prepare a list of the hundred best books he replied, "before a hundred books, commend me to the reading of two, the bible and shakespeare." fortunately these two classics came at an early age within the reach of lincoln and the frequency with which he quotes from both at all periods of his career, both in his writings and in his conversation, shows that he had made good use of them. the boy lincoln not only read books, he made copious extracts from them, often using a smooth shingle in the absence of paper and depending upon the uncertain light of the log fire in his father's cabin. such use of books makes for intellectual growth, and much of lincoln's later success as a writer can be referred back to this careful method of reading. lincoln's later reading shows considerable variety within certain limits. he himself once remarked that he liked "little sad songs." among, his special favorites in this class of poetry were "ben bolt," "the lament of the irish emigrant," holmes' "the last leaf," and charles mackay's "the enquiry." the poem from which he most frequently quoted and which seems to have impressed him most was, "oh, why should the spirit of mortal be proud?" his own marked tendency to melancholy, which is reflected in his face, seemed to respond to appeals of this sort. among his favorite poets besides shakespeare were burns, longfellow, hood, and lowell. many of the poems in his personal anthology were picked from the poets' corner of newspapers, and it was in this way that he became acquainted with longfellow. lincoln was especially fond of humorous writings, both in prose and verse, a taste that is closely connected with his lifelong fondness for funny stories. his favorite humorous writer during the presidential period was petroleum v. nasby (david p. locke), from whose letters he frequently read to more or less sympathetic listeners. it was eminently characteristic of lincoln that the presentation to the cabinet of the emancipation proclamation was prefaced by the reading of the latest nasby letter. lincoln's statement in the autobiography that he had picked up the little advance he had made upon his early education, or rather lack of education, is altogether too modest. it is known that after his term in congress he studied and mastered geometry; and, like washington, he early became a successful surveyor. his study of the law, too, was characteristically thorough, and his skill in debate, in which he had no superior, was the result of careful preparation. during the presidential period lincoln gave evidence of critical ability that is little short of marvellous in a man whose schooling amounted to less than a year. in a letter to the actor hackett and in several conversations he analyzed passages from "hamlet," "macbeth," and other plays with an insight and sympathy that have rarely been surpassed even by eminent literary critics. at an early age lincoln's interest was aroused in public speaking and he soon began to exercise himself in this direction and to attend meetings addressed by those skilled in the art of oratory. many stories are told of his local reputation as a speaker and story-teller even before he moved to illinois, much of his success then as in later life being due to the singular charm of his personality. lincoln never overcame a certain awkwardness, almost uncouthness of appearance, and he never acquired the finer arts of oratory for which his rival douglas was so conspicuous. but in spite of these physical difficulties he was acknowledged by douglas to be the man whom he most feared in debate; and lincoln was able to sway the critical, unfamiliar audience assembled in cooper union as readily as the ruder crowds gathered about the illinois stump. on the subject of lincoln's religious belief, about which such varying opinions have been held, it is sufficient to state that, although he was not a member of any religious body, he had a firm conviction of the protecting power of providence and the efficacy of special prayer. this latter characteristic seems to have been especially developed during the presidential period. both in his proclamations and in many private interviews and communications he expresses himself clearly and emphatically upon this subject. it is probable, too, that lincoln read more deeply and more frequently in the bible during the storm and stress of the civil war than at any other period of his life. there seems to be no authority for the statement sometimes made that after the death of his son willie, lincoln showed a tendency to believe in the doctrines of spiritualism. he was not free, however, from a belief in the significance of dreams as portending important events. he was also not a little of a fatalist, as he himself once stated to his friend arnold. perhaps the most striking characteristic of lincoln's personality apart from his honesty and sincerity was his perfect simplicity and naturalness. frederick a. douglass, the great leader of the colored race, once remarked that president lincoln was the only white man that he had ever met who never suggested by his manner a sense of superiority. not that lincoln was lacking in personal dignity. neither as a practising lawyer nor as president of the united states, would he permit anyone to take what he regarded as liberties with him. but, on the other hand, he did not allow his elevated position to change his personal relations. his old illinois friends found in the white house the same cordial welcome and simple manners to which they had been accustomed in the pleasant home at springfield. during the first few weeks of the administration it was believed by many persons, including mr. seward himself, that president lincoln would be greatly influenced in his policy by the superior experience in public affairs of his secretary of state. mr. seward even went so far as to draw up a plan of action, which he submitted to his chief. lincoln soon showed, however, that he was not a follower, but a leader of men, beneath whose good nature and kindly spirit was a power of initiative that has rarely been equalled among the statesmen of the world. even the dictatorial secretary of war found it necessary to yield to the president on all points that the latter regarded as being fundamental. few other presidents have been so bitterly attacked and so cruelly misrepresented as lincoln, but nothing could turn him from his purpose when that was once formed. like the wise man that he was, lincoln was always ready to listen to the suggestions of others, but the conclusion finally reached by him was always his own. he applied to questions of state the same methods of careful, impartial inquiry that had served him so well as a lawyer on the illinois circuit, and if, being human, he did not always avoid committing errors, he never acted from impulse or prejudice. lincoln was a strong leader, but he was at the same time a wise leader. turning now from the man to his works, we note first that the development of lincoln's style was slow. one might almost be tempted to say that lincoln developed several different styles in succession. this, however, is hardly true, for in spite of the numerous marked changes and improvements in lincoln's manner of writing, certain fundamental qualities remained, the real expression of his personality, that is, the real style of lincoln. from the beginning to the end we find an effort to say something and to say it in as clear a manner as possible, an effort without which there can be no real success in writing. after a practice in public speaking of over thirty years lincoln as president could still say: "i believe i shall never be old enough to speak without embarrassment when i have nothing to talk about." the first specimen of lincoln's writings that has been preserved is a communication to the voters of sangamon county in , when lincoln was for the first time a candidate for the state legislature. it is significant of lincoln's imperfect command of english at that time that "some of the grammatical errors" were corrected by a friend before the circular was issued. although this circumstance makes it impossible for us to judge exactly what his style was at this period, we may be sure that the changes were comparatively slight and that the general form at least was lincoln's. the question naturally arises whether there is anything in this first specimen of lincoln's writing that suggests, however remotely, the gettysburg address and the second inaugural. a little study will discover suggestions at least of the later manner, just as in the uncouth and awkward young candidate for the illinois state legislature, we can note many traits, intellectual and moral, that distinguish the mature and well-poised statesman of thirty years later. it is the same man, but developed and strengthened, it is the same style, strengthened and refined. if nicolay and hay go too far when they say of the address: "this is almost precisely the style of his later years," it would be quite as wrong to deny any likeness between the two. in the first place, we have the same severely logical treatment of the subject matter, from which lincoln, a lawyer and public speaker, never departed. lincoln's grammar may not have been impeccable at this time, but his thinking powers were already little short of masterly. this, then, is the first element in the makeup of lincoln's style, the ability to think straight and consequently to write straight. his legal training, which was then very meagre, cannot account for his logical thinking; it is more correct to say that he later became a successful lawyer because of the logical bent of his mind. closely connected with this early development of the form of thinking was lincoln's interest in words, and his desire always to use words with a perfect understanding of their meaning. even in his boyhood he found pleasure in discovering the exact meaning of a new word and in later life he was constantly adding to his verbal stores. shortly before his inauguration lincoln remarked to a clergyman, who had asked him how he had acquired his remarkable power of "putting things": "i can say this, that among my earliest recollections i remember how, when a mere child, i used to get irritated when anybody talked to me in a way i could not understand. i don't think i ever got angry at anything else in my life. but that always disturbed my temper, and has ever since. i can remember going to my little bedroom, after hearing the neighbors talk of an evening with my father, and spending no small part of the night walking up and down, trying to make out what was the exact meaning of their, to me, dark sayings." in this first address we find no loose use of words. the character of the address does not of course admit of ornament or figurative language, but any subject, however simple, admits of digressions and mental excursions by the illogical and careless writer. of these there is not a trace. even in the most informal letters and telegrams, written at post haste and at times under the most extreme pressure of business and anxiety, lincoln shows a natural feeling for the appropriate expression that is found only in the masters of language. five years later, in , the interval being represented by only a few unimportant letters, lincoln entered upon a period distinguished by qualities that are not usually associated with his name, a tendency to fine writing that we should look for earlier than at the age of twenty-eight. the subject of the address is "the perpetuation of our political institutions," and the complete text is given in this volume. here for once lincoln speaks of an alexander, a buonoparte, a washington. the influence of webster is apparent, in this first purely oratorical attempt of lincoln's. it could hardly have been otherwise at a time when the great whig orator was making the whole country ring with his wonderful speeches. it is almost certain, too, that henry clay, to whom lincoln later referred as _beau ideal_ of an orator, had a part in moulding this early manner, though this is probably less apparent here than in the later soberer addresses. but it must not be supposed that this speech consists merely of what hamlet would call "words, words, words." neither are all the figures inferior and commonplace. although it is more ornate than anything in the later period, the following description of the passing away of the heroes of the revolution is a fine example of the websterian style: "they were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be no more." the closing sentence of the address is almost wholly, in the later style and might have served for the close of the first inaugural, which, in its original form, did actually contain a biblical quotation. that the rhetorical manner had not gained entire possession of lincoln at that time, but was simply used by him on what seemed to be appropriate occasions, is sufficiently shown by a speech delivered in the legislature early in , in which we find the strictly logical discussion of the first address. this speech is especially interesting because of the fact that it is the earliest encounter of lincoln and douglas that has been preserved. in a way, therefore, it may be regarded as the first lincoln-douglas debate. one other rhetorical effort was made, in , and then we find no more specimens of this class of speaking until the so-called lost speech of . this address of was delivered before the springfield washingtonian temperance society, on washington's birthday, and it is even more inflated than the first specimen. combined with the rhetoric, however, there is a mass of sober argument that again suggests the later lincoln. the arguments, too, are characterized by a sound common sense that is no less characteristic of the speaker. the peroration deserves quotation as being one of the finest and at the same time one of the least familiar passages in lincoln's writings: "this is the one hundredth and tenth anniversary of the birthday of washington. we are met to celebrate this day. washington is the mightiest name of earth: long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty, still mightiest in moral reformation. on that name a eulogy is expected. it cannot be. to add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of washington is alike impossible. let none attempt it. in solemn awe pronounce the name, and in its naked, deathless splendor leave it shining on." this approaches very closely the beauty and strength of the presidential period. in lincoln wrote several poems, which are not without merit. as a boy he was famous among his companions for his skill in writing humorous verses, but these later specimens of his muse are serious, even melancholy in their tone. we next come to the congressional period, from to . the best-known speech from this period, lincoln's introduction to a national public, is that of july , , on general taylor and the veto, taylor being then the whig candidate for the presidency. this speech, which was received with immense applause, owes its special prominence to the fact that it is the only purely humorous speech by lincoln that has been preserved. the subject of the attack is general cass, taylor's democratic opponent, whom lincoln treats in a manner that somewhat suggests douglas' later treatment of lincoln on the stump. its peroration is of peculiar interest, since it consists of a funny story. to anyone familiar with lincoln's habit of story-telling the introduction of a story at the end of a speech may not seem strange. but, as a matter of fact, this is the only case of the kind that has been noted, and a careful reading of the speeches shows either that they were not fully reported or that as a rule he confined his story-telling to conversation. even in the debates with douglas, when he was addressing illinois crowds from the stump at a time when stories were even more popular than they are now, lincoln seldom used this device to rouse interest or to strengthen his argument. a partial explanation of this curious contrast between his conversation and his writing, so far as the debates are concerned, may be found in a remark made by lincoln to a friend who had urged him to treat the subject more popularly. lincoln said; "the occasion is too serious, the issues are too grave. i do not seek applause, or to amuse the people, but to convince them." with lincoln the desire to prove his proposition, whatever it might be, was always uppermost. in the earliest speeches were noted the severe logic and the strict adherence to the subject in hand. to the end lincoln never changed this principle of his public speaking. although the stories, then, have but little direct bearing upon lincoln's writings, they are so characteristic a feature of the man that they cannot be wholly disregarded. in the two cases already noted the stories were illustrative, and this appears to be true of all of lincoln's anecdotes, whether they occur in his conversation or in his writings. he apparently never dragged in stories for their own sake, as so many conversational bores are in the habit of doing, but the story was suggested by or served to illustrate some incident or principle. indeed, in aptness of illustration lincoln has never been surpassed. emerson said of him: "i am sure if this man had ruled in a period of less facility of printing, he would have become mythological in a very few years, like aesop or pilpay, or one of the seven wise masters, by his fables and proverbs." many of the anecdotes attributed to lincoln are undoubtedly to be referred to other sources, but the number of authentic stories noted, especially during the presidency, is very large. the question has often been raised whether lincoln originated the stories he told so well. fortunately we have his own words in this matter. to noah brooks he said: "i do generally remember a good story when i hear it, but i never did invent anything original. i am only a retail dealer." slightly differing from this, though probably not contradicting it, is lincoln's statement to mr. chauncey m. depew: "i have originated but two stories in my life, but i tell tolerably well other people's stories." during the civil war lincoln's stories served a special purpose as a sort of safety valve. to a congressman, who had remonstrated with him for his apparent frivolity in combining funny stories with serious discussion, he said: "if it were not for these stories i should die." the addresses of the presidential period, however, with the exception of a few responses to serenades, are entirely without humorous anecdotes. although lincoln never hesitated to clear the discussion of the most momentous questions through the medium of a funny story, his sense of official and literary propriety made him confine them to informal occasions. the eulogy of henry clay of is of interest as being the only address of this kind that lincoln ever delivered. it might perhaps better be called an appreciation, and because of its sincerity and deep sympathy it may be regarded as a model of its kind. two years later lincoln engaged in his first real debate with douglas on the burning question of the day, the repeal of the missouri compromise. from the purely literary point of view the peoria speech is superior to the better-known debates of four years later. while it lacks the finish and poise of the two inaugurals it is far more imaginative than the debates. one of its most striking features is the comparatively large number of quotations, both from the bible and from profane writings. although as a rule lincoln quotes sparingly, this one speech contains no fewer than twelve quotations, seven of these being from the bible. the only other speech that equals this one in the number of quotations is the so-called lost speech of , the authenticity of which is doubtful. the very much shorter second inaugural, however, with its four bible quotations, has a larger proportionate number. lincoln's quotations seem to be suggested emotionally rather than intellectually. this is indicated by the fact that the most emotional speeches contain the greatest number of quotations. the first inaugural, for example, which is in the main a sober statement of principles, intended to quiet rather than to excite passion, is four times as long as the emotional second inaugural, but contains only one quotation to the four of the other. we may note in this connection that almost exactly one-half of the total number of quotations occurring in lincoln's writings are taken from the bible, and that a large proportion of the profane quotations are from shakespeare. lincoln was also fond of using proverbial sayings, a habit that emphasized his character as a popular or national writer. for most of his proverbs are local and many of them are intensely homely. quotations of this class occur at all periods of his life, beginning with the first address, and they are sometimes used in such unexpected places as official telegrams to officers in the field. strange to say, the maxim that is most frequently associated with lincoln's name cannot with any certainty be regarded as having been used by him, either as a quotation or as an original saying, "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." at the first regular republican state convention in illinois, held at bloomington, may , , lincoln delivered an address on the public issues of the day that roused the enthusiasm of his hearers to such a degree that the reporters forgot to take notes and therefore failed to furnish the text to their respective newspapers. in the course of time it came to be known as the lost speech, and such, in the opinion of many who were present on the occasion, it continued to be. mr. w. c. whitney, a young lawyer from the neighboring town of champaign, later prepared a version based upon notes, from which some general idea of the character of the speech can perhaps be gained. the lincoln-douglas debates furnish perhaps the best example of this class of public speaking that is available. although they were extempore, as far as the actual language is concerned, they have been preserved in full. in spite of the informal style appropriate to the "stump," these discussions of the dred scott decision, popular sovereignty, and the other questions suggested by slavery are marked by a closeness of reasoning and a readiness of retort that show the great master in the difficult art of debate. these qualities are not confined to the one speaker, for his opponent was no less adroit and ready. we may well say in this connection, "there were giants in those days." much of lincoln's success in these historic debates was due to his intense conviction of the righteousness of the cause for which he was pleading. as lawyer and political speaker lincoln always felt the necessity of believing in his case. he frequently refused to appear in suits because he could not put his heart into them, and he never defended a policy from mere party loyalty. much of lincoln's success as a speaker was due to the fact that his hearers felt that they could trust him. this is simply a new application of the old principle that the chief qualification for success in oratory is character. in reading a man's books we may forget his character for the time, but in listening to an orator we have the man himself constantly before us, and he himself makes or mars his success. in lincoln delivered his second and last long occasional address--a discussion of agriculture at the wisconsin state fair at milwaukee. this is the only important non-political speech by lincoln that has been preserved and it is interesting as showing his ability to treat a subject of general interest. here, as in his discussions of political questions, lincoln displayed true statesmanlike insight and foresight, long before the time when experiment stations and farmers' institutes began to teach the very principles that he so wisely and effectively expounded. in lincoln appeared for the first time before a new york audience and we have his own word for it that he suffered a severe attack of stage fright on that occasion. the event showed, however, that he had no reason to fear the judgment of one of the most critical audiences that ever assembled in the cooper union. the hon. joseph h. choate, who was present, writes of his appearance: "when he spoke he was transformed, his eye kindled, his voice rang, his face shone and seemed to light up the whole assembly. for an hour and a half he held his audience in the hollow of his hand." this address may be regarded as a precursor, and a worthy precursor, of the first inaugural, and by many competent critics it has been given the first place among the discussions of the political situation just before the war. after such a performance there could be no hesitation on the part of those that heard it in acknowledging abraham lincoln as one of the most powerful speakers of his day. before returning to illinois lincoln travelled through several of the new england states, making speeches in a number of the larger towns. the speeches delivered by lincoln on the journey to washington, in , beginning with the exquisite farewell address at springfield, include some of the best of his shorter addresses. the most interesting of these is the one delivered in independence hall. the first inaugural address was not received at the time of its first publication in the newspapers, even at the north, with the general enthusiasm that we should now be inclined to assume; and in the south it was severely criticised for its alleged lack of force and definiteness. its effect, however, upon the immense audience gathered in front of the capitol seems to have been immediate. the document had been written with great care at springfield, some changes being made after the arrival at washington. the most important of these were the substitution for the original closing paragraph of the beautiful peroration suggested by secretary seward. in beauty of language and elevation of thought this first public utterance by president lincoln may be compared to the great political utterances of burke. first among the little classics of the world stands the gettysburg address. at the time of its delivery it does not seem to have been generally accepted as a notable utterance. by many of the newspaper correspondents it was referred to as "remarks by the president," and some of the papers contained no comment upon it. by others it was dismissed with a few words of mild praise. even after the death of lincoln there was no general agreement as to its supreme merits as a part of our national literature. conflicting stories still pass current in books and articles on lincoln about its composition, and original reception. an examination of the testimony shows that the following facts may be accepted as fairly proved. the greater part of the address was written in washington after very careful preparation, and profound reflection. the address was read from ms., but with some variations that apparently occurred to the speaker at the time of delivery. mr. everett did not clasp the president's hand while he expressed a willingness to exchange his hundred pages for the twenty lines just read. it is uncertain whether lincoln said at the time that the address did not "scour," but if he did use such an expression it was not because of a consciousness of having failed to make adequate preparation for the occasion. one of the best commentaries on the second inaugural address appeared in an article in the london _spectator_: "we cannot read it without a renewed conviction that it is the noblest political document known to history, and should have for the nation and the statesmen he left behind him something of a sacred and almost prophetic character." carl schurz compared it to a sacred poem, and all discriminating readers agree in placing it by the side of the gettysburg address as an almost perfect specimen of pure english prose. the other addresses of the presidential period are, with the exception of the last speech, on the reconstruction of louisiana, of minor importance. they consist in the main of responses to serenades, a form of address which lincoln cordially detested and in which as a rule he achieved only a moderate degree of success. the cares of his great office made such cruel demands upon his time and strength that he declined many requests to speak in public, and whenever he did appear he confined his remarks within the smallest possible limits. furthermore, lincoln was not a reader speaker and rarely did himself justice without careful preparation. writers on lincoln have failed to note the severe criticisms upon lincoln's impromptu remarks that appeared in the opposition press and in the english newspapers. even as late as newspaper writers not opposed to him did not hesitate to refer to the plainness of the president's public speaking. the messages to congress are distinguished from most documents of that class by their frequent purple patches. to the enumeration of dry facts furnished by the various departments they add an elevation and breadth of thought of the first order. in a class by themselves are the various proclamations, some of them of a purely formal character, such as those announcing blockades, others of a distinctly literary character, like the announcements of fasts and feasts. midway between these two classes is the most important of all, the emancipation proclamation of january , , which, with the exception of the concluding sentence, is entirely free from ornament. perhaps lincoln felt here, as with the debates, that the occasion was too serious, not only for jesting but even for attempting the mere graces of language. finally, mention should be made of the letters and telegrams written by president lincoln. although many letters have been preserved from earlier times, none make special claims to attention outside of the information that they furnish. but during the last four years of his life lincoln wrote some of the most beautiful letters that have ever been composed. one of these, the letter to mrs. bixby, has been given a place on the walls of one of the oxford colleges, as a model of noble english. the conkling letter and the letter to horace greeley are among the most important statements of lincoln's policy and are really short political tracts. the first inaugural can be traced through the cooper union address and the lincoln-douglas debates, the peoria speech, and the speeches of to the seed of , the plain, logical, direct statement of principles of lincoln's first address to the public. the development of the gettysburg address and the second inaugural, those supreme expressions of lincoln's feelings, is not, in the main, to be traced through complete speeches, but it must be sought for in isolated passages, when he left logic for the moment and gave himself up to the passing emotion. the real seed of the majestic simplicity of those addresses is perhaps to be found in those rhetorical speeches of an early period, so lacking apparently in the qualities that we love and admire. in writing, as in so many other things, we reap not what we sow, but its fruition. the effect may seem very remotely related to the cause, but he would be a fool who would deny the relation between them. bibliographical note the complete works of abraham lincoln have been compiled and edited by his biographers, john g. nicolay and john hay (two vols., century company). their life of lincoln in ten volumes (century company) is the standard authority. there is also an excellent condensation in one volume. other biographies are by w. h. herndon, lincoln's law partner (two vols., putnam); by miss ida tarbell (two vols., mcclure); by john t. morse, jr., in the american statesmen series (houghton, mifflin & co.); and by norman hapgood (macmillan). among the many tributes to lincoln, are the essays by james russell lowell, carl schurz, the address by emerson; and poems by stedman, bryant, holmes, stoddard, gilder, and whitman, and the noble lines in lowell's commemoration ode. the student of lincoln's writings should be familiar with the history of the united states, and should consult the standard histories for explanation of the references to events in the long struggle which culminated in the civil war. chronological table life of lincoln. contemporary contemporary biography. american history. . lincoln born, . gladstone, . madison president. feb. . darwin, tennyson, poe, holmes born. . douglas born. . family moved . indiana admitted to indiana. as a state. . mother died. . illinois admitted as a state. . father married sarah johnston. . missouri compromise. . missouri admitted as a state. . grant born. . jackson president. . family moved . douglas moved . speeches of hayne to illinois. to new york. and webster. . settled in . publication of new salem. _the liberatur_. . enlisted in the . founding of the black hawk war: new england anti-slavery unsuccessful society. candidate for the legislature . postmaster of . douglas moved . founding of the new salem; deputy to illinois. american anti-slavery surveyor's clerk. society. . elected to the . douglas admitted legislature. to the bar. . douglas elected state's attorney. . reelected to . douglas elected the legislature. to the legislature. presidential elector. . admitted to . douglas . van buren the bar. moved appointed registrar president. murder to springfield. of the land office; of owen lovejoy. nominated for congress. . reelected to the legislature. . presidential . douglas elector. appointed judge of the illinois supreme court. . harrison president. tyler president. . married to mary todd. . presidential . douglas elected elector. to congress. . polk president. texas admitted as a state. . elected to - . war with mexico. congress. . douglas elected u.s. senator; moved to chicago. . presidential elector. . taylor president. . death of calhoun. . fillmore president. clay's compromise measure. . death of clay and of webster. . douglas . pierce president. reelected senator. . reelected to the . kansas-nebraska legislature. bill. . resigned from the legislature. candidate for the u. s. senate. . candidate for . fremont first nomination for republican candidate for vice-president. the presidency. civil war in kansas. . buchanan president. the dred scott decision. . candidate for . lincoln-douglas the u. s. senate. debates. . douglas . death of john reelected brown. to the senate. . cooper institute . douglas . south carolina address. elected democratic ordinance of secession. president. candidate for the presidency. . left springfield, . douglas died, . fall of fort sumter, feb. ; inaugurated june . april . battle march . mcclellan of bull run, july . commander-in-chief. kansas admitted as a state. . the preliminary . slavery abolished emancipation in the district of proclamation, sept. . columbia, april . . the final . battle of emancipation gettysburg, july - . proclamation, jan. . the gettysburg address, nov. . . reelected to . grant . battles of the the presidency. appointed wilderness, may - . lieutenant-general. . inaugurated, . fall of richmond, mar. . assassinated, april . surrender of april ; died april lee, april . johnson ; buried at sworn in as president, springfield, may . april . selections from inaugurals, addresses and letters abraham lincoln lincoln's inaugurals, addresses and letters address to the people of sangamon county, march , fellow-citizens: having become a candidate for the honorable office of one of your representatives in the next general assembly of this state, in accordance with an established custom and the principles of true republicanism, it becomes my duty to make known to you--the people whom i propose to represent--my sentiments with regard to local affairs. time and experience have verified to a demonstration, the public utility of internal improvements. that the poorest and most thinly populated countries would be greatly benefited by the opening of good roads, and in the clearing of navigable streams within their limits, is what no person will deny. but yet it is folly to undertake works of this or any other kind, without first knowing that we are able to finish them--as half finished work generally proves to be labor lost. there cannot justly be any objection to having railroads and canals, any more than to other good things, provided they cost nothing. the only objection is to paying for them; and the objection to paying arises from the want of ability to pay. with respect to the county of sangamon, some more easy means of communication than we now possess, for the purpose of facilitating the task of exporting the surplus products of its fertile soil, and importing necessary articles from abroad, are indispensably necessary. a meeting has been held of the citizens of jacksonville, and the adjacent country, for the purpose of deliberating and enquiring into the expediency of constructing a railroad from some eligible point on the illinois river, through the town of jacksonville, in morgan county, to the town of springfield in sangamon county. this is, indeed, a very desirable object. no other improvement that reason will justify us in hoping for, can equal in utility the railroad. it is a never failing source of communication, between places of business remotely situated from each other. upon the railroad the regular progress of commercial intercourse is not interrupted by either high or low water, or freezing weather, which are the principal difficulties that render our future hopes of water communication precarious and uncertain. yet, however desirable an object the construction of a railroad through our country may be; however high our imaginations may be heated at thoughts of it--there is always a heart appalling shock accompanying the account of its cost, which forces us to shrink from our pleasing anticipations. the probable cost of this contemplated railroad is estimated at $ , ;--the bare statement of which, in my opinion, is sufficient to justify the belief, that the improvement of the sangamon river is an object much better suited to our infant resources. respecting this view, i think i may say, without the fear of being contradicted, that its navigation may be rendered completely practicable, as high as the mouth of the south fork, or probably higher, to vessels of from to tons burthen, for at least one half of all common years, and to vessels of much greater burthen a part of that time. from my peculiar circumstances, it is probable that for the last twelve months i have given as particular attention to the stage of the water in this river, as any other person in the country. in the month of march, , in company with others, i commenced the building of a flatboat on the sangamon, and finished and took her out in the course of the spring. since that time, i have been concerned in the mill at new salem. these circumstances are sufficient evidence, that i have not been very inattentive to the stages of the water.--the time at which we crossed the milldam, being in the last days of april, the water was lower than it had been since the breaking of winter in february, or than it was for several weeks after. the principal difficulties we encountered in descending the river, were from the drifted timber, which obstructions all know is not difficult to be removed. knowing almost precisely the height of water at that time, i believe i am safe in saying that it has as often been higher as lower since. from this view of the subject, it appears that my calculations with regard to the navigation of the sangamon, cannot be unfounded in reason; but whatever may be its natural advantages, certain it is, that it never can be practically useful to any great extent, without being greatly improved by art. the drifted timber, as i have before mentioned, is the most formidable barrier to this object. of all parts of this river, none will require so much labor in proportion, to make it navigable as the last thirty or thirty-five miles; and going with the meanderings of the channel, when we are this distance above its mouth, we are only between twelve and eighteen miles above beardstown in something near a straight direction, and this route is upon such low ground as to retain water in many places during the season, and in all parts such as to draw two-thirds or three-fourths of the river water at all stages. this route is up on prairieland the whole distance;--so that it appears to me, by removing the turf, a sufficient width, and damming up the old channel, the whole river in a short time would wash its way through, thereby curtailing the distance, and increasing the velocity of the current very considerably, while there would be no timber upon the banks to obstruct its navigation in future; and being nearly straight, the timber which might float in at the head, would be apt to go clear through. there are also many places above this where the river, in its zigzag course, forms such complete peninsulas, as to be easier cut through at the necks than to remove the obstructions from the bends--which if done, would also lessen the distance. what the cost of this work would be, i am unable to say. it is probable, however, that it would not be greater than is common to streams of the same length. finally, i believe the improvement of the sangamon river, to be vastly important and highly desirable to the improvement of the county; and if elected, any measure in the legislature having this for its object, which may appear judicious, will meet my approbation and shall receive my support. it appears that the practice of loaning money at exorbitant rates of interest, has already been opened as a field for discussion; so i suppose i may enter upon it without claiming the honor, or risking the danger, which may await its first explorer. it seems as though we are never to have an end to this baneful and corroding system, acting almost as prejudicial to the general interests of the community as a direct tax of several thousand dollars annually laid on each county, for the benefit of a few individuals only, unless there be a law made setting a limit to the rates of usury. a law for this purpose, i am of opinion, may be made without materially injuring any class of people. in cases of extreme necessity there could always be means found to cheat the law, while in all other cases it would have its intended effect. i would not favor the passage of a law upon this subject which might be very easily evaded. let it be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it could only be justified in cases of greatest necessity. upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, i can only say that i view it as the most important subject which we as a people can be engaged in. that every man may receive at least, a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the history of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to read the scriptures and other works, both of a religious and moral nature, for themselves. for my part, i desire to see the time when education, and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise and industry, shall become much more general than at present, and should be gratified to have it in my power to contribute something to the advancement of any measure which might have a tendency to accelerate the happy period. with regard to existing laws, some alterations are thought to be necessary. many respectable men have suggested that our estray laws--the law respecting the issuing of executions, the road law, and some others, are deficient in their present form, and require alterations. but considering the great probability that the framers of those laws were wiser than myself, i should prefer [not] meddling with them, unless they were first attacked by others, in which case i should feel it both a privilege and a duty to take that stand, which in my view, might tend most to the advancement of justice. but, fellow-citizens, i shall conclude.--considering the great degree of modesty which should always attend youth, it is probable i have already been more presuming than becomes me. however, upon the subjects of which i have treated, i have spoken as i thought. i may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but, holding it a sound maxim, that it is better to be only sometimes right, than at all times wrong, so soon as i discover my opinions to be erroneous, i shall be ready to renounce them. every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. whether it be true or not, i can say, for one, that i have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem. how far i shall succeed in gratifying this ambition, is yet to be developed. i am young and unknown to many of you. i was born and have ever remained in the most humble walks of life. i have no wealthy or popular relations to recommend me. my case is thrown exclusively upon the independent voters of this county, and if elected they will have conferred a favor upon me, for which i shall be unremitting in my labors to compensate. but, if the good people in their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, i have been too familiar with disappointments to be very much chagrined. your friend and fellow-citizen, a. lincoln. new salem, march , . the perpetuation of our political institutions, january , in the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the american people, find our account running under date of the nineteenth century of the christian era.--we find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. we find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which the history of former times tells us. we, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. we toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed, race of ancestors. theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these, the former unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation--to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. this task gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform. how, then, shall we perform it?--at what point shall we expect the approach of danger? by what means shall we fortify against it? shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? never!--all the armies of europe, asia, and africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the ohio or make a track on the blue ridge in a trial of a thousand years. at what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? i answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. it cannot come from abroad. if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. as a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide. i hope i am over wary; but if i am not, there is, even now, something of ill omen amongst us. i mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. this disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the every-day news of the times. they have pervaded the country from new england to louisiana;--they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the burning suns of the latter; they are not the creature of climate, neither are they confined to the slave-holding or the non-slave-holding states. alike they spring up among the pleasure-hunting masters of southern slaves, and the order-loving citizens of the land of steady habits.--whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country. it would be tedious as well as useless to recount the horrors of all of them. those, happening in the state of mississippi and at st. louis are, perhaps, the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. in the mississippi case they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers--a set of men certainly not following for a livelihood a very useful or very honest occupation; but one which, so far from being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the legislature passed but a single year before. next negroes suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection were caught up and hanged in all parts of the state; then, white men supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers from neighboring states, going thither on business, were, in many instances, subjected to the same fate. thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers, till dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every roadside, and in numbers almost sufficient to rival the native spanish moss of the country, as a drapery of the forest. turn, then, to that horror-striking scene at st. louis. a single victim only was sacrificed there. this story is very short, and is perhaps the most highly tragic of anything of its length that has ever been witnessed in real life. a mulatto man by the name of mcintosh was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman, attending to his own business and at peace with the world. such are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order, and the stories of which have even now grown too familiar to attract anything more than an idle remark. but you are perhaps ready to ask, "what has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" i answer, it has much to do with it. its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil, and much of its danger consists in the proneness of our minds to regard its direct as its only consequences. abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at vicksburg was of but little consequence. they constitute a portion of population that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. if they were annually swept from the stage of existence by the plague or small-pox, honest men would perhaps be much profited by the operation.--similar too is the correct reasoning in regard to the burning of the negro at st. louis. he had forfeited his life by the perpetration of an outrageous murder upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city, and had he not died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law in a very short time afterwards. as to him alone, it was as well the way it was as it could otherwise have been. but the example in either case was fearful. when men take it in their heads to-day to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they should recollect that in the confusion usually attending such transactions they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is, and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. and not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defence of the persons and property of individuals are trodden down and disregarded. but all this, even, is not the full extent of the evil. by such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained. having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation. while, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquillity, who desire to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defence of their country, seeing their property destroyed, their families insulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better, become tired of and disgusted with a government that offers them no protection, and are not much averse to a change, in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit which all must admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--i mean the _attachment_ of the people. whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing-presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and with impunity, depend on it, this government cannot last. by such things the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it, and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak to make their friendship effectual. at such a time, and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric which for the last half century as been the fondest hope of the lovers of freedom throughout the world. i know the american people are much attached to their government; i know they would suffer much for its sake; i know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come. here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. the question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" the answer is simple. let every american, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. as the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the declaration of independence, so to the support of the constitution and laws let every american pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor:--let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. let reverence for the laws be breathed by every american mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. and, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. while ever a state of feeling such as this shall universally or even very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom. when i so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. i mean to say no such thing. but i do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. so also in unprovided cases. if such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with. there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. in any case that may arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true--that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens, or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable. but it may be asked, why suppose danger to our political institutions? have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? and why may we not for fifty times as long? we hope there is _no sufficient_ reason. we hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise would itself be extremely dangerous. there are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore, and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. that our government should have been maintained in its original form, from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. it had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed and crumbled away. through that period it was felt by all to be an undecided experiment; now it is understood to be a successful one.--then, all that sought celebrity and fame and distinction expected to find them in the success of that experiment. their _all_ was staked upon it; their destiny was _inseparably_ linked with it. their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition which had hitherto been considered at best no better than problematical--namely, _the capability of a people to govern themselves_. if they succeeded they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties, and cities, and rivers, and mountains; and to be revered and sung, toasted through all time. if they failed, they were to be called knaves, and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. they succeeded. the experiment is successful, and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. but the game is caught; and i believe it is true that with the catching end the pleasures of the chase. this field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. but new reapers will arise, and _they_ too will seek a field. it is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. and, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. the question then is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? most certainly it cannot. many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but _such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle_. what! think you these places would satisfy an alexander, a caesar, or a napoleon? never! towering genius disdains a beaten path. it seeks regions hitherto unexplored. it sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. it _denies_ that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. it _scorns_ to tread in the footsteps of _any_ predecessor, however illustrious. it thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. is it unreasonable then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? and when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. distinction will be his paramount object, and, although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down. here then is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such an one as could have well existed heretofore. another reason which _once was_, but which, to the same extent, is _now no more_, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far, i mean the powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the revolution had upon the _passions_ of the people as distinguished from their judgment. by this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were for the time in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive, while the deep-rooted principles of _hate_, and the powerful motive of _revenge_, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the british nation. and thus, from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of our nature were either made to lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the noblest of causes--that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty. but this state of feeling _must fade, is fading, has faded_, with the circumstances that produced it. i do not mean to say that the scenes of the revolution _are now_ or _ever will be_ entirely forgotten, but that, like everything else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. in history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read; but even granting that they will, their influence _cannot_ be what it heretofore has been. even then they _cannot_ be so universally known nor so vividly felt as they were by the generation just gone to rest. at the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. the consequence was that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son, or a brother, a _living history_ was to be found in every family--a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related--a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.--but _those_ histories are gone. they can be read no more forever. they _were_ a fortress of strength; but what invading foeman could _never do_, the silent artillery of time _has done_--the levelling of its walls. they are gone. they _were_ a forest of giant oaks; but the all-restless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be no more. they _were_ pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. passion has helped us, but can do so no more. it will in future be our enemy. reason--cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. let those materials be moulded into _general intelligence, sound morality_, and, in particular, _a reverence for the constitution and laws_; and that we improved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we revered his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting-place, shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our washington. upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis, and, as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "_the gates of hell shall not prevail against it_." speech, at springfield, illinois, june , mr. president, and gentlemen of the convention: if we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. in my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "a house divided against itself cannot stand." i believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved--i do not expect the house to fall--but i do expect it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new,--north as well as south. have we no tendency to the latter condition? let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination---piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the nebraska doctrine and the dred scott decision. let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning. the new year of found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. this opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. but, so far, congress only had acted, and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. this necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: that if any _one_ man choose to enslave _another_, no _third_ man shall be allowed to object. that argument was incorporated into the nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "but," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. while the nebraska bill was passing through congress, a _law case_ involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the united states circuit court for the district of missouri; and both nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of may, . the negro's name was "dred scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. before the then next presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the supreme court of the united states; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. still, before the election, senator trumbull, on the floor of the senate, requested the leading advocate of the nebraska bill to state _his opinion_ whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "that is a question for the supreme court." the election came. mr. buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. that was the second point gained. the indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. the out-going president, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. the supreme court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. the presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming president in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. then, in a few days, came the decision. the reputed author of the nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorseing the dred scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. the new president, too, seizes the early occasion of the silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained! at length a squabble springs up between the president and the author of the nebraska bill, on the mere question of _fact_, whether the lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted _down_ or voted _up_. i do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind--the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. and well may he cling to that principle. if he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. that principle is the only shred left of his original nebraska doctrine. under the dred scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding--like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand,--helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. his late joint struggle with the republicans against the lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original nebraska doctrine. that struggle was made on a point--the right of a people to make their own constitution--upon which he and the republicans have never differed. the several points of the dred scott decision, in connection with senator douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. this was the third point gained. the working points of that machinery are: ( ) that no negro slave, imported as such from africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term as used in the constitution of the united states. this point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the united states constitution which declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." ( ) that, "subject to the constitution of the united states," neither congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any united states territory. this point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. ( ) that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free as against the holder, the united states courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. this point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what dred scott's master might lawfully do with dred scott, in the free state of illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in illinois, or in any other free state. auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. this shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending. it will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. the people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." what the constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the dred scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the dred scott decision. why was the court decision held up? why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. why the outgoing president's felicitation on the indorsement? why the delay of a reargument? why the incoming president's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? these things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. and why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the president and others? we cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen,--stephen, franklin, roger, and james, for instance--and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding--or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in--in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that stephen and franklin and roger and james all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. it should not be overlooked that, by the nebraska bill, the people of a _state_ as well as territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." why mention a state? they were legislating for territories, and not for or about states. certainly the people of a state are and ought to be subject to the constitution of the united states; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? while the opinion of the court, by chief justice taney, in the dred scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the constitution of the united states neither permits congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any united states territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same constitution permits a state, or the people of a state, to exclude it. possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if mclean or curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as chase and mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the nebraska bill--i ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? the nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery is made by judge nelson. he approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the nebraska act. on one occasion his exact language is: "except in cases where the power is restrained by the constitution of the united states, the law of the state is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." in what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the united states constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the nebraska act. put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another supreme court decision declaring that the constitution of the united states does not permit a _state_ to exclude slavery from its limits. and this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. we shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the supreme court has made illinois a slave state. to meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. that is what we have to do. how can we best do it? there are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that senator douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. they wish us to _infer_ all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. they remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. let this be granted. but "a living dog is better than a dead lion." judge douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. how can he oppose the advances of slavery? he don't care anything about it. his avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" _to care nothing about it_. a leading douglas democratic newspaper thinks douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the african slave-trade. does douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? he has not said so. does he really think so? but if it is, how can he resist it? for years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? and unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in africa than in virginia. he has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade--how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free"--unless he does it as a protection to the home production? and as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. senator douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday--that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. but can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? now, as ever, i wish not to misrepresent judge douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, i hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. but clearly he is not now with us--he does not pretend to be--he does not promise ever to be. our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. two years ago the republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. we did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. did we brave all then to falter now?--now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? the result is not doubtful. we shall not fail--if we stand firm, we _shall not fail_. wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. second joint debate at freeport, august , ladies and gentlemen; on saturday last, judge douglas and myself first met in public discussion. he spoke one hour, i an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. the order is now reversed. i am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then i am to reply for half an hour. i propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at ottawa. of course, there was brought within the scope of that half-hour's speech something of his own opening speech. in the course of that opening argument judge douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. in my speech of an hour and a half, i attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as i thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. i then distinctly intimated to him that i would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. he made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. i do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though i had _refused_ to answer his interrogatories. i now propose that i will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. i give him an opportunity to respond. the judge remains silent. i now say that i will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that after i have done so, i shall propound mine to him. i have supposed myself, since the organization of the republican party at bloomington, in may, , bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. if in any interrogatories which i shall answer i go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. having said thus much, i will take up the judge's interrogatories as i find them printed in the chicago _times_, and answer them _seriatim_. in order that there may be no mistake about it, i have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. the first one of these interrogatories is in these words: question . "i desire to know whether lincoln today stands as he did in , in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law?" answer. i do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law. q. . "i desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day as he did in , against the admission of any more slave states into the union, even if the people want them?" a. i do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave states into the union. q. . "i want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new state into the union with such a constitution as the people of that state may see fit to make?" a. i do not stand pledged against the admission of a new state into the union with such a constitution as the people of that state may see fit to make. q. . "i want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia?" a. i do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia. q. . "i desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different states?" a. i do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different states. q. . "i desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the territories of the united states, north as well as south of the missouri compromise line?" a. i am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the _right_ and _duty_ of congress to prohibit slavery in all the united states territories. q. . "i desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?" a. i am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, i would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as i might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves. now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far i have only answered that i was not _pledged_ to this, that, or the other. the judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and i have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly that i am not _pledged_ at all upon any of the points to which i have answered. but i am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. i am really disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what i really think upon them. as to the first one, in regard to the fugitive slave law, i have never hesitated to say, and i do not now hesitate to say, that i think, under the constitution of the united states, the people of the southern states are entitled to a congressional fugitive slave law. having said that, i have had nothing to say in regard to the existing fugitive slave law, further than that i think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. and inasmuch as we are now not in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, i would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. in regard to the other question, of whether i am pledged to the admission of any more slave states into the union, i state to you very frankly that i would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. i should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave state admitted into the union; but i must add, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial existence of any one given territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, i see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the union. the third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as i conceive, the same as the second. the fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia. in relation to that, i have my mind very distinctly made up. i should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the district of columbia. i believe that congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. yet, as a member of congress, i should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the district of columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions; first, that the abolition should be gradual; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the district; and third, that compensation should be made to unwilling owners. with these three conditions, i confess i would be exceedingly glad to see congress abolish slavery in the district of columbia, and, in the language of henry clay, "sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation." in regard to the fifth interrogatory, i must say here that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different states, i can truly answer, as i have, that i am pledged to nothing about it. it is a subject to which i have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. in other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. i could investigate it if i had sufficient time to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject, but i have not done so, and i say so frankly to you here and to judge douglas. i must say, however, that if i should be of opinion that congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the different states, i should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conservative principle, as i conceive it, akin to what i have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia. my answer as to whether i desire that slavery should be prohibited in all the territories of the united states is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. so i suppose in regard to the question whether i am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is such that i could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which i have placed in writing. now in all this the judge has me, and he has me on the record. i suppose he had flattered himself that i was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place and another set for another place--that i was afraid to say at one place what i uttered at another. what i am saying here i suppose i say to a vast audience as strongly tending to abolitionism as any audience in the state of illinois, and i believe i am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience. i now proceed to propound to the judge the interrogatories, so far as i have framed them. i will bring forward a new instalment when i get them ready. i will bring them forward now, only reaching to number four. the first one is: question . if the people of kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a state constitution, and ask admission into the union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the english bill,--some ninety-three thousand,--will you vote to admit them? q. . can the people of a united states territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the united states, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a state constitution? q. . if the supreme court of the united states shall decide that states cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action? q. . are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question? as introductory to these interrogatories which judge douglas propounded to me at ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said judge trumbull and myself had participated in adopting, in the first republican state convention, held at springfield, in october, . he insisted that i and judge trumbull, and perhaps the entire republican party, were responsible for the doctrines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, and i understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority for propounding those questions to me. now i say here to-day that i do not answer his interrogatories because of their springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. i answered them because judge douglas thought fit to ask them. i do not now, nor ever did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolutions. when i replied to him on that occasion, i assured him that i never had anything to do with them. i repeat here to-day, that i never in any possible form had anything to do with that set of resolutions. it turns out, i believe, that those resolutions were never passed at any convention held in springfield. it turns out that they were never passed at any convention or any public meeting that i had any part in. i believe it turns out, in addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of , any convention holding a session in springfield calling itself a republican state convention; yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men calling themselves a convention, at springfield, that did pass _some_ resolutions. but so little did i really know of the proceedings of that convention, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when judge douglas read the resolutions, i really did not know but that they had been the resolutions passed then and there. i did not question that they were the resolutions adopted. for i could not bring myself to suppose that judge douglas could say what he did upon this subject without _knowing_ that it was true. i contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as i truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at springfield. now it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in kane county. i wish to say here, that i don't conceive that in any fair and just mind this discovery relieves me at all. i had just as much to do with the convention in kane county as that at springfield. i am just as much responsible for the resolutions at kane county as those at springfield, the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. i allude to this extraordinary matter in this canvass for some further purpose than anything yet advanced. judge douglas did not make his statement upon that occasion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as _being true_, in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. when the whole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who judge douglas is,--that he is a distinguished senator of the united states; that he has served nearly twelve years as such; that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary senator of the united states, but that his name has become of world-wide renown,--it is _most extraordinary_ that he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. i can only account for his having done so upon the supposition that that evil genius which has attended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice--i say i can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at last made up its mind to forsake him. and i may add that another extraordinary feature of the judge's conduct in this canvass--made more extraordinary by this incident--is, that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and others. i now ask whether he is able to find in anything that judge trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything that i have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity. i have been in the habit of charging as a matter of belief on my part, that, in the introduction of the nebraska bill into congress, there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. i have arranged from time to time the evidence which establishes and proves the truth of this charge. i recurred to this charge at ottawa. i shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great length; but, inasmuch as judge douglas in his reply of half an hour made some points upon me in relation to it, i propose noticing a few of them. the judge insists that, in the first speech i made, in which i very distinctly made that charge, he thought for a good while i was in fun!--that i was playful--that i was not sincere about it--and that he only grew angry and somewhat excited when he found that i insisted upon it as a matter of earnestness. he says he characterized it as a falsehood as far as i implicated his _moral character_ in that transaction. well, i did not know, till he presented that view, that i had implicated his moral character. he is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into a position i never thought of occupying, of very cozily saying he has no doubt lincoln is "conscientious" in saying so. he should remember that i did not know but what _he_ was altogether "conscientious" in that matter. i can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and i really find nothing in judge douglas's course of arguments that is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing, and so i hope he will understand that i do not at all question but that in all this matter he is entirely "conscientious." but to draw your attention to one of the points i made in this case, beginning at the beginning. when the nebraska bill was introduced, or a short time afterward, by an amendment, i believe, it was provided that it must be considered "the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any state or territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way subject only to the constitution of the united states." i have called his attention to the fact that when he and some others began arguing that they were giving an increased degree of liberty to the people in the territories over and above what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question was raised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to the people; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, mr. chase, of ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law--if the amendment were adopted--expressly declare that the people of the territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. i have asked attention also to the fact that judge douglas, and those who acted with him, voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly the thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. i have called attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the supreme court has been made in which it has been declared that a territorial legislature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery. and i have argued and said that for men who did intend that the people of the territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and unconditionally, the voting down of chase's amendment is wholly inexplicable. it is a puzzle--a riddle. but i have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation, that such a decision of the supreme court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. it would keep congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was made. anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expectation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the supreme court--all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party--to decide one way, when the party in congress had decided the other way. hence it would be very rational for men expecting such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it. after pointing this out, i tell judge douglas that it looks to me as though here was the reason why chase's amendment was voted down. i tell him that as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason different from this, _he knows what that reason was, and can tell us what it was_. i tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. well, on saturday he did make his answer, and what do you think it was? he says if i had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about that amendment of chase's, no explanation would have been necessary on his part--or words to that effect. now, i say here that i am quite unconscious of having suppressed anything material to the case, and i am very frank to admit if there is any sound reason other than that which appeared to me material, it is quite fair for him to present it. what reason does he propose? that when chase came forward with his amendment expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery from the limits of every territory, general cass proposed to chase, if he (chase) would add to his amendment that the people should have the power to _introduce_ or exclude, they would let it go. this is substantially all of his reply. and because chase would not do that they voted his amendment down. well, it turns out, i believe, upon examination, that general cass took some part in the little running debate upon that amendment, _and then ran away and did not vote on it at all_. is not that the fact? so confident, as i think, was general cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the whole thing. this is an inference i draw from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. but does judge douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer? [cries of "yes," "yes," and "no," "no."] there is some little difference of opinion here. but i ask attention to a few more views bearing on the question of whether it amounts to a satisfactory answer. the men who were determined that that amendment should not get into the bill, and spoil the place where the dred scott decision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. one of these ways--one of these excuses--was to ask chase to add to his proposed amendment a provision that the people might _introduce_ slavery if they wanted to. they very well knew chase would do no such thing--that mr. chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle of his insisting that freedom was _better_ than slavery--a man who would not consent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, by which he was made to recognize slavery on the one hand and liberty on the other as _precisely equal_; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well knew they insisted on that which he would not for a moment think of doing, and that they were only bluffing him. i believe--i have not, since he made his answer, had a chance to examine the journals or _congressional globe_, and therefore speak from memory--i believe the state of the bill at that time, according to parliamentary rules, was such that no member could propose an additional amendment to chase's amendment. i rather think this the truth--the judge shakes his head. very well. i would, like to know then, _if they wanted chase's amendment fixed over, why somebody else could not have offered to do it_. if they wanted it amended, why did they not offer the amendment? why did they stand there taunting and quibbling at chase? why did they not put it in themselves? but, to put it on the other ground: suppose that there was such an amendment offered and chase's was an amendment to an amendment; until one is disposed of by parliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. then all these gentlemen had to do was to vote chase's on, and then, in the amended form in which the whole stood, add their own amendment to it if they wanted to put it in that shape. this was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noes show that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against ten who voted in favor of it. the thirty-six held entire sway and control. they could in some form or other have put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. if there was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, they could pass that, and then, chase's amendment being merged, put it in the shape they wanted. they did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble with chase to get him to add what they knew he would not add, and because he would not, they stand upon that flimsy pretext for voting down what they argued was the meaning and intent of their own bill. they left room thereby for this dred scott decision, which goes very far to make slavery national throughout the united states. i pass one or two points i have because my time will very soon expire, but i must be allowed to say that judge douglas recurs again, as he did upon one of two other occasions, to the enormity of lincoln--an insignificant individual like lincoln--upon his _ipse dixit_ charging a conspiracy upon a large number of members of congress, the supreme court, and two presidents, to nationalize slavery. i want to say that, in the first place, i have made no charge of this sort upon my _ipse dixit_. i have only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to the understanding of others, saying what i think it proves, but giving you the means of judging whether it proves it or not. this is precisely what i have done. i have not placed it upon my _ipse dixit_ at all. on this occasion, i wish to recall his attention to a piece of evidence which i brought forward at ottawa on saturday, showing that he had made substantially the _same charge_ against substantially the _same persons_, excluding his dear self from the category. i ask him to give some attention to the evidence which i brought forward, that he himself had discovered a "fatal blow being struck" against the right of the people to exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the washington _union_, published "by authority." i ask by whose authority? he discovers a similar or identical provision in the lecompton constitution. made by whom? the framers of that constitution. advocated by whom? by all the members of the party in the nation who advocated the introduction of kansas into the union under the lecompton constitution. i have asked his attention to the evidence that he arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the facts which he brought forward in support of that charge--being identical with the one which he thinks so villainous in me. he pointed it not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the president and his cabinet, and the members of congress advocating the lecompton constitution, and those framing that instrument. i must again be permitted to remind him, that although my _ipse dixit_ may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my attention to the enormity of my making a like charge against him. go on, judge douglas. the cooper institute address, monday, february , mr. president and fellow-citizens of new york: the facts with which i shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use i shall make of them. if there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. in his speech last autumn, at columbus, ohio, as reported in the new york times, senator douglas said: our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now. i fully indorse this, and i adopt it as a text for this discourse. i so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and agreed starting point for a discussion between republicans and that wing of the democracy headed by senator douglas. it simply leaves the inquiry: "what was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?" what is the frame of government under which we live? the answer must be, "the constitution of the united states." that constitution consists of the original, framed in (and under which the present government first went into operation), and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in . who were our fathers that framed the constitution? i suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. it is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. i take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." what is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better, than we do now?" it is this: does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the constitution, forbid our federal government to control as to slavery in our federal territories? upon this, senator douglas holds the affirmative, and republicans the negative. this affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue--this question--is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we." let us now, inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they expressed that better understanding. in , three years before the constitution, the united states then owning the northwestern territory, and no other, the congress of the confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the constitution were in that congress, and voted on that question. of these, roger sherman, thomas mifflin, and hugh williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. the other of the four--james mchenry--voted against the prohibition, showing that for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it. in , still before the constitution, but while the convention was in session framing it, and while the northwestern territory still was the only territory owned by the united states, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the congress of the confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the constitution were in that congress, and voted on the question. they were william blount, william few, and abraham baldwin; and they all voted for the prohibition--thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. this time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the ordinance of ' . the question of federal control of slavery in the territories seems not to have been directly before the convention which framed the original constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. in , by the first congress which sat under the constitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordinance of ' , including the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory. the bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," thomas fitzsimmons, then a member of the house of representatives from pennsylvania. it went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage. in this congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original constitution. they were john langdon, nicholas gilman, wm. s. johnson, roger sherman, robert morris, thos. fitzsimmons, william few, abraham baldwin, rufus king, william patterson, george clymer, richard bassett, george read, pierce butler, daniel carroll, and james madison. this shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the constitution, properly forbade congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. again, george washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then president of the united states, and as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. no great while after the adoption of the original constitution, north carolina ceded to the federal government the country now constituting the state of tennessee; and a few years later georgia ceded that which now constitutes the states of mississippi and alabama. in both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding states that the federal government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. under these circumstances, congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. but they did interfere with it--take control of it--even there, to a certain extent. in , congress organized the territory of mississippi. in the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the territory from any place without the united states, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. this act passed both branches of congress without yeas and nays. in that congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original constitution. they were john langdon, george read, and abraham baldwin. they all probably voted for it. certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the constitution, properly forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. in , the federal government purchased the louisiana country. our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own states; but this louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. in , congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the state of louisiana. new orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. there were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. congress did not, in the territorial act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it--take control of it--in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of mississippi. the substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was: first. that no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts. second. that no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the united states since the first day of may, . third. that no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. this act also was passed without ayes and nays. in the congress which passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." they were abraham baldwin and jonathan dayton. as stated in the case of mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. they would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the constitution. in - came and passed the missouri question. many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of congress, upon the various phases of the general question. two of the "thirty-nine"--rufus king and charles pinckney--were members of that congress. mr. king steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while mr. pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. by this, mr. king showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the constitution, was violated by congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while mr. pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. the cases i have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which i have been able to discover. to enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in , three in , seventeen in , three in , two in , and two in - , there would be thirty of them. but this would be counting john langdon, roger sherman, william few, rufus king, and george read each twice, and abraham baldwin three times. the true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom i have shown to have acted upon the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty-nine" fathers "who framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better, than we do now;" and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. two of the twenty-three voted against congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. but for what reasons they so voted is not known. they may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. no one who has sworn to support the constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. it, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. the remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as i have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. but there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all. for the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, i have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original constitution; and, for the same reason, i have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even on any other phase of the general question of slavery. if we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times,--as dr. franklin, alexander hamilton, and gouverneur morris,--while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be john rutledge, of south carolina. the sum of the whole is that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the constitution, forbade the federal government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we." but, so far, i have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original constitution. in and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as i have already stated, the present frame of "the government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, i understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. the supreme court, in the dred scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;" while senator douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first congress which sat under the constitution--the identical congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory. not only was it the same congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. the constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the ordinance of ' ; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending. that congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, including sixteen of the framers of the original constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of "the government under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the federal government to control slavery in the federal territories. is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? and does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? it is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original constitution, and the seventy-six members of the congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." and so assuming, i defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. i go a step further. i defy any one to show that any living man, in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and i might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. to those who now so declare i give not only "our fathers who framed the government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them. now, and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. i do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. to do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience--to reject all progress, all improvement. what i do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. if any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. but he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" were of the same opinion--thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. if any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority, or some part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. but he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now." but enough. let all who believe that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. this is all republicans ask--all republicans desire--in relation to slavery. as those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. for this republicans contend, and with this, so far as i know or believe, they will be content. and now, if they would listen--as i suppose they will not--i would address a few words to the southern people. i would say to them: you consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and i consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. still, when you speak of us republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. you will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "black republicans." in all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "black republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite--license, so to speak--among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. you say we are sectional. we deny it. that makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. you produce your proof; and what is it? why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. the fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? if it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. you cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? if you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. you will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. the fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. and if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. if we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. if our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. do you accept the challenge? no? then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by washington in his farewell address. less than eight years before washington gave that warning, he had, as president of the united states, approved and signed an act of congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free states. bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? could washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? we respect that warning of washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. but you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. what is conservatism? is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? we stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. true, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. you are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congressional slave-code for the territories; some for congress forbidding the territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. we deny it. we admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. it was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. we resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? go back to that old policy. what has been will be again, under the same conditions. if you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. you charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. we deny it; and what is your proof? harper's ferry! john brown!! john brown was no republican; and you have failed to implicate a single republican in his harper's ferry enterprise. if any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. if you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. if you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. you need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. some of you admit that no republican designedly aided or encouraged the harper's ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. we do not believe it. we know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." you never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. when it occurred, some important state elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. the elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. every republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. true, we do, in common with "our fathers who framed the government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. for anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a republican party. i believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. in your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with black republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines black republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves. slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the republican party was organized. what induced the southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at harper's ferry? you can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that southampton was "got up by black republicanism." in the present state of things in the united states, i do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. the indispensable concert of action cannot be obtained. the slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. the explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. much is said by southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. a plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. this is the rule; and the slave revolution in hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. the gunpowder plot of british history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. in that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as i think, can happen in this country for a long time. whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. in the language of mr. jefferson, uttered many years ago, "it is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, _pari passu_, filled up by free white laborers. if, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." mr. jefferson did not mean to say, nor do i, that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. he spoke of virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, i speak of the slaveholding states only. the federal government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution--the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any american soil which is now free from slavery. john brown's effort was peculiar. it was not a slave insurrection. it was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. in fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. that affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. an enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. he ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in his own execution. orsini's attempt on louis napoleon, and john brown's attempt at harper's ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. the eagerness to cast blame on old england in the one case, and on new england in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. and how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of john brown, helper's book, and the like, break up the republican organization? human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. there is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. you cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. you can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? what would that other channel probably be? would the number of john browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? but you will break up the union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. that has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the constitution. but we are proposing no such thing. when you make these declarations you have a specific and well understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. but no such right is specifically written in the constitution. that instrument is literally silent about any such right. we, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the constitution, even by implication. your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. you will rule or ruin in all events. this, plainly stated, is your language. perhaps you will say the supreme court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. not quite so. but waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. the court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. when i say the decision was made in a sort of way, i mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution." an inspection of the constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there--"distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else--"expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. if they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due"--as a debt payable in service or labor. also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the constitution the idea that there could be property in man. to show all this is easy and certain. when this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? and then it is to be remembered that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live"--the men who made the constitution--decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago: decided it without a division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourself justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? but you will not abide the election of a republican president! in that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! that is cool. a highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, or i shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" to be sure, what the robber demanded of me--my money--was my own; and i had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. a few words now to republicans. it is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. let us republicans do our part to have it so. even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine if we can, what will satisfy them. will they be satisfied if the territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? we know they will not. in all their present complaints against us, the territories are scarcely mentioned. invasions and insurrections are the rage now. will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? we know it will not. we so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. the question recurs, what will satisfy them? simply this: we must not only let them alone, but we must somehow convince them that we do let them alone. this, we know by experience, is no easy task. we have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. in all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. these natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? this, and this only: cease to call slavery _wrong_, and join them in calling it _right_. and this must be done thoroughly--done in _acts_ as well as in _words_. silence will not be tolerated--we must place ourselves avowedly with them. senator douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. we must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. we must pull down our free-state constitutions. the whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. i am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. most of them would probably say to us, "let us alone; do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." but we do let them alone,--have never disturbed them,--so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. they will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. i am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free-state constitutions. yet those constitutions declare the wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. it is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now. demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing. nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. if slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. if it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality--its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension--its enlargement. all they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? in view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories, and to overrun us here in these free states? if our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care; such as union appeals beseeching true union men to yield to disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to washington, imploring men to unsay what washington said and undo what washington did. neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. farewell address at springfield, illinois, february , my friends: no one not in my position can appreciate the sadness i feel at this parting. to this people i owe all that i am. here i have lived more than a quarter of a century; here my children were born, and here one of them lies buried. i know not how soon i shall see you again. a duty devolves upon me which is, perhaps, greater than that which has devolved upon any other man since the days of washington. he never could have succeeded except for the aid of divine providence, upon which he at all times relied. i feel that i cannot succeed without the same divine aid which sustained him; and in the same almighty being i place my reliance for support; and i hope you, my friends, will all pray that i may receive that divine assistance, without which i cannot succeed, but with which success is certain. again i bid you all an affectionate farewell. farewell address at springfield, illinois, february , my friends: no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. to this place, and the kindness of these people, i owe everything. here i have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. here my children have been born and one is buried. i now leave, not knowing when or whether ever i may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon washington. without the assistance of that divine being who ever attended him, i cannot succeed. with that assistance, i cannot fail. trusting in him, who can go with me and remain with you, and be everywhere for good; let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. to his care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, i bid you an affectionate farewell. address in independence hall, philadelphia, february , mr. cutler: i am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. you have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. i can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments i entertain have been drawn, so far as i have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall. i have never had a feeling politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the declaration of independence. i have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that declaration. i have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. i have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. it was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the declaration of independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. this is the sentiment embodied in the declaration of independence. now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? if it can, i will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if i can help to save it. if it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. but if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, i was about to say i would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. there is no necessity for it. i am not in favor of such a course; and i may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. the government will not use force, unless force is used against it. my friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. i did not expect to be called on to say a word when i came here. i supposed i was merely to do something toward raising a flag. i may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. [cries of "no, no."] but i have said nothing but what i am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of almighty god, to die by. first inaugural address, march , fellow citizens of the united states: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, i appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the constitution of the united states to be taken by the president "before he enters on the execution of his office." i do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern states that, by the accession of a republican administration, their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. there has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. it is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. i do but quote from one of those speeches when i declare that "i have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so." those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that i had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. and, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which i now read: _resolved_, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. i now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, i only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. i add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another. there is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. the clause i now read is as plainly written in the constitution as any other of its provisions: no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. it is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. all members of congress swear their support to the whole constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. to the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? there is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. if the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. and should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? and might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" i take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. and while i do not choose now to specify particular acts of congress as proper to be enforced, i do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. it is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a president under our national constitution. during that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. they have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. yet, with all this scope of precedent, i now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. a disruption of the federal union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. i hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. continue to execute all the express provisions of our national constitution, and the union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. again, if the united states be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? one party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the union itself. the union is much older than the constitution. it was formed, in fact, by the articles of association in . it was matured and continued by the declaration of independence in . it was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the articles of confederation in . and, finally, in one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the constitution was "to form a more perfect union." but if the destruction of the union by one or by a part only of the states be lawfully possible, the union is less perfect than before the constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. it follows from these views that no state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any state or states, against the authority of the united states, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. i therefore consider that, in view of the constitution and the laws, the union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability i shall take care, as the constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the union be faithfully executed in all the states. doing this i deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and i shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the american people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. i trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. in doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. the power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. where hostility to the united states, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. while the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that i deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. the mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the union. so far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. the course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. that there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, i will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, i need address no word to them. to those, however, who really love the union may i not speak? before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? all profess to be content in the union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the constitution, has been denied? i think not. happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the constitution has ever been denied. if by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. but such is not our case. all the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions, in the constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. but no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. no foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by state authority? the constitution does not expressly say. _may_ congress prohibit slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. _must_ congress protect slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. from questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. if the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. there is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. if a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. for instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present union now claim to secede from it? all who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. i do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the supreme court; nor do i deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. and while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. at the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. it is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. one section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. this is the only substantial dispute. the fugitive-slave clause of the constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. the great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. this, i think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. the foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. physically speaking, we cannot separate. we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. a husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. they cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. i cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirious of having the national constitution amended. while i make no recommendation of amendments, i fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and i should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. i will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. i understand a proposed amendment to the constitution--which amendment, however, i have not seen--has passed congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service. to avoid misconstruction of what i have said, i depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, i have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. the chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. the people themselves can do this also if they choose: but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. his duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? is there any better or equal hope in the world? in our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? if the almighty ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the north, or on yours of the south, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the american people. by the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. while the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. my countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. if there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. if it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. intelligence, patriotism, christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all your present difficulties. in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. the government will not assail you. you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while i shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." i am loath to close. we are not enemies, but friends. we must not be enemies. though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. response to a serenade, march , fellow citizens: i thank you for this visit. i thank you that you call upon me, not in any sectional spirit, but that you come, without distinction of party, to pay your respects to the president of the united states. i am informed that you are mostly citizens of new york. [cries of "all," "all."] you all appear to be very happy. may i hope that the public expression which i have this day given to my sentiments, may have contributed in some degree to your happiness. [emphatic exclamations of assent.] as far as i am concerned, the loyal citizens of every state, and of every section, shall have no cause to feel any other sentiment. [cries of "good," "good."] as towards the disaffected portions of our fellow-citizens, i will say, as every good man throughout the country must feel, that there will be more rejoicing over one sheep that is lost, and is found, than over the ninety and nine which have not gone astray. [great cheering.] and now, my friends, as i have risen from the dinner-table to see you, you will excuse me for the brevity of my remarks, and permit me again to thank you heartily and cordially for the pleasant visit, as i rejoin those who await my return. letter to colonel ellsworth's parents washington, d.c., may , . to the father and mother of colonel elmer e. ellsworth: my dear sir and madam: in the untimely loss of your noble son, our affliction here is scarcely less than your own. so much of promised usefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self and friends, have rarely been so suddenly dashed as in his fall. in size, in years, and in youthful appearance a boy only, his power to command men was surpassingly great. this power, combined with a fine intellect, an indomitable energy, and a taste altogether military, constituted in him, as seemed to me, the best natural talent in that department i ever knew. and yet, he was singularly modest and deferential in social intercourse. my acquaintance with him began less than two years ago; yet through the latter part of the intervening period it was as intimate as the disparity of our ages and my engrossing engagements would permit. to me he appeared to have no indulgences or pastimes; and i never heard him utter a profane or an intemperate word. what was conclusive of his good heart, he never forgot his parents. the honors he labored for so laudably, and for which in the sad end he so gallantly gave his life, he meant for them no less than for himself. in the hope that it may be no intrusion upon the sacredness of your sorrow, i have ventured to address you this tribute to the memory of my young friend and your brave and early fallen child. may god give you that consolation which is beyond all earthly power. sincerely your friend in a common affliction, a. lincoln. letter to horace greeley executive mansion, washington, august , . hon. horace greeley: dear sir: i have just read yours of the th, addressed to myself through the n. y. _tribune_. if there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which i may know to be erroneous, i do not now and here controvert them. if there be in it any inferences which i may believe to be falsely drawn, i do not now and here argue against them. if there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, i waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart i have always supposed to be right. as to the policy i "seem to be pursuing," as you say, i have not meant to leave any one in doubt. i would save the union. i would save it in the shortest way under the constitution. the sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the union will be "the union as it was." if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time _save_ slavery, i do not agree with them. if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time _destroy_ slavery, i do not agree with them. my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and is _not_ either to save or to destroy slavery. if i could save the union without freeing _any_ slave, i would do it; if i could save it by freeing _all_ the slaves, i would do it; and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also do that. what i do about slavery and the colored race, i do because i believe it helps to save this union; and what i forbear, i forbear because i do not believe it would help to save the union. i shall do _less_ whenever i shall believe that what i am doing hurts the cause, and i shall do _more_ whenever i shall believe doing more will help the cause. i shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and i shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views. i have here stated my purpose according to my views of _official_ duty; and i intend no modification of my oft-expressed _personal_ wish that all men, everywhere could be free. yours, a. lincoln. extract from the second annual message to congress, december , a nation may be said to consist of its territory, its people, and its laws. the territory is the only part which is of certain durability. "one generation passeth away, and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever." it is of the first importance to duly consider and estimate this ever-enduring part. that portion of the earth's surface which is owned and inhabited by the people of the united states is well adapted to be the home of one national family, and it is not well adapted for two or more. its vast extent and its variety of climate and productions are of advantage in this age for one people whatever they might have been in former ages. steam, telegraphs, and intelligence have brought these to be an advantageous combination for one united people. in the inaugural address i briefly pointed out the total inadequacy of disunion as a remedy for the differences between the people of the two sections. i did so in language which i cannot improve and which, therefore, i beg to repeat: one section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. this is the only substantial dispute. the fugitive-slave clause of the constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. the great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. this, i think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. the foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. physically speaking, we cannot separate. we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. a husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. they cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. there is no line, straight or crooked, suitable for a national boundary upon which to divide. trace through, from east to west, upon the line between the free and slave country, and we shall find a little more than one-third of its length are rivers, easy to be crossed, and populated, or soon to be populated, thickly upon both sides; while nearly all its remaining length are merely surveyors' lines, over which people may walk and back forth without any consciousness of their presence. no part of this line can be made any more difficult to pass by writing it down on paper or parchment as a national boundary. the fact of separation, if it comes, gives up on the part of the seceding section the fugitive-slave clause along with all other constitutional obligations upon the section seceded from, while i should expect no treaty stipulation would be ever made to take its place. but there is another difficulty. the great interior region, bounded east by the alleghanies, north by the british dominions, west by the rocky mountains, and south by the line along which the culture of corn and cotton meets, and which includes part of virginia, part of tennessee, all of kentucky, ohio, indiana, michigan, wisconsin, illinois, missouri, kansas, iowa, minnesota, and the territories of dakota, nebraska, and part of colorado, already has above ten millions of people, and will have fifty millions within fifty years if not prevented by any political folly or mistake. it contains more than one third of the country owned by the united states--certainly more than one million of square miles. once half as populous as massachusetts already is, it would have more than seventy-five millions of people. a glance at the map shows that, territorially speaking, it is the great body of the republic. the other parts are but marginal borders to it, the magnificent region sloping west from the rocky mountains to the pacific being the deepest and also the richest in undeveloped resources. in the production of provisions, grains, grasses, and all which proceed from them, this great interior region is naturally one of the most important in the world. ascertain from the statistics the small proportion of the region which has, as yet, been brought into cultivation, and also the large and rapidly increasing amount of its products, and we shall be overwhelmed with the magnitude of the prospect presented; and yet this region has no seacoast, touches no ocean anywhere. as part of one nation, its people now find, and may forever find, their way to europe by new york, to south america and africa by new orleans, and to asia by san francisco. but separate our common country into two nations, as designed by the present rebellion, and every man of this great interior region is thereby cut off from some one or more of these outlets--not, perhaps, by a physical barrier, but by embarrassing and onerous trade regulations. and this is true wherever a dividing or boundary line may be fixed. place it between the now free and slave country, or place it south of kentucky or north of ohio, and still the truth remains that none south of it can trade to any port or place north of it, and none north of it can trade to any port or place south of it except upon terms dictated by a government foreign to them. these outlets, east, west, and south, are indispensable to the well-being of the people inhabiting, and to inhabit, this vast interior region. which of the three may be the best, is no proper question. all are better than either; and all of right belong to that people and to their successors forever. true to themselves, they will not ask where a line of separation shall be, but will vow rather that there shall be no such line. nor are the marginal regions less interested in these communications to and through them to the great outside world. they, too, and each of them, must have access to this egypt of the west without paying toll at the crossing of any national boundary. our national strife springs not from our permanent part, not from the land we inhabit, not from our national homestead. there is no possible severing of this but would multiply, and not mitigate, evils among us. in all its adaptations and aptitudes it demands union and abhors separation. in fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost. our strife pertains to ourselves--to the passing generations of men; and it can without convulsion be hushed forever with the passing of one generation. . . . i do not forget the gravity which should characterize a paper addressed to the congress of the nation by the chief magistrate of the nation. nor do i forget that some of you are my seniors, nor that many of you have more experience than i in the conduct of public affairs. yet i trust that in view of the great responsibility resting upon me, you will perceive no want of respect to yourselves in any undue earnestness i may seem to display. is it doubted, then, that the plan i propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity, and perpetuate both indefinitely? is it doubted that we here--congress and executive--can secure its adoption? will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? can we, can they, by any other means so certainly or so speedily assure these vital objects? we can succeed only by concert. it is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" object whatsoever is possible, still the question occurs, "can we do better?" the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. the occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. we must disenthral ourselves, and then we shall save our country. fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. we say we are for the union. the world will not forget that we say this. we know how to save the union. the world knows we do know how to save it. we--even we here--hold the power and bear the responsibility. in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. we shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. other means may succeed; this could not fail. the way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and god must forever bless. abraham lincoln. washington, dec. , . the emancipation proclamation, january , whereas, on the twenty-second day of september, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the president of the united states, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:-- "that on the first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the united states, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. "that the executive will, on the first day of january aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the united states; and the fact that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the congress of the united states by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the united states." now, therefore, i, abraham lincoln, president of the united states, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the united states, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the united states, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the united states, the following, to wit:-- arkansas, texas, louisiana (except the parishes of st. bernard, plaquemines, jefferson, st. john, st. charles, st. james, ascension, assumption, terre bonne, lafourche, st. mary, st. martin, and orleans, including the city of new orleans), mississippi, alabama, florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, and virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as west virginia, and also the counties of berkeley, accomac, northampton, elizabeth city, york, princess ann, and norfolk, including the cities of norfolk and portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. and by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, i do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. and i hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence, and i recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. and i further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the united states to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. and upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the constitution upon military necessity, i invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of almighty god. thanksgiving proclamation, july , it has pleased almighty god to hearken to the supplications and prayers of an afflicted people, and to vouchsafe to the army and navy of the united states victories on land and on the sea so signal and so effective as to furnish reasonable grounds for augmented confidence that the union of these states will be maintained, their constitution preserved, and their peace and prosperity permanently restored. but these victories have been accorded not without sacrifices of life, limb, health, and liberty, incurred by brave, loyal, and patriotic citizens. domestic affliction in every part of the country follows in the train of these fearful bereavements. it is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence of the almighty father, and the power of his hand equally in these triumphs and in these sorrows. now, therefore, be it known that i do set apart thursday, the th day of august next, to be observed as a day for national thanksgiving, praise, and prayer, and i invite the people of the united states to assemble on that occasion in their customary places of worship, and, in the forms approved by their own consciences, render the homage due to the divine majesty for the wonderful things he has done in the nation's behalf, and invoke the influence of his holy spirit to subdue the anger which has produced and so long sustained a needless and cruel rebellion, to change the hearts of the insurgents, to guide the counsels of the government with wisdom, adequate to so great a national emergency, and to visit with tender care and consolation throughout the length and breadth of our land all those who, through the vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, and sieges have been brought to suffer in mind, body, or estate, and finally to lead the whole nation through the paths of repentance and submission to the divine will back to the perfect enjoyment of union and fraternal peace. letter to j. c. conkling executive mansion, washington, august , . hon. james c. conkling: my dear sir: your letter inviting me to attend a mass-meeting of unconditional union men, to be held at the capital of illinois on the d day of september, has been received. it would be very agreeable to me to thus meet my old friends at my own home; but i cannot just now be absent from here so long as a visit there would require. the meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion to the union; and i am sure my old political friends will thank me for tendering, as i do, the nation's gratitude to those and other noble men whom no partizan malice or partizan hope can make false to the nation's life. there are those who are dissatisfied with me. to such i would say: you desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. but how can we attain it? there are but three conceivable ways: first, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. this i am trying to do. are you for it? if you are, so far we are agreed. if you are not for it, a second way is to give up the union. i am against this. are you for it? if you are, you should say so plainly. if you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. i do not believe that any compromise embracing the maintenance of the union is now possible. all i learn leads to a directly opposite belief. the strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. that army dominates all the country and all the people within its range. any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them. to illustrate: suppose refugees from the south and peace men of the north get together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the union. in what way can that compromise be used to keep lee's army out of pennsylvania? meade's army can keep lee's army out of pennsylvania, and, i think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. but no paper compromise to which the controllers of lee's army are not agreed can at all affect that army. in an effort at such compromise we should waste time which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that would be all. a compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domination of that army by the success of our own army. now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from that rebel army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. all charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless. and i promise you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. i freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service,--the united states constitution,--and that, as such, i am responsible to them. but to be plain. you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. i certainly wish that all men could be free, while i suppose you do not. yet i have neither adopted nor proposed any measure which is not consistent with even your views, provided you are for the union. i suggested compensated emancipation, to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. but i had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation to save the union exclusively by other means. you dislike the emancipation proclamation, and perhaps would have it retracted. you say it is unconstitutional. i think differently. i think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war in time of war. the most that can be said--if so much--is, that slaves are property. is there, has there ever been, any question that, by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? and is it not needed whenever taking it helps us or hurts the enemy? armies, the world over, destroy enemies' property when they cannot use it, and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female. but the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. if it is not valid, it needs no retraction. if it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favorably for the union. why better after the retraction than before the issue? there was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. the war has certainly progressed as favorably for us since the issue of the proclamation as before. i know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called "abolitionism," or with "republican party politics," but who hold them purely as military opinions. i submit their opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. you say you will not fight to free negroes. some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. fight you, then, exclusively, to save the union. i issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the union. whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the union, if i shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. i thought that in your struggle for the union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. do you think differently? i thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the union. does it appear otherwise to you? but negroes, like other people, act upon motives. why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? if they stake their lives for us they must be prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. and the promise being made, must be kept. the signs look better. the father of waters again goes unvexed to the sea. thanks to the great northwest for it. nor yet wholly to them. three hundred miles up they met new england, empire, keystone, and jersey, hewing their way right and left. the sunny south, too, in more colors than one, also lent a hand. on the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. the job was a great national one, and let none be banned who bore an honorable part in it. and while those who have cleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. it is hard to say that anything has been more bravely and well done than at antietam, murfreesboro, gettysburg, and on many fields of lesser note. nor must uncle sam's webfeet be forgotten. at all the watery margins they have been present. not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks. thanks to all,--for the great republic, for the principle it lives by and keeps alive, for man's vast future,--thanks to all. peace does not appear so distant as it did. i hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time. it will then have been proved that among freemen there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. and then there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while i fear there will be some white ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it. still, let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy, final triumph. let us be quite sober. let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a just god, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result. yours very truly, a. lincoln. the gettysburg address, nov. , fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battle-field of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, letter to mrs. bixby executive mansion, washington, nov. , . to mrs. bixby, boston, mass. dear madam: i have been shown in the files of the war department a statement of the adjutant general of massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. i feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. but i cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. i pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. yours very sincerely and respectfully, a. lincoln. second inaugural address, march , fellow-countrymen: at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. the progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, i trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. with high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. all dreaded it--all sought to avert it. while the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the union, and divide effects, by negotiation. both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. and the war came. one-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but localized in the southern part of it. these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. both read the same bible, and pray to the same god; and each invokes his aid against the other. it may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just god's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. the prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully. the almighty has his own purposes. "woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." if we shall suppose that american slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of god, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both north and south this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living god always ascribe to him? fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. yet, if god wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether." with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. last public address, april , we meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. the evacuation of petersburg and richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whose joyous expression cannot be restrained. in the midst of this, however, he from whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten. a call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. nor must those whose harder part give us the cause of rejoicing be overlooked. their honors must not be parcelled out with others. i myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor for plan or execution is mine. to general grant, his skilful officers and brave men, all belongs. the gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part. by these recent successes the reinauguration of the national authority--reconstruction--which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. it is fraught with great difficulty. unlike a case of war between independent nations, there is no authorized organ for us to treat with. no one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. we simply must begin with and mold from disorganized and discordant elements. nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. as a general rule, i abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which i cannot properly offer an answer. in spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that i am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new state government of louisiana. in this i have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. in the annual message of december, , and in the accompanying proclamation, i presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which i promised, if adopted by any state, should be acceptable to and sustained by the executive government of the nation. i distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable, and i also distinctly protested that the executive claimed no right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats in congress from such states. this plan was, in advance, submitted to the then cabinet, and distinctly approved by every member of it. one of them suggested that i should then and in that connection apply the emancipation proclamation to the theretofore excepted parts of virginia and louisiana; that i should drop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed people, and that i should omit the protest against my own power in regard to the admission of members to congress. but even he approved every part and parcel of the plan which has since been employed or touched by the action of louisiana. the new constitution of louisiana, declaring emancipation for the whole state, practically applies the proclamation to the part previously excepted. it does not adopt apprenticeship for freed people, and it is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of members to congress. so that, as it applies to louisiana, every member of the cabinet fully approved the plan. the message went to congress, and i received many commendations of the plan, written and verbal, and not a single objection to it from any professed emancipationist came to my knowledge until after the news reached washington that the people of louisiana had began to move in accordance with it. from about july, , i had corresponded with different persons supposed to be interested [in] seeking a reconstruction of a state government for louisiana. when the message of , with the plan before mentioned, reached new orleans, general banks wrote me he was confident that the people, with his military cooperation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. i wrote him and some of them to try it. they tried it, and the result is known. such only has been my agency in getting up the louisiana government. as to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. but as bad promises are better broken than kept, i shall treat this as a bad promise, and break it whenever i shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but i have not yet been so convinced. i have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question whether the seceded states, so called, are in the union or out of it. it would, perhaps, add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since i have found professed union men endeavoring to make that question, i have _purposely_ forborne any public expression upon it. as appears to me, that question has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. as yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all--a merely pernicious abstraction. we all agree that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those states is to again get them into that proper practical relation. i believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do; this without deciding or even considering whether these states have ever been out of the union, than with it. finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the union, and each forever after innocently, indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the states from without into the union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. the amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained , , or , , or even , , instead of only about , , as it really does. it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. i would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. still, the question is not whether the louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. the question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave state of louisiana have sworn allegiance to the union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the state, held elections, organized a state government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. these twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the union and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants--and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. we, in effect, say to the white man: you are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. to the blacks we say: this cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. if this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring louisiana into proper practical relations with the union, i have so far been unable to perceive it. if, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. we encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. the colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them? concede that the new government of louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it. again, if we reject louisiana we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national constitution. to meet this proposition it has been argued that no more than three-fourths of those states which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. i do not commit myself against this further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by three-fourths of all the states would be unquestioned and unquestionable. i repeat the question: can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? what has been said of louisiana will apply generally to other states. and yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state, and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. important principles may and must be inflexible. in the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the south. i am considering, and shall not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper. from a letter to j. w. fell, december , i was born february , , in hardin county, kentucky. my parents were born in virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps i should say. my mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a family of the name of hanks, some of whom now reside in adams, and others in macon county, illinois. my paternal grandfather, abraham lincoln, emigrated from rockingham county, virginia, to kentucky about or , where a year or two later he was killed by the indians, not in battle, but by stealth, when he was laboring to open a farm in the forest. his ancestors, who were quakers, went to virginia from berks county, pennsylvania. an effort to identify them with the new england family of the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity of christian names in both families, such as enoch, levi, mordecai, solomon, abraham, and the like. my father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and he grew up literally without education. he removed from kentucky to what is now spencer county, indiana, in my eighth year. we reached our new home about the time the state came into the union. it was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. there i grew up. there were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin'" to the rule of three. if a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizard. there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. of course, when i came of age, i did not know much. still, somehow, i could read, write, and cipher to the rule of three, but that was all. i have not been to school since. the little advance i now have upon this store of education i have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity. i was raised to farm work, which i continued till i was twenty-two. at twenty-one i came to illinois, macon county. then i got to new salem, at that time in sangamon, now in menard county, where i remained a year as a sort of clerk in a store. then came the black hawk war; and i was elected a captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any i have had since. i went the campaign, was elated, ran for the legislature the same year ( ), and was beaten--the only time i ever have been beaten by the people. the next and three succeeding biennial elections i was elected to the legislature. i was not a candidate afterward. during this legislative period i had studied law, and removed to springfield to practise it. in i was once elected to the lower house of congress. was not a candidate for re-election. from to , both inclusive, practised law more assiduously than ever before. always a whig in politics; and generally on the whig electoral tickets, making active canvasses. i was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the missouri compromise aroused me again. what i have done since then is pretty well known. if any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said i am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean, in flesh, weighing on an average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse black hair and gray eyes. no other marks or brands recollected. notes communication to the people of sangamon county this announcement of political principles appeared in the sangamon _journal_, at that time the only newspaper published in springfield. the present text, which differs in some details from that found in the various editions of lincoln's works, follows the original, except in changing the spelling of sangamo to sangamon. perpetuation of our political institutions. on the close of the address resolutions were passed requesting the author to furnish a copy to the press, but for some unexplained reason it was not published until a year later. the present text is taken from the sangamon journal. lincoln was one of the organizers of the lyceum. all through his life lincoln showed a marked respect for the law, and the present warning against the consequences of lawlessness, so rhetorically sounded by the young orator of twenty-eight, was a perfectly sincere expression of a profound conviction. "_the gates of hell_." matthew xvi. . this quotation was repeated in a speech delivered at indianapolis twenty-four years later, when civil war was threatening. the springfield speech during the summer of lincoln delivered two important anti-slavery speeches at springfield. the first and more important of these was made june ,[*] at the close of the republican state convention, at which lincoln was declared the party candidate for the united states senate. the second, delivered a month later, is in part a defence and explanation of the earlier speech, which had been severely criticised by lincoln's old opponent judge douglas. the first springfield speech was very carefully prepared and the ms. was submitted to several of lincoln's friends, all of whom objected to the opening statement as being impolitic and sure to lose the speaker the position for which he was a candidate. lincoln refused to make any change, however, saying that he preferred to go down linked with truth, if that was necessary. [*]by herndon the date is given as june . "_a house divided against itself_." suggested by matthew xii. , and mark iii. . this quotation had already been used in in a whig circular signed by lincoln and two others, and in a letter written in lincoln speaks of the government as a house divided against itself. _nebraska doctrine_. the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty" was recognized in the bill, introduced in the senate january , , by douglas, to give territorial government to the district west of missouri and iowa known as nebraska. a similar bill had been introduced the year before by douglas. in its original form the bill contained no reference to the repeal of the missouri compromise, but in the form in which it was passed it declared the missouri compromise to be null and void. under the terms of this compromise slavery had been restricted to the territory south of degrees minutes. _dred scott decision_. this decision was rendered march , . _silliman letter_. a statement on the situation in kansas by the electors of connecticut, which received its name from professor silliman of yale college, by whom it was in the main drawn up. _lecompton constitution_. in a convention was held at lecompton, kan., to draw up a state constitution. in this convention the advocates of slavery were in the majority and the instrument was so prepared as not to interfere with slavery wherever it already existed in the territory. the free-soil advocates refused to accept this constitution. when the question of admitting kansas under the lecompton constitution was presented before congress, douglas, in accordance with his principles of popular sovereignty, broke with his party and opposed the effort. from our present point of view lincoln does not seem to do douglas justice. _stephen, franklin, etc._ the reference is to stephen a. douglas, president franklin pierce, chief justice roger b. taney, and james buchanan. lincoln's perfectly sincere belief in a deliberate conspiracy among these men to perpetuate slavery, which was shared by many republicans of that time, is not sustained by the impartial investigations of later historians. _mclean or curtis_. john mclean and benjamin r. curtis were the only justices who were strongly opposed to the dred scott decision. curtis, who was a whig from massachusetts and who resigned the same year, wrote a minority decision. _chase and mace_. salmon p. chase was at that time senator from ohio. daniel mace was a democrat representative, who was opposed to the nebraska bill. _judge nelson_. samuel nelson, a justice of the supreme court. "_a living dog is better than a dead lion_." ecclesiastes ix. . the freeport debate. the lincoln-douglas joint debates took place in seven towns in various parts of illinois between august and october , . the proposal for these meetings was made by lincoln in a note addressed to douglas. the length of each debate and the division of time between the speakers are stated in the opening sentence of the speech given in the text. the speeches, which were all extempore, as far as the actual form is concerned, were later collected from the newspaper reports, and after some slight revision by the authors were published in in columbus, ohio. this volume, from which the present text is taken, contained in addition a number of speeches delivered by lincoln and douglas earlier in and two speeches made by lincoln in ohio in . lincoln's statement at the close of a letter to the publishers, accompanying the copy for the book, is characteristic and interesting: "i wish the reprint to be precisely as the copies i send, without any comment whatever." this columbus issue was used as a republican campaign document and large numbers were sold. the freeport debate, the second in the series, was held on the afternoon of august . with the exception of the galesburg debate, it was the most largely attended of the seven meetings, and in its effect upon the campaign it is now regarded as the most important. _judge douglas and myself_. in the informal speeches lincoln frequently committed errors of speech like this. even during the presidential period he shows a marked tendency to use the cleft infinitive. but in the carefully written addresses the language is almost always correct. _fugitive slave law_. this statute was passed in for the stricter regulation of the return of escaped slaves to their owners. in his answer to this question lincoln showed clearly that he was not an abolitionist, as that term was then understood. _question _. douglas' reply to this question was as follows: "i answer emphatically, as mr. lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in illinois that in my opinion the people of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution." it is claimed that this question was put by lincoln in spite of the protests of several of his friends, who believed that it would give douglas an advantage. but here, as in the equally feared springfield speech, lincoln proved his superior sagacity. douglas' affirmative answer probably gained him the senatorship, but it certainly lost him the presidency two years later. _first republican state convention_. the reference is to a meeting held in springfield, which was addressed by owen lovejoy. lincoln was not present on this occasion. recent investigation seems to show that there was no foundation for the charge that this was exclusively a meeting of abolitionists, but that it included many men who held the same political views as lincoln. douglas honestly believed that the resolutions read by him at the ottawa meeting were genuine and he was greatly chagrined at the mistake. _by an amendment_. this amendment was offered by douglas. the cooper institute address. this address, lincoln's first important direct message to the people of the east, was very carefully prepared. the text in this volume is taken from _the tribune tract_, issued as a campaign document. the northwestern territory. the district comprising the present states of ohio, illinois, indiana, michigan, and wisconsin, had been ceded to the national government by the original states. "_black republicans_." douglas constantly referred to his opponents under this title. in the ottawa debate he affirmed that in lincoln and trumbull had arranged to form "an abolition party, under the name and disguise of a republican party." "_popular sovereignty_." this principle is defined by douglas as follows: "my principle is to recognize each state of the union as independent, sovereign, and equal in its sovereignty." _harper's ferry! john brown!_ john brown was a new englander, who had taken an active part in the kansas disorders in . during the summer of he engaged in an attempt to free the slaves of virginia. after capturing the arsenal at harper's ferry, he was overpowered by a body of marines and with the survivors of his "army," was hanged. by the extreme anti-slavery people he was regarded as a martyr, the best expression of this spirit being given by mrs. julia ward howe's "battle hymn of the republic." in a speech in congress of january , , senator douglas had stated his "firm and deliberate conviction that the harper's ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the republican party." _the southampton insurrection_. the reference is to a slave insurrection which occurred in in southampton, va. _helper's book_. hinton p. helper, a north carolinian of the so-called poor white class, was the author of a book on the effects of slavery, entitled _the impending crisis in the south_. the special reference is to the recent agreement among sixty-four republican representatives to publish a compendium of the book for circulation in doubtful states. the farewell speech. this beautiful little address was delivered from the platform of the car that bore the president-elect away from his old home. it has been preserved in two slightly differing versions, neither of which probably exactly reproduces the words used. the springfield papers, which were followed by herndon, gave an inaccurate report that robbed the speech of much of its rare beauty. the first inaugural address. the first inaugural was carefully written in springfield a month before its delivery. contrary to his usual practice in public speaking, lincoln read from the ms. the address was enthusiastically received by an immense audience assembled front of the capitol and the general impression produced at the north was favorable. by the southern and the abolition press it was severely criticised, both with regard to its form and its content. _the mystic chords of memory_. this passage was suggested by mr. seward, to whom the address had been submitted for criticism. the customary usury of genius was paid for the verbal loan. response to serenade. this speech was delivered before a delegation of new yorkers, who called at the white house on the evening of march . two other similar responses have been preserved from the same day. the present address is reprinted here for the first time, from the new york _times_. letter to horace greeley. greeley's letter of august , which was headed "the prayer of twenty millions," began as follows: "i do not intrude to tell you--for you must know already--that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing." that lincoln had good reason to complain of "an impatient and dictatorial tone" is sufficiently shown by the closing sentence, "i entreat you to render hearty and unequivocal obedience to the laws of the land." the following issue of the _tribune_ contained a long editorial on the same subject. the influence of the _tribune_ in the northern states was immense, and lincoln realized the importance of making a clear statement of his policy to its readers. second annual message to congress. after a long statement about the conditions of the finances and of the different departments, the president devoted the remainder of the space to the discussion of compensated emancipation, on which he had already made a recommendation earlier in the year in a special message to congress. the concluding paragraph is in the elevated style of the inaugurals. the emancipation proclamation. the first draft of the proclamation was submitted to the cabinet in the preceding july, with the remark that he had fully determined to issue it immediately. secretary seward suggested that its issue be postponed until it could be given to the country supported by some military success. the president saw the force of the suggestion and waited until after the battle of antietam. the preliminary proclamation was dated september , . in a reply to a serenade two days later the president said: "i can only trust in god i have made no mistake." _upon military necessity_. this phrase was inserted in the concluding sentence, which had been suggested by secretary chase, as furnishing the only authority by which the president felt that he could free the slaves of the enemy. the proclamation did not refer to those slaves held by persons who were not in rebellion. letter to j. c. conkling. mr. conkling was a personal friend of the president, and the formal letter was accompanied by the following note: "my dear conkling: "i cannot leave here now. herewith is a letter instead. you are one of the best public readers. i have but one request--read it very slowly and now god bless you, and all good union men." in spite of precautions, the letter was published in the new york _evening post_ several days before the meeting. i know as fully as one can know. the portion of the paragraph from these words to the end was not in the original letter, but was added by telegraph. the gettysburg address. the standard text of the address does not agree exactly either with the original written form or with the form in which it was delivered, but it is a combination of these, made by lincoln a few days later. in the contemporary newspaper reports it was variously referred to as an address, a speech, and remarks. _government of the people_. the thought contained in this sentence was not original with lincoln, but it has been traced back through several centuries. it was probably suggested to lincoln by the following passage in an address by theodore parker, which he is known to have read: "democracy is direct self-government over all the people, for all the people, by all the people." the second inaugural address. this address is in marked contrast, both in length and character, to president lincoln's first official communication. some of the main thoughts and two of the biblical quotations occur in a letter written may , . _let us judge not, that we be not judged_. adapted from matthew vii. . "_woe unto the world_." matthew xviii. . _fondly do we hope_. the accidental rhyme in this passage is the only blemish that has been objected to in the address, and it is not serious. "_the judgments of the lord_." psalms xix. . the opening words of the last paragraph are the best expression ever given of the spirit of lincoln, who on another occasion said, "i have never willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom." the last speech. this address, the longest of the presidential period with the exception of the first inaugural, was delivered before a great crowd gathered in front of the white house, four days before lincoln's assassination. the evening before, on a similar occasion, he had requested the people to wait until he could prepare his remarks, adding that he wished to be careful, as everything he said got into print. the newspaper reports of the following day state that it was received with great enthusiasm. the address is of special interest as indicating the attitude of the president toward the difficult question of reconstruction. _the evacuation of petersburg and richmond_. april and respectively. general lee surrendered april . _the new constitution of louisiana_. the constitution was adopted september , . _the proposed amendment_. the thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery throughout the united states, was proposed in , but failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote in the house of representatives. it was passed in , and after receiving the endorsement of the necessary number of states went into effect december of the same year. public speaking by clarence stratton; ph.d. director of english in high school cleveland new york henry holt and company copyright, by henry holt and company _january, _ contents chapter i. speech ii. the voice iii. words and sentences iv. beginning the speech v. concluding the speech vi. getting material vii. planning the speech viii. making the outline or brief ix. explaining x. proving and persuading xi. refuting xii. debating xiii. speaking upon special occasions xiv. dramatics appendix a appendix b index to c.c.s. public speaking chapter i speech importance of speech. there never has been in the history of the world a time when the spoken word has been equaled in value and importance by any other means of communication. if one traces the development of mankind from what he considers its earliest stage he will find that the wandering family of savages depended entirely upon what its members said to one another. a little later when a group of families made a clan or tribe the individuals still heard the commands of the leader, or in tribal council voiced their own opinions. the beginnings of poetry show us the bard who recited to his audiences. drama, in all primitive societies a valuable spreader of knowledge, entertainment, and religion, is entirely oral. in so late and well-organized communities as the city republics of greece all matters were discussed in open assemblies of the rather small populations. every great epoch of the world's progress shows the supreme importance of speech upon human action--individual and collective. in the roman forum were made speeches that affected the entire ancient world. renaissance italy, imperial spain, unwieldy russia, freedom-loving england, revolutionary france, all experienced periods when the power of certain men to speak stirred other men into tempestuous action. the history of the united states might almost be written as the continuous record of the influence of great speakers upon others. the colonists were led to concerted action by persuasive speeches. the colonial congresses and constitutional convention were dominated by powerful orators. the history of the slavery problem is mainly the story of famous speeches and debates. most of the active representative americans have been leaders because of their ability to impress their fellows by their power of expressing sentiments and enthusiasms which all would voice if they could. presidents have been nominated and candidates elected because of this equipment. during the great war the millions of the world were as much concerned with what some of their leaders were saying as with what their other leaders were doing.[ ] speech in modern life. there is no aspect of modern life in which the spoken work is not supreme in importance. representatives of the nations of the world deciding upon a peace treaty and deliberating upon a league of nations sway and are swayed by speech. national assemblies--from the strangely named new ones of infant nations to the century-old organizations--speak, and listen to speeches. in state legislatures, municipal councils, law courts, religious organizations, theaters, lodges, societies, boards of directors, stockholders' meetings, business discussions, classrooms, dinner parties, social functions, friendly calls--in every human relationship where two people meet there is communication by means of speech. [footnote : see _great american speeches_, edited by clarence stratton, lippincott and company.] scientific invention keeps moving as rapidly as it can to take advantage of this supreme importance. great as was the advance marked by the telegraph, it was soon overtaken and passed by the convenience of the telephone. the first conveys messages at great distance, but it fails to give the answer at once. it fails to provide for the rapid _interchange_ of ideas which the second affords. wireless telegraphy has already been followed by wireless telephony. the rapid intelligent disposal of the complicated affairs of our modern world requires more than mere writing--it demands immediate interchange of ideas by means of speech. many people who in their habitual occupations are popularly said to write a great deal do nothing of the sort. the millions of typists in the world do no writing at all in the real sense of that word; they merely reproduce what some one else has actually composed and dictated. this latter person also does no actual writing. he speaks what he wants to have put into writing. dictating is not an easily acquired accomplishment in business--as many a man will testify. modern office practice has intensified the difficulty. it may be rather disconcerting to deliver well-constructed, meaningful sentences to an unresponsive stenographer, but at any rate the receiver is alive. but to talk into the metallic receiver of a mechanical dictaphone has an almost ridiculous air. men have to train themselves deliberately to speak well when they first begin to use these time-saving devices. outside of business, a great deal of the material printed in periodicals and books--sometimes long novels--has been delivered orally, and not written at all by its author. were anything more needed to show how much speech is used it would be furnished by the reports of the telephone companies. in one table the number of daily connections in was , , . in this item had increased to , , . in twenty-three years the calls had grown fifteen times as numerous. in there were , subscriber stations. in this number had swelled to , , . subordinates and executives in all forms of business could save incalculable time and annoyance by being able to present their material clearly and forcefully over the telephone, as well as in direct face-to-face intercourse. the director of high schools in a large municipality addressed a circular letter to the business firms of the city, asking them to state what is most necessary in order to fit boys for success in business. ninety-nine per cent laid stress on the advantage of being able to write and speak english accurately and forcibly. testimony in support of the statement that training in speaking is of paramount importance in all careers might be adduced from a score of sources. even from the seemingly far-removed phase of military leadership comes the same support. the following paragraph is part of a letter issued by the office of the adjutant-general during the early months of the participation of this country in the great war. "a great number of men have failed at camp because of inability to articulate clearly. a man who cannot impart his idea to his command in clear distinct language, and with sufficient volume of voice to be heard reasonably far, is not qualified to give command upon which human life will depend. many men disqualified by this handicap might have become officers under their country's flag had they been properly trained in school and college. it is to be hoped therefore that more emphasis will be placed upon the basic principles of elocution in the training of our youth. even without prescribed training in elocution a great improvement could be wrought by the instructors in our schools and colleges, regardless of the subjects, by insisting that all answers be given in a loud, clear, well rounded voice which, of course, necessitates the opening of the mouth and free movement of the lips. it is remarkable how many excellent men suffer from this handicap, and how almost impossible it is to correct this after the formative years of life." perhaps the most concise summary of the relative values of exercise in the three different forms of communication through language was enunciated by francis bacon in his essay entitled _studies_, published first in : "reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man." speech and talk. the high value here placed upon speech must not be transferred to mere talk. the babbler will always be justly regarded with contempt. without ideas, opinions, information, talk becomes the most wasteful product in the world, wasteful not only of the time of the person who insists upon delivering it, but more woefully and unjustifiably wasteful of the time and patience of those poor victims who are forced to listen to it. shakespeare put a man of this disposition into _the merchant of venice_ and then had his discourse described by another. "gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all venice. his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day 'ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search." but the man who has ideas and can best express them is a leader everywhere. he does the organizing, he makes and imparts the plans, he carries his own theories and beliefs into execution, he is the intrusted agent, the advanced executive. he can act for himself. he can influence others to significant and purposeful action. the advantages that come to men who can think upon their feet, who can express extempore a carefully considered proposition, who can adapt their conversation or arguments to every changing condition, cannot be emphasized too strongly. speech an acquired ability. we frequently regard and discuss speech as a perfectly natural attribute of all human beings. in some sense it is. yet an american child left to the care of deaf-mutes, never hearing the speech of his own kind, would not develop into a speaker of the native language of his parents. he doubtless would be able to imitate every natural sound he might hear. he could reproduce the cry or utterance of every animal or bird he had ever heard. but he would no more speak english naturally than he would arabic. in this sense, language is not a natural attribute as is hunger. it is an imitative accomplishment acquired only after long years of patient practice and arduous effort. some people never really attain a facile mastery of the means of communication. some mature men and women are no more advanced in the use of speech than children of ten or fifteen. the practice is life-long. the effort is unceasing. a child seems to be as well adapted to learning one language as another. there may be certain physical formations or powers inherited from a race which predispose the easier mastery of a language, but even these handicaps for learning a different tongue can be overcome by imitation, study, and practice. any child can be taught an alien tongue through constant companionship of nurse or governess. the second generation of immigrants to this country learns our speech even while it may continue the tongue of the native land. the third generation--if it mix continuously with speakers of english--relinquishes entirely the exercise of the mother tongue. the succeeding generation seldom can speak it, frequently cannot even understand it. training to acquire speech ability. the methods by which older persons may improve their ability to speak are analogous to those just suggested as operative for children, except that the more mature the person the wider is his range of models to imitate, of examples from which to make deductions; the more resources he has within himself and about him for self-development and improvement. a child's vocabulary increases rapidly through new experiences. a mature person can create new surroundings. he can deliberately widen his horizon either by reading or association. the child is mentally alert. a man can keep himself intellectually alert. a child delights in his use of his powers of expression. a man can easily make his intercourse a source of delight to himself and to all with whom he comes in contact. a child's imagination is kept stimulated continually. a man can consciously stimulate either his imagination or his reason. in the democracy of childhood the ability to impress companions depends to a great extent upon the ability to speak. there is no necessity of following the parallel any farther. good speakers, then, are made, not born. training counts for as much as natural ability. in fact if a person considers carefully the careers of men whose ability to speak has impressed the world by its preeminence he will incline to the conclusion that the majority of them were not to any signal extent born speakers at all. in nearly all cases of great speakers who have left records of their own progress in this powerful art their testimony is that without the effort to improve, without the unceasing practice they would have always remained no more marked for this so-called gift than all others. overcoming drawbacks. according to the regularly repeated tradition the great greek orator, demosthenes, overcame impediments that would have daunted any ordinary man. his voice was weak. he lisped, and his manner was awkward. with pebbles in his mouth he tried his lungs against the noise of the dashing waves. this strengthened his voice and gave him presence of mind in case of tumult among his listeners. he declaimed as he ran uphill. whether these traditions be true or not, their basis must be that it was only by rigorous training that he did become a tolerable speaker. the significant point, however, is that with apparent handicaps he did develop his ability until he became great. charles james fox began his parliamentary career by being decidedly awkward and filling his speeches with needless repetitions, yet he became renowned as one of great britain's most brilliant speakers and statesmen. henry clay clearly describes his own exercises in self-training when he was quite a grown man. "i owe my success in life to one single fact, namely, at the age of twenty-seven i commenced, and continued for years, the practice of daily reading and speaking upon the contents of some historical or scientific book. these offhand efforts were made sometimes in a corn field, at others in the forests, and not infrequently in some distant barn with the horse and ox for my auditors. it is to this early practice in the art of all arts that i am indebted to the primary and leading impulses that stimulated me forward, and shaped and molded my entire destiny." abraham lincoln never let pass any opportunity to try to make a speech. his early employers, when called upon after his fame was won to describe his habits as a young man, admitted that they might have been disposed to consider him an idle fellow. they explained that he was not only idle himself but the cause of idleness in others. unless closely watched, he was likely to mount a stump and, to the intense delight of his fellow farm hands, deliver a side-splitting imitation of some itinerant preacher or a stirring political harangue. the american whose reputation for speech is the greatest won it more through training than by natural gift. "i could not speak before the school," said daniel webster. ... "many a piece did i commit to memory and rehearse in my room over and over again, but when the day came, and the schoolmaster called my name, and i saw all eyes turned upon my seat, i could not raise myself from it.... mr. buckminster always pressed and entreated, most winningly, that i would venture, but i could never command sufficient resolution. when the occasion was over i went home and wept bitter tears of mortification." results of training. the significance of all these illustrations is that no great speaker has come by his ability without careful and persistent training. no molder of the world's destinies springs fully equipped from the welter of promiscuous events. he has been training for a long time. on the other hand the much more practical lesson to be derived from these biographical excerpts is that these men started from ordinary conditions to make themselves into forceful thinkers with powers of convincing expression. they overcame handicaps. they strengthened their voices. they learned how to prepare and arrange material. they made themselves able to explain topics to others. they knew so well the reasons for their own belief that they could convince others. in a smaller way, to a lesser degree, any person can do the same thing, and by the same or similar methods. barring some people who have physical defects or nervous diseases, any person who has enough brains to grasp an idea, to form an opinion, or to produce a thought, can be made to speak well. the preceding sentence says "barring some people who have physical defects" because not all so handicapped at the beginning need despair of learning to improve in speaking ability. by systems in which the results appear almost miraculous the dumb are now taught to speak. stutterers and stammerers become excellent deliverers of speeches in public. weak voices are strengthened. hesitant expressions are made coherent. such marvels of modern science belong, however, to special classes and institutions. they are cited here to prove that in language training today practically nothing is impossible to the teacher with knowledge and patience in educating students with alertness and persistence. practical help. this book attempts to provide a guide for such teachers and students. it aims to be eminently practical. it is intended to help students to improve in speech. it assumes that those who use it are able to speak their language with some facility--at least they can pronounce its usual words. that and the realization that one is alive, as indicated by a mental openness to ideas and an intellectual alertness about most things in the universe, are all that are absolutely required of a beginner who tries to improve in speaking. practically all else can be added unto him. as this volume has a definite aim it has a simple practical basis. it will not soar too far above the essentials. it tries not to offer an elaborate explanation of an enthymeme when the embryonic speaker's knees are knocking together so loudly that he can not hear the instructor's correcting pronunciation of the name. it takes into account that when a beginner stands before an audience--and this is true not only the first time--even his body is not under his control. lips grow cold and dry; perspiration gushes from every pore of the brow and runs down the face; legs grow weak; eyes see nothing; hands swell to enormous proportions; violent pains shoot across the chest; the breath is confined within the lungs; from the clapper-like tongue comes only a faint click. is it any wonder that under such physical agonies the mind refuses to respond--rather, is incapable of any action whatever? speech based on thought and language. every speech is a result of the combination of thought and language, of material and expression. it would be quite possible to begin with considerations of the thought content of speeches--the material; but this book begins with the other;--the language, the expression. if this order have no other advantage, it does possess this one;--that during the informal discussions and expressions of opinion occasioned by the early chapters and exercises, members of the class are attaining a feeling of ease in speaking among themselves which will later eradicate a great deal of the nervousness usually experienced when speaking _before_ the class. in addition, some attention to such topics as voice, tone, pronunciation, common errors, use of the dictionary, vocabulary, may instil habits of self-criticism and observation which may save from doubt and embarrassing mistakes later. exercises . recall some recent speech you heard. in parallel columns make lists of its excellences and deficiencies. . give the class an account of the occasion, the purpose of the speaker, and his effect upon his audience, or upon you. . explain how children learn to speak. . from your observation give the class an account of how young children enlarge their vocabularies. . using the material of this chapter as the basis of your remarks, show the value of public speaking. . of what value is public speaking to women? . what effects upon speeches by women will universal suffrage have? . choose some profession--as law, engineering--and show how an ability to speak may be of value in it. . choose some business position, and show how an ability to speak is a decided advantage in it. . what is the best method of acquiring a foreign language? for example, how shall the alien learn english? . choose some great man whom you admire. show how he became a speaker. or give an account of one of his speeches. . show the value of public speaking to a girl--in school; in business; in other careers. . explain the operation of a dictaphone. . how can training in public speaking help an applicant for a position? . explain the sentence quoted from bacon's essay on studies. chapter ii the voice organs of speech. although the effects produced by the human voice are myriad in their complexity, the apparatus involved in making the sounds which constitute speech is extremely simple. in construction it has been usually compared to an organ pipe, a comparison justifiable for imparting a non-technical understanding of its operation. an organ pipe is a tube in which a current of air passing over the edge of a piece of metal causes it to vibrate, thus putting into motion the column of air in the pipe which then produces a note. the operating air is forced across the sounding piece of metal from a bellows. the tube in which the thin sounding plate and the column of air vibrate acts as a resonator. the resulting sound depends upon various sizes of the producing parts. if the tube is quite long the sound is low in pitch. if the tube is short the sound is high. stopping the end of the pipe or leaving it open alters the pitch. a stopped pipe gives a note an octave lower than an open pipe of the same length. the amount of the vibrating plate which is allowed to move also determines the pitch of a note. if the air is under great pressure the note is loud. if the air is under little pressure the note is soft. it is quite easy to transfer this explanation to the voice-producing apparatus in the human body. to the bellows correspond the lungs from which the expelled air is forced upwards through the windpipe. the lungs are able to expel air regularly and gently, with no more expense of energy than ordinary breathing requires. but the lungs can also force air out with tremendous power--power enough to carry sound over hundreds of yards. in ordinary repose the outward moving breath produces no sound whatever, for it meets in its passage no obstruction. producing tone. at the upper end of the windpipe is a triangular chamber, the front angle of which forms the adam's apple. in this are the vocal cords. these cords are two tapes of membrane which can be brought closely together, and by muscular tension stretched until passing air causes them to vibrate. they in turn cause the air above them to vibrate, much as the air in an organ pipe vibrates. thus tone is produced. the air above the vocal cords may fill all the open spaces above the larynx--the throat, the mouth, the nasal cavity in the head, the nostrils. this rather large amount of air, vibrating freely, produces a sound low in pitch. the larger the cavities are made the lower the pitch. you can verify this by producing a note. then place your finger upon your adam's apple. produce a sound lower in pitch. notice what your larynx does. sing a few notes down the scale or up to observe the same principle of the change of pitch in the human voice. producing vowels. if the mouth be kept wide open and no other organ be allowed to modify or interrupt the sound a vowel is produced. in speech every part of the head that can be used is brought into action to modify these uninterrupted vibrations of vocal cords and air. the lips, the cheeks, the teeth, the tongue, the hard palate, the soft palate, the nasal cavity, all coöperate to make articulate speech. as in its mechanism, so in the essence of its modifications, the human voice is a marvel of simplicity. if the mouth be opened naturally and the tongue and lips be kept as much out of the way as in ordinary breathing, and then the vocal cords be made to vibrate, the resulting sound will be the vowel _a_ as in _father_. if now, starting from that same position and with that same vowel sound, the tongue be gradually raised the sound will be modified. try it. the sound will pass through other vowels. near the middle position it will sound like _a_ in _fate_; and when the tongue gets quite close to the roof of the mouth without touching it the vowel will be the _e_ of _feet_. others--such as the _i_ of _it_--can be distinguished clearly. starting again from that same open position and with that same vowel sound, _ah_, if the tongue be allowed to lie flat, but the lips be gradually closed and at the same time rounded, the sound will pass from _ah_ to the _o_ of _hope_, then on to the _oo_ of _troop_. the _oa_ of _broad_ and other vowels can be distinguished at various positions. by moving lips and tongue at the same time an almost infinite variety of vowel sounds can be made. producing consonants. in order to produce consonant sounds the other parts of the speaking apparatus are brought into operation. everyone of them has some function in the formation of some consonant by interrupting or checking the breath. a student, by observing or feeling the motions of his mouth can easily instruct himself in the importance of each part if he will carefully pronounce a few times all the various consonant sounds of the language. the lips produce the sounds of _p_, _b_, _wh_, and _w_. the lips and teeth produce the sounds of _f_, _v_. the tongue and teeth together make the sounds of _th_ and _dh_. the tongue in conjunction with the forward portion of the hard palate produces several sounds--_t_, _d_, _s_, _z_, _r_, and _l_. the tongue operating against or near the rear of the hard palate pronounces _ch_, _j_, _sh_, _zh_, and a different _r_. to make the consonant _y_ the tongue, the hard palate, and the soft palate operate. the tongue and soft palate make _k_ and _g_. a strong breathing makes the sound of _h_. by including the nasal passages in conjunction with some of the other parts here listed the so-called nasals, _m_, _n_, and _ng_, are made. according to the organ involved our consonant sounds are conveniently grouped as labials (lips), dentals (teeth), linguals (tongue), palatals (palate), and nasals (nose). the correct position and action of the vocal organs are of supreme importance to all speakers. many an inveterate stammerer, stutterer, or repeater can be relieved, if not cured, of the embarrassing impediment by attention to the position of his speech organs and by careful, persistent practice in their manipulation. in fact every speaker must be cognizant of the placement of these parts if he desires to have control over his speech. frequently it is such correct placement rather than loud noise or force which carries expressions clearly to listeners. while it is true that singing will strengthen the lungs and help in control of breath, it is not always the fact--as might be expected--that singing will develop the speaking voice. not every person who can sing has a pleasant or forceful voice in ordinary discourse. in singing, to secure purity of musical tone, the vowels are likely to be disproportionately dwelt upon. thus we have the endless _la-la-la_ and _ah-ah_ of so many vocal show-pieces. the same practice leads to the repeated criticism that it makes no difference whether a song be in english or a foreign language--the listeners understand just as much in either case. in speaking effectively the aim and method are the exact opposite. when a man speaks he wants to be listened to for the meaning of what he is uttering. there are so many words in the language with the same or similar vowel sounds that only the sharpest discrimination by means of consonants permits of their being intelligible. the speaker, therefore, will exercise the greatest care in pronouncing consonants distinctly. as these sounds usually begin and end words, and as they are produced by rather sudden checks or interruptions, they can be made to produce a wave motion in the air which will carry the entire word safely and clearly beyond the ear into the understanding. in public speaking no amount of care and attention bestowed upon pronouncing consonants can be spared. tone. the most marked quality of a person's voice is its tone. it will be enough for the purposes of this manual to assert that the tone should be both clear and agreeable. in public speaking the first of these is all important, though an absence of the second qualification may almost neutralize all the advantages of the first. clearness may be impaired by several causes. the speaker may feel that his throat closes up, that he becomes choked. his tongue may become stiff and "cleave to the roof of his mouth"--as the feeling is popularly described. he may breathe so energetically that the escaping or entering air makes more noise than the words themselves. he may be more or less conscious of all these. the others he may not discover for himself. the instructor or members of the class will inform him of their presence. set jaws will prevent him from opening his mouth wide enough and operating his lips flexibly enough to speak with a full tone. a nasal quality results mainly from lack of free resonance in the head and nose passages. adenoids and colds in the head produce this condition. it should be eradicated by advice and practice. usually whatever corrections will make the tone clearer will also make it more agreeable. the nasal pessimistic whine is not a pleasant recommendation of personality. high, forced, strident tones produce not only irritation in the listener but throat trouble for the speaker. articulate--that is, connected--speech may be considered with reference to four elements, all of which are constantly present in any spoken discourse. speed. first, there is the speed of delivery. an angry woman can utter more words in a minute than any one wants to hear. the general principle underlying all speech delivery is that as the audience increases in number the rapidity of utterance should be lessened. those who are accustomed to addressing large audiences, or to speaking in the open air, speak very slowly. a second consideration is the material being delivered. easily grasped narrative, description, and explanation, simply phrased and directly constructed, may be delivered much more rapidly than involved explanation, unfamiliar phraseology, long and intricate sentence constructions, unusual material, abstract reasoning, and unwelcome sentiments. the beginnings of speeches move much more slowly than later parts. a speaker who intends to lead an audience a long distance, or to hold the attention for a long time, will be extremely careful not to speak at the beginning so rapidly that he leaves them far behind. this does not mean that a speaker must drawl his words. one of our national characteristics is that we shorten our words in pronouncing them--_ing_ generally loses the _g, does not_ has become _doesn't_ and quite incorrectly _don't, yes_ is _yeeh_, etc. in many cases nothing more is required than the restoration of the word to its correct form. some words can easily be lengthened because of the significance of their meanings. others must be extended in order to carry. the best method of keeping down the rate of delivery is by a judicious use of pauses. pauses are to the listener what punctuation marks are to the reader. he is not conscious of their presence, but he would be left floundering if they were absent. some of the most effective parts of speeches are the pauses. they impart clearness to ideas, as well as aiding in emphasis and rhythm. pitch. a second quality of speech is its pitch. this simply means its place in the musical scale. speaking voices are high, medium, or low. unfortunate tendencies of americans seem to be for women to pitch their voices too high, with resultant strain and unpleasantness, and for men to pitch their voices too low, with resultant growls and gruffness. the voices of young children should be carefully guarded in this respect; so should the changing voices of growing boys. to secure a good pitch for the speaking voice the normal natural pitch of usual conversation should be found. speech in that same pitch should be developed for larger audiences. frequently a better pitch can be secured by slightly lowering the voice. if the natural pitch be too low for clearness or agreeableness it should be slightly raised--never more than is absolutely necessary. no connected group of words should be delivered in a monotonously level pitch. the voice must rise and fall. these changes must answer intelligently to the meaning of the material. such variations are called inflections. the most disagreeable violations of required inflections are raising the voice where it should fall--as at the completion of an idea, and letting it drop where it should remain up--as before the completion of an idea, frequently answering to a comma. other variations of pitch depend upon emphasis. emphasis. emphasis is giving prominence to a word or phrase so that its importance is impressed upon a listener. this result is most easily secured by contrast. more force may be put into its delivery than the rest of the speech. the word may be made louder or not so loud. the voice may be pitched higher or lower. the word may be lengthened. pauses will make it prominent. in speaking, combinations of these are employed to produce emphasis. while all qualities of speech are important, emphasis is of cardinal value. listeners will never recall everything that a speaker has said. by a skilful employment of emphasis he will put into their consciousness the main theme of his message, the salient arguments of his contention, the leading motives of action. here again is that close interdependence of manner and material referred to in the preceding chapter. in later chapters will be discussed various methods of determining and securing emphasis of larger sections than mere words and phrases. phrasing. somewhat related to emphasis is phrasing. this is the grouping together of words, phrases, clauses, and other units so that their meaning and significance may be easily grasped by a listener. as has been already said, pauses serve as punctuation marks for the hearer. short pauses correspond to commas, longer ones to colons and semi-colons, marked ones to periods. speakers can by pauses clearly indicate the conclusions of sections, the completion of topics, the passage from one part of the material to another, the transfer of attention from one subject to its opposite. within smaller range pauses can add delightful variety to delivery as they can signally reinforce the interpretation. no speaker should fall into the habit of monotonously letting his pauses mark the limit of his breath capacity, nor should he take any regular phrase, clause, or sentence length to be indicated by pauses. in this as in all other aspects variety is the charm of speech. enunciation. no matter what handicaps a person may have he may overcome them to secure a distinct, agreeable enunciation. care in enunciating words will enable a speaker to be heard almost anywhere. it is recorded that john fox, a famous preacher of south place chapel, london, whose voice was neither loud nor strong, was heard in every part of covent garden theatre, seating , when he made anti-corn-law orations, by the clearness with which he pronounced the final consonants of the words he spoke. one of the orators best known to readers is edmund burke, whose speeches are studied as models of argumentative arrangement and style. yet in actual speech-making burke was more or less a failure because of the unfortunate method of his delivery. many men markedly inferior in capacity to burke overcame disadvantageous accidents, but he was frequently hurried and impetuous. though his tones were naturally sonorous, they were harsh; and he never divested his speech of a strong irish accent. then, too, his gestures were clumsy. these facts will explain to us who read and study leisurely these masterpieces why they failed of their purpose when presented by their gifted but ineffective author. pronunciation. enunciation depends to a great degree upon pronunciation. the pronunciation of a word is no fixed and unchangeable thing. every district of a land may have its peculiar local sounds, every succeeding generation may vary the manner of accenting a word. english people today pronounce _schedule_ with a soft _ch_ sound. _program_ has had its accent shifted from the last to the first syllable. many words have two regularly heard pronunciations--_neither, advertisement, elizabethan, rations, oblique, route, quinine_, etc. fashions come and go in pronunciation as in all other human interests. some sounds stamp themselves as carelessnesses or perversions at once and are never admitted into educated, cultured speech. others thrive and have their day, only to fade before some more widely accepted pronunciation. the first rule in pronunciation is to consult a good dictionary. this will help in most cases but not in all, for a dictionary merely records all accepted sounds; only partly can it point out the better of disputed sounds by placing it first. secondly, speech is a living, growing, changing thing. dictionaries drop behind the times surprisingly rapidly. the regularly accepted sound may have come into general use after the dictionary was printed. new activities, unusual phases of life may throw into general conversation thousands of unused, unheard words. this was true of the recent great war, when with little or no preparation thousands of military, industrial, naval, and aeronautical terms came into daily use. discussions still flutter mildly around _cantonment_ and _rations_, and a score of others. next to authoritative books, the best models are to be secured from the speech of authorities in each branch to which the term specifically belongs. thus the military leaders have made the pronunciation of _oblique_ with the long _i_ the correct one for all military usages. the accepted sound of _cantonments_ was fixed by the men who built and controlled them. as it is not always possible for the ordinary person to hear such authorities deliver such terms in discourse one can merely say that a familiarity with correct pronunciation can be secured only like liberty--at the price of eternal vigilance. constant consultation of the dictionary and other books of recognized reference value, close observance of the speech of others, scrutiny of one's own pronunciation, mental criticism of others' slips, and determination to correct one's own errors, are the various methods of attaining certainty of correct delivery of word sounds. poise. when a speaker stands before an audience to address its members he should be perfectly at ease. physical ease will produce an effect upon the listeners. mental ease because of mastery of the material will induce confidence in the delivery. bodily eccentricities and awkwardness which detract from the speech itself should be eradicated by strenuous practice. pose and poise should first command respectful attention. the body should be erect, but not stiff. most of the muscles should be relaxed. the feet should be naturally placed, not so far apart as to suggest straddling, not so close together as to suggest the military stand at "attention." what should be done with the hands? nothing. they should not be clasped; they should not be put behind the back; they should not be jammed into pockets; the arms should not be held akimbo; they should not be folded. merely let the arms and hands hang at the sides naturally. gestures. should a speaker make gestures? certainly never if the gesture detracts from the force of an expression, as when a preacher pounds the book so hard that the congregation cannot hear his words. certainly yes, when the feeling of the speaker behind the phrase makes him enforce his meaning by a suitable movement. in speaking today fewer gestures are indulged in than years ago. there should never be many. senseless, jerky, agitated pokings and twitchings should be eradicated completely. insincere flourishes should be inhibited. beginners should beware of gestures until they become such practised masters of their minds and bodies that physical emphasis may be added to spoken force. a speaker should feel perfectly free to change his position or move his feet during his remarks. usually such a change should be made to correspond with a pause in delivery. in this way it reinforces the indication of progress or change of topic, already cited in discussing pauses. delivery. a speaker should never begin to talk the very instant he has taken his place before his audience. he should make a slight pause to collect the attention before he utters his salutation (to be considered later) and should make another short pause between it and the opening sentences of his speech proper. after he has spoken the last word he should not fling away from his station to his seat. this always spoils the effect of an entire address by ruining the impression that the last phrase might have made. as for the speech itself, there are five ways of delivering it: . to write it out in full and read it. . to write it out in full and commit it to memory. . to write out and memorize the opening and closing sentences and other especially important parts, leaving the rest for extempore delivery. . to use an outline or a brief which suggests the headings in logical order. . to speak without manuscript or notes. reading the speech. the first of these methods--to read the speech from a prepared manuscript--really changes the speech to a lecture or reading. true, it prevents the author from saying anything he would not say in careful consideration of his topic. it assures him of getting in all he wants to say. it gives the impression that all his utterances are the result of calm, collected thinking. on the other hand, so few people can read from a manuscript convincingly that the reproduction is likely to be a dull, lifeless proceeding in which almost anything might be said, so little does the material impress the audience. this method can hardly be considered speech-making at all. memorizing the speech. the second method--of repeating memorized compositions--is better. it at least seems alive. it has an appearance of direct address. it possesses the other advantages of the first method--definite reasoning and careful construction. but its dangers are grave. few people can recite memorized passages with the personal appeal and direct significance that effective spoken discourse should have. emphasis is lacking. variety is absent. the tone becomes monotonous. the speech is so well committed that it flows too easily. if several speakers follow various methods, almost any listener can unerringly pick the memorized efforts. let the speaker in delivery strive for variety, pauses, emphasis; let him be actor enough to simulate the feeling of spontaneous composition as he talks, yet no matter how successful he may be in his attempts there will still be slight inconsistencies, trifling incongruities, which will disturb a listener even if he cannot describe his mental reaction. the secret lies in the fact that written and spoken composition differ in certain details which are present in each form in spite of the utmost care to weed them out. memorizing parts. the third manner can be made effective if the speaker can make the gap just described between written and spoken discourse extremely narrow. if not, his speech will appear just what it is--an incongruous patchwork of carefully prepared, reconsidered writing, and more or less spontaneously evolved speaking. speaking from outline or brief. the fourth method is by far the best for students training themselves to become public speakers. after a time the brief or outline can be retained in the mind, and the speaker passes from this method to the next. a brief for an important law case in the united states supreme court is a long and elaborate instrument. but a student speaker's brief or outline need not be long. directions, models, and exercises for constructing and using outlines will be given in a later chapter. the best method. the last method is unquestionably the best. let a man so command all the aspects of a subject that he fears no breakdown in his thoughts, let him be able to use language so that he need never hesitate for the best expression, let him know the effect he wants to make upon his audience, the time he has to do it in, and he will know by what approaches he can best reach his important theme, what he may safely omit, what he must include, what he may hurry over, what he must slowly unfold, what he may handle lightly, what he must treat seriously; in short, he will make a great speech. this manner is the ideal towards which all students, all speakers, should strive. attributes of the speaker. attributes of the speaker himself will aid or mar his speech. among those which help are sincerity, earnestness, simplicity, fairness, self-control, sense of humor, sympathy. all great speakers have possessed these traits. reports upon significant speakers describing their manner emphasize them. john bright, the famous english parliamentarian of the middle of the last century, is described as follows: his style of speaking was exactly what a conventional demagogue's ought not to be. it was pure to austerity; it was stripped of all superfluous ornament. it never gushed or foamed. it never allowed itself to be mastered by passion. the first peculiarity that struck the listener was its superb self-restraint. the orator at his most powerful passages appeared as if he were rather keeping in his strength than taxing it with effort. justin mccarthy: _history of our own time_ in american history the greatest speeches were made by abraham lincoln. in cooper union, new york, he made in the most powerful speech against the slave power. the _new york tribune_ the next day printed this description of his manner. mr. lincoln is one of nature's orators, using his rare powers solely to elucidate and convince, though their inevitable effect is to delight and electrify as well. we present herewith a very full and accurate report of this speech; yet the tones, the gestures, the kindling eye, and the mirth-provoking look defy the reporter's skill. the vast assemblage frequently rang with cheers and shouts of applause, which were prolonged and intensified at the close. no man ever before made such an impression on his first appeal to a new york audience. shakespeare's advice. some of the best advice for speakers was written by shakespeare as long ago as just after , and although it was intended primarily for actors, its precepts are just as applicable to almost any kind of delivered discourse. every sentence of it is full of significance for a student of speaking. hamlet, prince of denmark, is airing his opinions about the proper manner of speaking upon the stage. hamlet's speech speak the speech, i pray you, as i pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it, as many of your players do, i had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines. nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as i may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. i would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing termagant. it out-herods herod. pray you, avoid it. be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature. for anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 't were, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theater of others. oh, there be players that i have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely, that, neither having the accent of christians nor the gait of christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that i have thought some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. oh, reform it altogether. and let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them; for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. that's villainous, and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. go make you ready. exercises . 'neath our feet broke the brittle bright stubble like chaff. . the first sip of love is pleasant; the second, perilous; the third, pestilent. . our ardors are ordered by our enthusiasms. . she's positively sick of seeing her soiled, silk, sunday dress. . the rough cough and hiccough plowed me through. . she stood at the gate welcoming him in. . five miles meandering with a mazy motion. . peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers: if peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, where is the peck of pickled peppers that peter piper picked? . theophilus thistle, the thistle-sifter, sifted a sieve of unsifted thistles. if theophilus thistle, the thistle-sifter, sifted a sieve of unsifted thistles, where is the sieve of unsifted thistles that theophilus thistle, the thistle-sifter, sifted? . alone, alone, all, all alone, alone on a wide, wide sea! . the splendor falls on castle walls, and snowy summits old in story. . tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time. . the moan of doves in immemorial elms, and murmurings of innumerable bees. . the ladies' aid ladies were talking about a conversation they had overheard, before the meeting, between a man and his wife. "they must have been at the zoo," said mrs. a.; "because i heard her mention 'a trained deer.'" "goodness me!" laughed mrs. b. "what queer hearing you must have! they were talking about going away, and she said, 'find out about the train, dear.'" "well, did anybody ever!" exclaimed mrs. c. "i am sure they were talking about musicians, for she said, 'a trained ear,' as distinctly as could be." the discussion began to warm up, and in the midst of it the lady herself appeared. they carried the case to her promptly, and asked for a settlement. "well, well, you do beat all!" she exclaimed, after hearing each one. "i'd been out in the country overnight and was asking my husband if it rained here last night." . learning condemns beyond the reach of hope the careless lips that speak of s[)o]ap for soap; her edict exiles from her fair abode the clownish voice that utters r[)o]ad for road; less stern to him who calls his coat a c[)o]at, and steers his boat believing it a b[)o]at. she pardoned one, our classic city's boast, who said at cambridge, m[)o]st instead of most, but knit her brows and stamped her angry foot to hear a teacher call a root a r[)o]ot. . hear the tolling of the bells-- iron bells! what a world of solemn thought their monody compels! in the silence of the night, how we shiver with affright at the melancholy menace of their tone! for every sound that floats from the rust within their throats is a groan. and the people--ah, the people-- they that dwell up in the steeple, all alone, and who, tolling, tolling, tolling, in that muffled monotone, feel a glory in so rolling on the human heart a stone-- they are neither man nor woman-- they are neither brute nor human-- they are ghouls: and their king it is who tolls; and he rolls, rolls, rolls, rolls a paean from the bells! and his merry bosom swells with the paean of the bells! and he dances, and he yells; keeping time, time, time, in a sort of runic rhyme, to the paean of the bells-- of the bells. . collecting, projecting, receding and speeding, and shocking and rocking, and darting and parting. and threading and spreading, and whizzing and hissing, and dripping and skipping, and hitting and splitting, and shining and twining, and rattling and battling, and shaking and quaking, and pouring and roaring, and waving and raving, and tossing and crossing, and flowing and going, and running and stunning, and foaming and roaming, and dinning and spinning, and dropping and hopping, and working and jerking, and guggling and struggling, and heaving and cleaving, and moaning and groaning; and glittering and frittering, and gathering and feathering, and whitening and brightening, and quivering and shivering, and hurrying and skurrying, and thundering and floundering; dividing and gliding and sliding, and falling and brawling and sprawling, and driving and riving and striving, and sprinkling and twinkling and wrinkling, and sounding and bounding and rounding, and bubbling and troubling and doubling, and grumbling and rumbling and tumbling, and clattering and battering and shattering; retreating and beating and meeting and sheeting, delaying and straying and playing and spraying, advancing and prancing and glancing and dancing, recoiling, turmoiling and toiling and boiling, and gleaming and streaming and steaming and beaming, and rushing and flushing and brushing and gushing, and flapping and rapping and clapping and slapping, and curling and whirling and purling and twirling, and thumping and plumping and bumping and jumping, and dashing and flashing and splashing and clashing; and so never ending, but always descending, sounds and motions for ever and ever are blending, all at once and all o'er, with a mighty uproar; and this way the water comes down at lodore. . sister susie's sewing shirts for soldiers, such skill at sewing shirts our shy young sister susie shows. some soldiers send epistles say they'd rather sleep in thistles than the saucy, soft, short shirts for soldiers sister susie sews. chapter iii words and sentences vocabularies. the collection of words a person can command either in use or understanding is a vocabulary. every person has three distinct ones: his reading vocabulary, his writing vocabulary, his speaking vocabulary. of these, the reading vocabulary is the largest. there are thousands of words he recognizes in reading and although he might not be able to construct a dictionary definition for everyone, he has a sufficiently clear idea to grasp the meaning. in this rude approximation to sense he is aided by the context, but for all practical purposes he understands the word. if he were writing, carefully taking time to note exactly what he was expressing, he might recall that word and so consciously put it into a sentence. he might use it in exactly the same sense in which he had seen it in print. but never in the rush of ideas and words in spoken discourse would he risk using a word he knew so slightly. if nothing more, he would beware of mispronunciation. thus a person could easily deduce from his reading that a _hangar_ is a building to house airplanes. he might--to avoid repeating the word _shed_ too frequently--use it in writing. but until he was absolutely certain of its significance and its sound he would hardly venture to say it to other men. spoken discourse is so alive, it moves so rapidly, that it is never so precise, so varied in its choice of words, as written material. the phraseology of written discourse sounds slightly or markedly stilted, bookish, if repeated by the tongue. this difference--though it may appear almost trifling--is apparent to everyone. its recognition can be partly illustrated by the fact that after president lowell and senator lodge had debated on the topic, the league of nations, in boston and were shown the reports of their speeches, each made changes in certain expressions. the version for print and reading is a little more formal than the delivered sentences. the senator said, "i want" but preferred to write "i wish"; then he changed "has got to be" into "must," and "nothing to see" into "nothing visible." one might say that all three vocabularies should correspond, but there is no real need of this. so long as people read they will meet thousands of words for which they have no need in speaking. everybody must be able to understand the masterpieces of the past with their archaic (old-fashioned) words like _eftsoons_ or _halidom_, but no one need use such expressions now. so there is no discredit in the fact that one's speaking vocabulary is more restricted than his reading vocabulary. new ideas, new words. it is true, however, that an educated person should never rest content with the size of his usable speaking vocabulary. the addition of every new word is likely to indicate the grasp of a new idea. likewise, every new idea is almost certain to require its individual terms for expression. an enlarging vocabulary is the outward and visible sign of an inward and intellectual growth. no man's vocabulary can equal the size of a dictionary, the latest of which in english is estimated to contain some , words. life may be maintained upon a surprisingly meager group of words, as travelers in foreign lands can testify. shakespeare's vocabulary is said to have included as many as , words. figures for that of the average person vary considerably. increasing the vocabulary. the method of increasing a vocabulary is a quite simple process. its procedure is a fascinating exercise. it covers four steps. when a new word is encountered it should be noticed with keen attention. if heard, its pronunciation will be fixed upon the ear. if seen, its spelling should be mastered at once. the next step is to consult a dictionary for either spelling or pronunciation. then all its meanings should be examined. still the word is not yours until you have used it exactly. this you should do at the first opportunity. if the opportunity seems long in coming make it for yourself by discussing with some one the topic with which it was used or frankly discuss the word itself. how many unfamiliar words have you heard or seen recently? how many do you easily use now in your own remarks? you might find it a good plan to take a linguistic inventory every night. a little practice in this will produce amazingly interesting and profitable results in both use and understanding. a keenness for words will be rapidly developed. word-lists of all kinds will take on entirely new meanings. a spontaneous receptivity will develop into permanent retention of words and phrases. exercises . tell of some new word you have added to your vocabulary recently. explain when you met it, how it happened to impress you, what you learned of it. . in studying a foreign language how did you fix in your mind the words which permanently stuck there? . look over a page in a dictionary. report to the class on some interesting material you find. . make a list of ten slang or technical expressions. explain them in exact, clear language. . find and bring to class a short printed passage, which because of the words, you cannot understand. unusual books, women's fashion magazines, technical journals, books of rules for games, financial reports, contain good examples. . how much do you know about any of the following words? chassis fuselage orthodox sable comptometer germicide plebescite self-determination covenant layman purloin soviet ethiopian morale querulous vers libre farce nectar renegade zoom . comment on the words in the following extracts: "of enchanting crimson brocade is the slipover blouse which follows the lines of the french cuirasse. charmingly simple, this blouse, quite devoid of trimming, achieves smartness by concealing the waistline with five graceful folds." "the shift bid consists in bidding a suit, of which you have little or nothing, with the ultimate object of transferring later to another declaration, which is perfectly sound. the idea is to keep your adversaries from leading this suit up to your hand, which they will likely avoid doing, thinking that you are strong in it." "while sentiment is radically bearish on corn there is so little pressure on the market other than from shorts that a majority of traders are inclined to go slow in pressing the selling side on breaks until the situation becomes more clearly defined. the weekly forecast for cool weather is regarded as favorable for husking and shelling, and while there was evening up on the part of the pit operators for the double holiday, some of the larger local professionals went home short expecting a lower opening tuesday." . make a list of ten new words you have learned recently. suffixes and prefixes. definite steps for continuous additions can be mapped out and covered. careful attention to prefixes and suffixes will enlarge the vocabulary. prefixes . a = on, in, at, to; _abed, aboard, afield, afire_ . ab (a, abs) = from, away; _absent, abstract, abdicate_ . ad, etc. = to, in addition to; _adapt, admit, adduce_ . ante = before, _anteroom, antebellum_ . anti = against, opposite; _anticlimax, antipodes, antipathy_ . bi= two; _bicycle, biennial, biped, biplane_ . circum = around, about; _circumnavigate, circumscribe, circumvent_ . con (col, com, co, cor, etc.) = with, together; _consent, collect, coördinate, composite, conspiracy_ . contra (counter) = against; _contradict, counteract, countermand_ . de = down, from, away; _depose, desist, decapitate, denatured_ . demi, hemi, semi = half; _demi-tasse, hemisphere, semiannual, semitransparent_ . di (dis) = twice, double; _dissyllable_ . dis (di, dif) = apart, away, not; _distract, diverge, diversion, disparage_ . en (em) = in, on, into; _engrave, embody, embrace_ . extra = beyond; _extraordinary, extravagant_ . hyper = above; _hypercritical_ . in (il, im, ir) = in, into, not; _inclose, illustrate, irrigate, inform, illiterate, impious, irregular_ . ex (e, ec, ef) = out of, from, beyond, thoroughly, formerly but not now; _exclude, excel, ex-senator._ . inter = between, among; _intercede, interchange, interfere, interurban, interlude_ . mis = wrongly, badly; _miscalculate, misspell, misadventure_ . mono = one; _monoplane_ . per = through, thoroughly, by; _perchance, perfect, per-adventure_ . poly = many; _polygon, polytheism_ . post = behind, after; _postgraduate, post-mortem, postlude_, _postscript, post-meridian_ (p.m.) . pre = before (in time, place, or order); _preëminent, predict, prefer, prefix, prejudge, prejudice_ . preter = beyond; _preternatural_ . pro = before, forth, forward; _proceed, prosecute_ . pro = siding with; _pro-ally_ . re = back, again; _recover, renew, recall_ . sub, etc. = under; _submerge, subscribe, subterranean, subterfuge_ . super (sur) = over, above; _superintend, supercargo_ . trans (tra) = across; _translate, transmit, transfer_ . vice (vis) = instead of; _vice-president, vice-admiral_ suffixes . ee, er = one who; _absentee_, _profiteer_, _mower_ . ard, art= term of disparagement; _drunkard_, _braggart_ . esque = like; _statuesque_ . ism = state of being; _barbarism_, _atheism_ . et, let = little; _brooklet_, _bracelet_, _eaglet_ . ling = little, young; _duckling_, _gosling_ . kin = little; _lambkin_, _peterkin_ . stead = a place; _bedstead_, _homestead_, _instead_ . wright = a workman; _wheelwright_ thesaurus. besides frequently consulting a good modern dictionary a student speaker should familiarize himself with a _thesaurus_ of words and phrases. this is a peculiarly useful compilation of expressions according to their meaning relations. a dictionary lists words, then gives their meanings. a thesaurus arranges meanings, then gives the words that express those ideas. the value of such a book can be best illustrated by explaining its use. suppose a speaker is going to attack some principle, some act, some party. he knows that his main theme will be denunciation of something. in the index of a thesaurus he looks under _denunciation_, finding two numbers of paragraphs. turning to the first he has under his eye a group of words all expressing shades of this idea. there are further references to other related terms. let us look at the first group, taken from roget's _thesaurus_. maledicton, curse, imprecation, denunciation, execration, anathema, ban, proscription, excommunication, commination, fulmination. cursing, scolding, railing, billingsgate language. _v_. to curse, accurse, imprecate, scold, rail, execrate. to denounce, proscribe, excommunicate, fulminate. _adj_. cursing, &c, cursed, &c. threat, menace, defiance, abuse, commination, intimidation. _v_. to threaten, menace, defy, fulminate; to intimidate. _adj_. threatening, menacing, minatory, abusive. the second reference leads us farther. it presents the expressions dealing with the methods and results of _denunciation_, providing hundreds of words and phrases to use in various ways. it does even more, for in a parallel column it gives a list of opposites for the words indicating _condemnation_. this more than doubles its value. finally having reached the word _punishment_ it lists its cognates until the idea _penalty_ is reached, where it balances that idea with _reward_ and its synonyms. a portion of this section follows. lawsuit, suit, action, cause, trial, litigation. denunciation, citation, arraignment, persecution, indictment, impeachment, apprehension, arrest, committal, imprisonment. pleadings, writ, summons, plea, bill, affidavit, &c. verdict, sentence, judgment, finding, decree, arbitrament, adjudication, award. _v_. to go to law; to take the law of; to appeal to the law; to join issue; file a bill, file a claim. to denounce, cite, apprehend, arraign, sue, prosecute, bring to trial, indict, attach, distrain, to commit, give in charge or custody; throw into prison. to try, hear a cause, sit in judgment. to pronounce, find, judge, sentence, give judgment; bring in a verdict; doom, to arbitrate, adjudicate, award, report. acquittal, absolution, _see_ pardon, , clearance, discharge, release, reprieve, respite. exemption from punishment; impunity. _v_. to acquit, absolve, clear, discharge, release, reprieve, respite. _adj_. acquitted, &c. uncondemned, unpunished, unchastised. condemnation, conviction, proscription; death warrant. attainder, attainment. _v_. to condemn, convict, cast, find guilty, proscribe. _adj_. condemnatory, &c. punishment, chastisement, castigation, correction, chastening, discipline, infliction, etc. an observer will see at once just how far these lists go and what must supplement them. they do not define, they do not discriminate, they do not restrict. they are miscellaneous collections. a person must consult the dictionary or refer to some other authority to prevent error or embarrassment in use. for instance, under the entry _newspaper_ occurs the attractive word _ephemeris_. but one should be careful of how and where he uses that word. another exercise which will aid in fixing both words and meanings in the mind and also help in the power of recalling them for instant use is to make some kind of word-list according to some principle or scheme. one plan might be to collect all the words dealing with the idea of _book_. another might be to take some obvious word root and then follow it and other roots added to it through all its forms, meanings, and uses. one might choose _tel_ (distant) and _graph_ (record) and start with _telegraph_. _telephone_ will introduce _phone_, _phonograph_; they will lead on to _dictaphone_, _dictagraph_; the first half links with _dictation_; that may lead as far away as _dictatorial_. in fact there is no limit to the extent, the interest, and the value of these various exercises. the single aim of all of them should be, of course, the enlargement of the speaking vocabulary. mere curiosities, current slang, far-fetched metaphors, passing foreign phrases, archaisms, obsolete and obsolescent terms, too new coinages, atrocities, should be avoided as a plague. consistent, persistent, insistent word-study is of inestimable value to a speaker. and since all people speak, it follows that it would benefit everybody. exercises . explain what is meant by each entry in the foregoing list. . list some verbal curiosities you have met recently. examples: "mr. have-it-your-own-way is the best husband." "he shows a great deal of stick-to-it-iveness." . what should be the only condition for using foreign expressions? can you show how foreign words become naturalized? cite some foreign words used in speech. . are archaic (old-fashioned), obsolete (discarded), and obsolescent (rapidly disappearing) terms more common in speech or books? explain and illustrate. synonyms. as has already been suggested, a copious vocabulary must not be idle in a person's equipment. he must be able to use it. he must be able to discriminate as to meaning. this power of choosing the exact word results from a study of synonyms. it is a fact that no two words mean _exactly_ the same thing. no matter how nearly alike the two meanings may appear to be, closer consideration will unfailingly show at least a slight difference of dignity, if nothing more--as _red_ and _crimson_, _pure_ and _unspotted_. synonyms, then, are groups of words whose meanings are almost the same. these are the words which give so much trouble to learners of our language. a foreigner is told that _stupid_ means _dull_, yet he is corrected if he says _a stupid knife_. many who learn english as a native tongue fail to comprehend the many delicate shades of differences among synonyms. in this matter, also, a dictionary goes so far as to list synonyms, and in some cases, actually adds a discussion to define the various limits. for fuller, more careful discrimination a good book of synonyms should be consulted. except for some general consideration of words which everyone is certain to use or misuse, it is better to consult a treatise on synonyms when need arises than to study it consecutively. in consultation the material will be fixed by instant use. in study it may fade before being employed; it may never be required. the subjoined paragraphs show entries in two different volumes upon synonyms: adjacent, adjoining, contiguous. adjacent, in latin, _adjiciens_, participle of _adjicio_, is compounded of _ad_ and _jacio_, to lie near. _adjoining_, as the word implies, signifies being joined together. contiguous, in french _contigu_, latin _contiguus_, comes from _contingo_, or _con_ and _tango_, signifying to touch close. what is _adjacent_ may be separated altogether by the intervention of some third object; what is _adjoining_ must touch in some part; and what is _contiguous_ must be fitted to touch entirely on one side. lands are _adjacent_ to a house or town; fields are _adjoining_ to each other; and houses _contiguous_ to each other. crabbe: _english synonyms_ victory: synonyms: achievement, advantage, conquest, mastery, success, supremacy, triumph. _victory_ is the state resulting from the overcoming of an opponent or opponents in any contest, or from the overcoming of difficulties, obstacles, evils, etc., considered as opponents or enemies. in the latter sense any hard-won _achievement_, _advantage,_ or _success_ may be termed a victory. in _conquest_ and _mastery_ there is implied a permanence of state that is not implied in _victory_. _triumph_, originally denoting the public rejoicing in honor of a _victory_, has come to signify also a peculiarly exultant, complete, and glorious _victory_. compare _conquer_. antonyms: defeat, destruction, disappointment, disaster, failure, frustration, miscarriage, overthrow, retreat, rout. fernald: _english synonyms, antonyms and prepositions_ antonyms. notice that this second paragraph adds a new word-list--_antonyms_. to reinforce the understanding of what a thing is, it is desirable to know what it is not, or what its opposite is. this kind of explanation or description is especially valuable to a speaker. he can frequently impress an audience more definitely by explaining the opposite of what he wants them to apprehend. at times the term is not the extreme opposite; it is merely the negative of the other. logically the other side of _white_ is _not white_, while the antonym is the extreme _black_. trained speakers use with great effect the principle underlying such groups of words. when burke argued before the house of commons for a plan to secure harmony with the american colonies he described the scheme he considered necessary by showing what it should not be. "no partial, narrow, contracted, pinched, occasional system will be at all suitable to such an object." describing the peace he hoped would be secured he used this principle of opposites. "not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations, not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government." we are told by an investigator that one of the reasons for a frenchman's keen insight into the capabilities of his language is the early training received in schools covering differences among words. this continual weighing of the meaning or the suitability of an expression is bound to result in a delicate appreciation of its value as a means of effective communication. in all mental action the sense of contrast is an especially lively one. in a later chapter this principle, as applied to explanation and argument, will be discussed. just here, the point is that the constant study of contrasts will sharpen the language sense and rapidly enlarge the vocabulary. exercises . put down a group of five words having similar meanings. explain the differences among them. . choose any word. give its exact opposite. . from any short paragraph copy all the nouns. in a parallel column put opposites or contrasts. . do the same for the adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. . write down all the common nouns which correspond to _a man_, _a girl_, _a leader_, _a house_, _a costume_, _a crime_. composition of the english language. turning now from the means of improving the speaker's language equipment let us pass to some remarks upon his use of words. the english language is the largest, the most varied in the universe. almost entirely free from difficulties of inflection and conjugation, with a simplified grammar, and a great freedom of construction, it suffers from only two signal drawbacks--its spelling and its pronunciation. while it has preserved to a great degree its original anglo-saxon grammar, it has enriched its vocabulary by borrowings from everywhere. its words have no distinctive forms, so every foreign word can usually be naturalized by a mere change of sound. no matter what their origin, all belong to one family now; _gnu_ is as much english as _knew_, _japan_ as _pogrom_, _fête_ as _papoose_, _batik_ as _radii_, _ohm_ as _marconigram_, _macadamized_ as _zoomed_. most of the modern borrowings--as just illustrated--were to serve for new things or ideas. but there was one time when a great reduplication of the vocabulary occurred. after the french conquered england in , english and norman-french were spoken side by side. the resultant tongue, composed of both, offered many doubles for the same idea. in some instances the fashionable and aristocratic french word marked a difference of meaning as is clearly indicated by such pairs as _beef_ and _ox_, _veal_ and _calf, mutton_ and _sheep_, _pork_ and _pig_. in many other cases words of french and english origin are separated by differences less distinct. such are _love_ and _affection_, _worship_ and _adoration_. a speaker must take thought of such groups, and consciously endeavor to use the more appropriate for his purpose. anglo-saxon and romance. it may help him to remember that the anglo-saxon words are the more homely, the closer to our everyday feelings and experiences, the expression of our deepest ideas and sentiments, the natural outspoken response to keen emotion. on the other hand, the romance words--as they are called, whether from the french or directly from the latin--are likely to be longer; they belong generally to the more complicated relationships of society and government; they are more intellectual in the sense that they represent the operations of the brain rather than the impulses of the heart. they deal with more highly trained wills, with more abstruse problems; they reason, they argue, they consider; they are philosophical, scientific, legal, historical. listen to a soldier relate his war experiences. what will his vocabulary be? listen to a diplomat explaining the league of nations. what will his vocabulary be? have you ever heard a speaker who gave you the impression that all his words ended in _tion_? this was because his vocabulary was largely romance. the inferences from the foregoing are perfectly plain. subject and audience will determine to a large extent what kinds of words a speaker will choose. the well-equipped speaker will be master of both kinds; he will draw from either as occasion offers. he will not insult one audience by talking below their intelligence, nor will he bore another by speaking over their heads. general and specific terms. effective speaking depends to a large extent upon the inclusion of specific terms as contrasted with general terms. "glittering generalities" never make people listen. they mean nothing because they say too much. study the following selections to see how the concrete phraseology used makes the material more telling, how it enforces the meaning. pick out the best expressions and explain why they are better than more general terms. in the first, note how the last sentence drives home the meaning of the first two. listeners may understand the first two, they remember the last. civil and religious liberty in this country can be preserved only through the agency of our political institutions. but those institutions alone will not suffice. it is not the ship so much as the skilful sailing that assures the prosperous voyage. george william curtis: _the public duty of educated men_, describe the significance of the best expressions in the following speech made in parliament by thomas babington macaulay. all those fierce spirits whom you hallooed on to harass us now turn round and begin to worry you. the orangeman raises his war-whoop; exeter hall sets up its bray; mr. macneill shudders to see more costly cheer than ever provided for the priest of baal at the table of the queen; and the protestant operatives of dublin call for impeachments in exceedingly bad english. but what did you expect? did you think when, to serve your turn, you called the devil up that it was as easy to lay him as to raise him? did you think when you went on, session after session, thwarting and reviling those whom you knew to be in the right, and flattering all the worst passions of those whom you knew to be in the wrong, that the day of reckoning would never come? it has come. there you sit, doing penance for the disingenuousness of years. why was the style of the extract below especially good for the evident purpose and audience? why did the author use names for the candidates? when an american citizen is content with voting merely, he consents to accept what is often a doubtful alternative. his first duty is to help shape the alternative. this, which was formerly less necessary, is now indispensable. in a rural community such as this country was a hundred years-ago, whoever was nominated for office was known to his neighbors, and the consciousness of that knowledge was a conservative influence in determining nominations. but in the local elections of the great cities of today, elections that control taxation and expenditure, the mass of the voters vote in absolute ignorance of the candidates. the citizen who supposes that he does all his duty when he votes, places a premium upon political knavery. thieves welcome him to the polls and offer him a choice, which he has done nothing to prevent, between jeremy diddler and dick turpin. the party cries for which he is responsible are: "turpin and honesty," "diddler and reform." and within a few years, as a result of this indifference to the details of public duty, the most powerful politicians in the empire state of the union was jonathan wild, the great, the captain of a band of plunderers. george william curtis: _the public duty of educated men_, appropriate diction. the final test of any diction is its appropriateness. the man who talks of dignified things as he would of a baseball game--unless he is doing it deliberately for humor, caricature, or burlesque--is ruining his own cause. the man who discusses trifles in the style of philosophy makes himself an egregious bore. as shakespeare said, "suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature." beware of the flowery expression; avoid metaphorical speech; flee from the lure of the overwrought style. in the first place it is so old-fashioned that audiences suspect it at once. it fails to move them. it may plunge its user into ridiculous failure. in the excitement of spontaneous composition a man sometimes takes risks. he may--as pitt is reported to have said he did--throw himself into a sentence and trust to god almighty to get him out. but a beginner had better walk before he tries to soar. if he speaks surely rather than amazingly his results will be better. the temptation to leave the ground is ever present in speaking. a parliamentary debater describing the church of england wound up in a flowery conclusion thus: "i see the church of england rising in the land, with one foot firmly planted in the soil, the other stretched toward heaven!" an american orator discussing the character of washington discharged the following. the higher we rise in the scale of being--material, intellectual, and moral--the more certainly we quit the region of the brilliant eccentricities and dazzling contrasts which belong to a vulgar greatness. order and proportion characterize the primordial constitution of the terrestrial system; ineffable harmony rules the heavens. all the great eternal forces act in solemn silence. the brawling torrent that dries up in summer deafens you with its roaring whirlpools in march; while the vast earth on which we dwell, with all its oceans and all its continents and its thousand millions of inhabitants, revolves unheard upon its soft axle at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and rushes noiselessly on its orbit a million and a half miles a day. two storm-clouds encamped upon opposite hills on a sultry summer's evening, at the expense of no more electricity, according to mr. faraday, than is evolved in the decomposition of a single drop of water, will shake the surrounding atmosphere with their thunders, which, loudly as they rattle on the spot, will yet not be heard at the distance of twenty miles; while those tremendous and unutterable forces which ever issue from the throne of god, and drag the chariot wheels of uranus and neptune along the uttermost path-ways of the solar system, pervade the illimitable universe in silence. of course, today, nobody talks like that. at least no one should. trite expressions. less easily guarded against is the delivery of trite expressions. these are phrases and clauses which at first were so eloquent that once heard they stuck in people's minds, who then in an endeavor themselves to be emphatic inserted continually into their speeches these overworked, done-to-death expressions, which now having been used too frequently have no real meaning. one of the most frequently abused is "of the people, by the people, for the people." others are words and phrases made popular by the war. many are no more than jargon--meaningless counterfeits instead of the legal tender of real speech. it is amazing to notice how persistently some of them recur in the remarks of apparently well-trained men who should know better than to insert them. the following were used by a prominent united states political leader in a single speech. he could; easily have replaced them by living material or dispensed with them entirely. jot or tittle; the plain unvarnished truth; god forbid; the jackal press; that memorable occasion; tooth and nail; the god of our fathers; the awful horrors of valley forge; the blood-stained heights of yorktown; tell it not in gath; proclaim it not in the streets of askalon; peace with honor; the arabian nights; munchausen; the fathers; our globe-encircling domain; i am a democrat; the pirates of the barbary coast; democratic gospel pure and undefiled; janus-faced double; good lord, good devil; all things to all men; god-fearing patriots; come what may; all things are fair in love or war; the silken bowstring; the unwary voter; bait to catch gudgeons; to live by or to die by; these obsequious courtiers; guttenburg; rubber stamp; at all hazards; the most unkindest cut of all. with the artificiality, the stiltedness of the foregoing contrast the simplicity, the sincerity of these two extracts from abraham lincoln. and now, if they would listen--as i suppose they will not--i would address a few words to the southern people. i would say to them: you consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and i consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. still, when you speak of us republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. you will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "black republicans." in all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "black republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite--license, so to speak--among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. now can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. _cooper union speech_, my friends: no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. to this place, and the kindness of these people, i owe everything. here i have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. here my children have been born, and one is buried. i now leave, not knowing when or whether ever i may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon washington. without the assistance of that divine being who ever attended him, i cannot succeed. with that assistance i cannot fail. trusting in him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. to his care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, i bid you an affectionate farewell. _farewell address at springfield_, kinds of sentences. what kinds of sentences shall a speaker construct as he speaks? that there is a difference between those a person composes when he writes and those the same person is likely to evolve when he speaks is realized by everyone. we hear that a speaker is "booky," or conversational, that he is stilted or lively, that he is too formal, that his discourse is dull and flat. to a great degree these criticisms are based upon the sentence structure. the simple sentence. the simple sentence contains only one subject and one predicate. the complex sentence contains one independent clause and at least one subordinate clause. the compound sentence contains two or more independent clauses. it would be good advice to urge the employment of the simple sentence were it not for the fact that a long succession of sentences constructed exactly alike, making the same impression of form and sound and length, is likely to produce a deadly monotony of emphasis and pause, an impression of immaturity on the part of the speaker and of lack of skill in molding his phrases. yet, in the main, the simple sentence is a valuable kind to know how to deliver. containing but a single thought it is likely to make a definite impression upon a listener. it offers him not too much to grasp. it leads him a single step along the way. it speaks clearly, concisely. its advantages follow from its qualities. at the beginning of addresses it is especially efficient in leading the audience at the same rate--slowly, it should be--as the speaker. in intricate explanation, in close reasoning, in matters of paramount importance, it should be employed. management of the short, simple sentence in written prose is difficult. in spoken discourse, as well, it is so easy to fall into the first primer style that while the advantages of the use of the simple sentence are great, the ability to produce good sentences in succession must be developed. the complex sentence. the complex sentence offers a good form for introducing pertinent, minor details, which are necessary, yet which do not merit inclusion in the general level of the speech. aided by proper pitch and inflection of the voice, they can be skilfully subordinated to main ideas, yet introduced so adroitly that they at times relieve attention, at others briefly explain, at others keep adding up in a series the effect of which is a large total. frequently such sentences indicate clearly the progress of the discussion. a topic introduced in a subordinate clause may later be raised to more importance without abruptness, for hearers are already familiar with it. a topic already treated may be recalled by citation in a later clause. so various parts of a speech may be closely knit together to present a coherent, progressive, unified whole. in easily grasped general, descriptive, narrative, explanatory material, complex sentences will allow the covering of a wide field, or a long time, in short order by condensing facts into the few words of subordinate clauses. the compound sentence. somewhat like the use of complex sentences for general material is the use of compound ones for informal topics, familiar discourse, easy address, lighter material. valuable, too, is this form for the speaker who knows accurately the meaning of conjunctions, who can avoid the stringing together of what should be simple sentences by a dozen senseless _ands_. a good rule for the beginner is to allow no _ands_ in his speeches except those so imbedded in phrases--husband and wife, now and then, principal and interest--that he cannot avoid them. let him never speak such sentences as, "i came to this meeting and discovered only when i got here that i was scheduled to speak." let him be careful of beginning sentence's with _and_ after he has made a pause. the exclamatory sentence. many speakers yield to the temptation to strive for effect by delivering exclamatory sentences--sometimes only clauses and phrases so enunciated. the disposition to do this is born of the desire to be emphatic. strong feeling makes one burst out in ejaculation. used sparingly this form may be extremely effective. used too frequently it reduces a speech to a mere series of ejaculations of little more value than a succession of grunts, groans, and sobs. exclamatory sentences seldom convey much meaning. they indicate emotion. but a speech, to be worth listening to, must convey ideas. the interrogative sentence. a second sentence which may be classed with the preceding is the interrogative. there is a disposition on the part of speakers to ask direct questions of the audience. frequently the rhetorical question--which is one asked because the answer is the quite apparent fact the speaker wants to impress upon his hearers--is an effective method of making a seemingly personal appeal to sluggish intellects or lazy wills. the interrogative form has the same disadvantage as the exclamatory. except when its answer is perfectly plain it transfers no meaning. it would be easily possible for a speaker with no ideas at all, no knowledge of a topic, to engage time and attention by merely constructing a series of questions. at the conclusion the audience would wonder why in the world he spoke, for he had so little to say. long and short sentences. so far as long and short sentences are concerned some general rules have already been hinted at in dealing with other kinds. the advantages of the short sentence are mainly those of clearness, directness, emphasis. its dangers are monotony, bareness, over-compactness. the advantages of the long--that is, quite long--sentence, are rather difficult to comprehend. a wordy sentence is likely to defeat its own purpose. instead of guiding it will lose its hearer. somewhat long sentences--as already said--will serve in general discussions, in rapidly moving descriptive and narrative passages, in rather simple explanation and argument. no one can state at just what number of words a short sentence becomes medium, and when the division of medium becomes long. yet there must be some limits. a sentence in _les misérables_ includes nearly one thousand words in both french original and english translation. john milton produced some extraordinarily long sentences. but these are in written discourse. some modern speakers have come dangerously near the limit. in one printed speech one sentence has four hundred ten words in it; a later one goes to five hundred forty. this second would fill about half a column of the usual newspaper. surely these are much too long. a speaker can frequently make a long sentence acceptable by breaking it up into shorter elements by sensible pauses. yet the general direction must surely be: avoid sentences which are too long. variety. the paramount rule of sentence structure in speech-making is certainly: secure variety. long, medium, short; declarative, exclamatory, interrogative; simple, loose, periodic; use them all as material permits and economy of time and attention prescribes. with the marvelous variety possible in english sentence structure, no person with ideas and language at command need be a monotonous speaker. exercises . criticize this selection for its diction and sentence structure. what excellences has it? what can you find fault with? does its date explain it? "the books in the library, the portraits, the table at which he wrote, the scientific culture of the land, the course of agricultural occupation, the coming-in of harvests, fruit of the seed his own hand had scattered, the animals and implements of husbandry, the trees planted by him in lines, in copses, in orchards by thousands, the seat under the noble elm on which he used to sit to feel the southwest wind at evening, or hear the breathings of the sea, or the not less audible music of the starry heavens, all seemed at first unchanged. the sun of a bright day from which, however, something of the fervors of midsummer were wanting, fell temperately on them all, filled the air on all sides with the utterances of life, and gleamed on the long line of ocean. some of those whom on earth he loved best, still were there. the great mind still seemed to preside; the great presence to be with you; you might expect to hear again the rich and playful tones of the voice of the old hospitality. yet a moment more, and all the scene took on the aspect of one great monument, inscribed with his name, and sacred to his memory. and such it shall be in all the future of america! the sensation of desolateness, and loneliness, and darkness, with which you see it now, will pass away; the sharp grief of love and friendship will become soothed; men will repair thither as they are wont to commemorate the great days of history; the same glance shall take in, and same emotions shall greet and bless, the harbor of the pilgrims and the tomb of webster." rufus choate: _a discourse commemorative of daniel webster_, . what is the effect of the questions in the following? are the sentences varied? if the occasion was momentous, what is the style? "and judging by the past, i wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the british ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our water and darken our land. are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love?" patrick henry: _speech in the virginia convention_, . list the concrete details given below. what effect have they? what elements give the idea of the extent of the colonies' fisheries? are the sentences long or short? does their success justify them? "look at the manner in which the people of new england have of late carried on the whale fishery. whilst we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recess of hudson's bay and davis' straits, whilst we are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen serpent of the south. falkland islands, which seemed too remote and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their victorious industry. nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. we know that whilst some of them draw the line and strike the harpoon on the coast of africa, others run the longitude and pursue their gigantic game along the coast of brazil. no sea but what is vexed by their fisheries; no climate that is not witness to their toil. neither the perseverance of holland, nor the activity of france, nor the dexterous and firm sagacity of english enterprise ever carried this most perilous mode of hardy industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by, this recent people; a people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of manhood." edmund burke: _conciliation with america_, . is the following clear? what kind of sentence is it? what minor phrase? is this phrase important? why? why did lincoln repeat this sentence, practically with no change, twelve times in a single speech? "the sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the constitution, forbade the federal government to control slavery in the federal territories." abraham lincoln: _cooper union speech_, . is the following well phrased? what makes it so? is any expression too strong? do you object to any? how many of the words would you be likely not to use? "it is but too true that there are many whose whole scheme of freedom is made up of pride, perverseness, and insolence. they feel themselves in a state of thraldom; they imagine that their souls are cooped and cabined in, unless they have some man, or some body of men, dependent on their mercy. the desire of having some one below them descends to those who are the very lowest of all; and a protestant cobbler, debased by his poverty, but exalted by his share of the ruling church, feels a pride in knowing it is by his generosity alone that the peer, whose footman's instep he measures, is able to keep his chaplain from a gaol. this disposition is the true source of the passion which many men, in very humble life, have taken to the american war. our subjects in america; our colonies; our dependents. this lust of party power is the liberty they hunger and thirst for; and this siren song of ambition has charmed ears that we would have thought were never organized to that sort of music." edmund burke: _speech at bristol_, . describe the effects of the questions in the next. how is sentence variety secured? what effects have the simple, declarative sentences? "and from what have these consequences sprung? we have been involved in no war. we have been at peace with all the world. we have been visited with no national calamity. our people have been advancing in general intelligence, and, i will add, as great and alarming as has been the advance of political corruption among the mercenary corps who look to government for support, the morals and virtue of the community at large have been advancing in improvement. what, i again repeat, is the cause?" john c. calhoun: _speech on the force bill_, . what quality predominates in the following? does it lower the tone of the passage too much? is the interrogative form of the last sentence better than the declarative? why? has the last observation any close connection with the preceding portion? can it be justified? "modesty is a lovely trait, which sets the last seal to a truly great character, as the blush of innocence adds the last charm to youthful beauty. when, on his return from one of his arduous campaigns in the seven years' war, the speaker of the virginia assembly, by order of the house, addressed colonel washington in acknowledgment of his services, the youthful hero rose to reply; but humility checked his utterance, diffidence sealed his lips. 'sit down, colonel washington,' said the speaker; 'the house sees that your modesty is equal to your merit, and that exceeds my power of language to describe.' but who ever heard of a modest alexander or a modest caesar, or a modest hero or statesman of the present day?--much as some of them would be improved by a measure of that quality." edward everett: _character of washington_, . look up the meaning of every unfamiliar expression in this extract. is the quotation at the end in good taste? give reasons for your answer. for what kinds of audiences would this speech be fitting? "the remedy for the constant excess of party spirit lies, and lies alone, in the courageous independence of the individual citizen. the only way, for instance, to procure the party nomination of good men, is for every self-respecting voter to refuse to vote for bad men. in the medieval theology the devils feared nothing so much as the drop of holy water and the sign of the cross, by which they were exorcised. the evil spirits of party fear nothing so much as bolting and scratching. _in hoc signo vinces_. if a farmer would reap a good crop, he scratches the weeds out of his field. if we would have good men upon the ticket, we must scratch bad men off. if the scratching breaks down the party, let it break: for the success of the party, by such means would break down the country. the evil spirits must be taught by means that they can understand. 'them fellers,' said the captain of a canal-boat of his men, 'them fellers never think you mean a thing until you kick 'em. they feel that, and understand.'" george william curtis: _the public duty of educated men_, . describe the quality of the next extract. what is its style? are repetitions allowable? what then of variety? point out contrasts of words and phrases. "what, then it is said, would you legislate in haste? would you legislate in times of great excitement concerning matters of such deep concern? yes, sir, i would; and if any bad consequences should follow from the haste and excitement, let those be answerable who, when there was no need to haste, when there existed no excitement, refused to listen to any project of reform; nay, made it an argument against reform that the public mind was not excited.... i allow that hasty legislation is an evil. but reformers are compelled to legislate fast, just because bigots will not legislate early. reformers are compelled to legislate in times of excitement, because bigots will not legislate in times of tranquillity." thomas babington macaulay: _on the reform bill_, . describe the diction of the next extract. describe the prevailing kind of sentences. do you approve of these in such an instance? explain your answer. does it remind you--in tone--of any other passage already quoted in this book? what is your opinion of the style? "there has been a change of government. it began two years ago, when the house of representatives became democratic by a decisive majority. it has now been completed. the senate about to assemble will also be democratic. the offices of president and vice-president have been put into the hands of democrats. what does the change mean? that is the question that is uppermost in our minds today. that is the question i am going to try to answer in order, if i may, to interpret the occasion. "this is not a day of triumph; it is a day of dedication. here muster, not the forces of party, but the forces of humanity. men's hearts wait upon us; men's lives hang in the balance; men's hopes call upon us to say what we will do. who shall live up to the great trust? who dares fail to try? i summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men to my side. god helping me, i will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me." woodrow wilson: _inaugural_, . consider sentence length in the following: which words are significant? how is concreteness secured? "ours is a government of liberty by, through, and under the law. no man is above it and no man is below it. the crime of cunning, the crime of greed, the crime of violence, are all equally crimes, and against them all alike the law must set its face. this is not and never shall be a government either of plutocracy or of a mob. it is, it has been, and it will be a government of the people; including alike the people of great wealth, of moderate wealth, the people who employ others, the people who are employed, the wage worker, the lawyer, the mechanic, the banker, the farmer; including them all, protecting each and everyone if he acts decently and squarely, and discriminating against any one of them, no matter from what class he comes, if he does not act squarely and fairly, if he does not obey the law. while all people are foolish if they violate or rail against the law, wicked as well as foolish, but all foolish--yet the most foolish man in this republic is the man of wealth who complains because the law is administered with impartial justice against or for him. his folly is greater than the folly of any other man who so complains; for he lives and moves and has his being because the law does in fact protect him and his property." theodore roosevelt at spokane, chapter iv beginning the speech speech-making a formal matter. every speech is more or less a formal affair. the speaker standing is separated from the other persons present by his prominence. he is removed from them by standing while they sit, by being further away from them than in ordinary conversation. the greater the distance between him and his listeners the more formal the proceeding becomes. when a person speaks "from the floor" as it is called, that is, by simply rising at his seat and speaking, there is a marked difference in the manner of his delivery and also in the effect upon the audience. in many gatherings, speeches and discussions "from the floor" are not allowed at all, in others this practice is the regular method of conducting business. even in the schoolroom when the student speaks from his place he feels less responsibility than when he stands at the front of the room before his classmates. as all formal exercises have their regular rules of procedure it will be well to list the more usual formulas for beginnings of speeches. the salutation. in all cases where speeches are made there is some person who presides. this person may be the vice-president of the united states presiding over the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the chief justice of the united states supreme court, the president of a city board of aldermen, the judge of a court, the president of a corporation, of a lodge, of a church society, of a club, the pastor of a church, the chancellor or provost or dean of a college, the principal of a school, the chairman of a committee, the toastmaster of a banquet, the teacher of a class. the first remark of a speaker must always be the recognition of this presiding officer. then there are frequently present other persons who are distinct from the ordinary members of the audience, to whom some courtesy should be shown in this salutation. their right to recognition depends upon their rank, their importance at the time, some special peculiar reason for separating them from the rest of the audience. the speaker will have to decide for himself in most cases as to how far he will classify his hearers. in some instances there is no difficulty. debaters must recognize the presiding officer, the judges if they be distinct from the regular audience, the members of the audience itself. lawyers in court must recognize only the judge and the "gentlemen of the jury." in a debate on the first draft for the league of nations presided over by the governor of massachusetts, senator lodge's salutation was "your excellency, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow americans." the last was added unquestionably because patriotic feeling was so strong at the time that reference to our nationality was a decidedly fitting compliment, and also perhaps, because the speaker realized that his audience might be slightly prejudiced against the view he was going to advance in criticizing the league covenant. at times a formal salutation becomes quite long to include all to whom recognition is due. at a university commencement a speaker might begin: "mr. chancellor, members of the board of trustees, gentlemen of the faculty, candidates for degrees, ladies and gentlemen." other salutations are your honor, mr. president, mr. speaker, madame president, madame chairman, mr. chairman, mr. stevenson, sir, mr. toastmaster, mr. moderator, honorable judges, ladies, gentlemen, fellow citizens, classmates, fellow workers, gentlemen of the senate, gentlemen of the congress, plenipotentiaries of the german empire, my lord mayor and citizens of london; mr. mayor, mr. secretary, admiral fletcher and gentlemen of the fleet; mr. grand master, governor mcmillan, mr. mayor, my brothers, men and women of tennessee. the most important thing about the salutation is that it should never be omitted. to begin to speak without having first recognized some presiding officer and the audience stamps one immediately as thoughtless, unpractised, or worse still--discourteous. having observed the propriety of the salutation the speaker should make a short pause before he proceeds to the introduction of his speech proper. length of the introduction. there was a time when long elaborate introductions were the rule, and textbooks explained in detail how to develop them. the main assumption seems to have been that the farther away from his topic the speaker began, the longer and more indirect the route by which he approached it, the more sudden and surprising the start with which it was disclosed to the audience, the better the speech. such views are no longer held. one of the criticisms of the speeches of the english statesman, burke, is that instead of coming at once to the important matter under consideration--and all his speeches were upon paramount issues--he displayed his rhetorical skill and literary ability before men impatient to finish discussion and provide for action by casting their votes. if a student will read the beginning of burke's famous _speech on conciliation_ he will readily understand the force of this remark, for instead of bringing forward the all-important topic of arranging for colonial adjustment burke uses hundreds of words upon the "flight of a bill for ever," his own pretended superstitiousness and belief in omens. so strong is the recognition of the opposite practice today that it is at times asserted that speeches should dispense with introductions longer than a single sentence. purpose of the introduction. so far as the material of the speech is concerned the introduction has but one purpose--to bring the topic of the succeeding remarks clearly and arrestingly before the audience. it should be clearly done, so that there shall be no misunderstanding from the beginning. it should be arrestingly done, so that the attention shall be aroused and held from this announcement even until the end. a man should not declare that he is going to explain the manufacture of paper-cutters, and then later proceed to describe the making of those frames into which rolls of wrapping paper are fitted underneath a long cutting blade, because to most people the expression "paper-cutters" means dull-edged, ornamental knives for desks and library tables. his introduction would not be clear. on the other hand if a minister were to state plainly that he was going to speak on the truth that "it is more blessed to give than to receive" his congregation might turn its attention to its own affairs at once because the topic promises no novelty. but if he declares that he is going to make a defense of selfishness he would surely startle his hearers into attention, so that he could go on to describe the personal satisfaction and peace of mind which comes to the doers of good deeds. a speaker could arrest attention by stating that he intended to prove the immorality of the principle that "honesty is the best policy," if he proceeded to plead for that virtue not as a repaying _policy_ but as an innate guiding principle of right, no matter what the consequences. in humorous, half-jesting, ironical material, of course, clearness may be justifiably sacrificed to preserving interest. the introduction may state the exact opposite of the real topic. when nothing else except the material of the introduction need be considered, it should be short. even in momentous matters this is true. notice the brevity of the subjoined introduction of a speech upon a deeply moving subject. gentlemen of the congress: the imperial german government on the st day of january announced to this government and to the governments of the other neutral nations that on and after the st day of february, the present month, it would adopt a policy with regard to the use of submarines against all shipping seeking to pass through certain designated areas of the high seas, to which it is clearly my duty to call your attention. woodrow wilson, the following, though much longer, aims to do the same thing--to announce the topic of the speech clearly. notice that in order to emphasize this endeavor to secure clearness the speaker declares that he has repeatedly tried to state his position in plain english. he then makes clear that he is not opposed to _a_ league of nations; he is merely opposed to the terms already submitted for the one about to be formed. this position he makes quite clear in the last sentence here quoted. your excellency, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow americans: i am largely indebted to president lowell for this opportunity to address this great audience. he and i are friends of many years, both republicans. he is the president of our great university, one of the most important and influential places in the united states. he is also an eminent student and historian of politics and government. he and i may differ as to methods in this great question now before the people, but i am sure that in regard to the security of the peace of the world and the welfare of the united states we do not differ in purposes. i am going to say a single word, if you will permit me, as to my own position. i have tried to state it over and over again. i thought i had stated it in plain english. but there are those who find in misrepresentation a convenient weapon for controversy, and there are others, most excellent people, who perhaps have not seen what i have said and who possibly have misunderstood me. it has been said that i am against any league of nations. i am not; far from it. i am anxious to have the nations, the free nations of the world, united in a league, as we call it, a society, as the french call it, but united, to do all that can be done to secure the future peace of the world and to bring about a general disarmament. senator henry cabot lodge in a debate in boston, the introduction and the audience. when we turn from the material of the introduction or the speech we naturally consider the audience. just as the salutations already listed in this chapter indicate how careful speakers are in adapting their very first words to the special demands of recognition for a single audience, so a study of introductions to speeches which have been delivered will support the same principle. a speech is made to affect a single audience, therefore it must be fitted as closely as possible to that audience in order to be effective. a city official invited to a neighborhood gathering to instruct citizens in the method of securing a children's playground in that district is not only wasting time but insulting the brains and dispositions of his listeners if he drawls off a long introduction showing the value of public playgrounds in a crowded city. his presence before that group of people proves that they accept all he can tell them on that topic. he is guilty of making a bad introduction which seriously impairs the value of anything he may say later concerning how this part of the city can induce the municipal government to set aside enough money to provide the open space and the apparatus. yet this speech was made in a large american city by an expert on playgrounds. people remembered more vividly his wrong kind of opening remarks than they did his advice concerning a method of procedure. effect of the introduction upon the audience. many centuries ago a famous and successful roman orator stipulated the purpose of an introduction with respect to the audience. cicero stated that an introduction should render its hearers "_benevolos, attentos, dociles_"; that is, kindly disposed towards the speaker himself, attentive to his remarks, and willing to be instructed by his explanations or arguments. not everyone has a pleasing personality but he can strive to acquire one. he can, perhaps, not add many attributes to offset those nature has given him, but he can always reduce, eradicate, or change those which interfere with his reception by others. education and training will work wonders for people who are not blessed with that elusive quality, charm, or that winner of consideration, impressiveness. self-examination, self-restraint, self-development, are prime elements in such a process. great men have not been beyond criticism for such qualities. great men have recognized their value and striven to rid themselves of hindrances and replace them by helps. every reader is familiar with benjamin franklin's account of his own method as related in his _autobiography_, yet it will bear quotation here to illustrate this point: while i was intent on improving my language, i met with an english grammar (i think it was greenwood's), at the end of which there were two little sketches of the arts of rhetoric and logic, the latter "finishing with a specimen of a dispute in the socratic method; and soon after i procured xenophon's memorable things of socrates, wherein there are many instances of the same method. i was charmed with it, adopted it, dropt my abrupt contradiction and positive argumentation, and put on the humble inquirer and doubter.... i found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom i used it; therefore i took a delight in it, practised it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved. i continued this method some few years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when i advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words _certainly, undoubtedly_, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, i conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or _i should think it so or so_, for such and such reasons; or _i imagine it to be so_; or _it is so if i am not mistaken_. this habit, i believe, has been of great advantage to me when i have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that i have been from time to time engaged in promoting; and as the chief ends of conversation are to _inform_ or to be _informed_, to _please_ or to _persuade_, i wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. for if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. if you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fixed in your present opinions, modest, sensible men who do not love disputation will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error. and by such a manner you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in _pleasing_ your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire. pope says, judiciously: "men should be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown propos'd as things forgot;" farther recommending to us "to speak, tho' sure, with seeming diffidence." of course an audience must be induced to listen. the obligation is always with the speaker. he is appealing for consideration, he wants to affect the hearers, therefore he must have at his command all the resources of securing their respectful attention. he must be able to employ all the legitimate means of winning their attention. a good speaker will not stoop to use any tricks or devices that are not legitimate. a trick, even when it is successful, is still nothing but a trick, and though it secure the temporary attention of the lower orders of intellect it can never hold the better minds of an audience. surprises, false alarms, spectacular appeals, may find their defenders. one widely reputed united states lawyer in speaking before audiences of young people used to advance theatrically to the edge of the stage, and, then, pointing an accusing finger at one part of the audience, declare in loud ringing tones, "you're a sneak!" it is questionable whether any attempt at arousing interest could justify such a brusque approach. only in broadly comic or genuinely humorous addresses can it be said that the end justifies the means. when the audience has been induced to listen, the rest should be easy for the good speaker. then comes into action his skill at explanation, his ability to reason and convince, to persuade and sway, which is the speaker's peculiar art. if they will listen to him, he should be able to instruct them. the introduction must, so far as this last is concerned, clear the way for the remainder of the speech. the methods by which such instruction, reasoning, and persuasion are effected best will be treated later in this book. having covered the preceding explanation of the aims and forms of introductions, let us look at a few which have been delivered by regularly practising speech-makers before groups of men whose interest, concern, and business it was to listen. all men who speak frequently are extremely uneven in their quality and just as irregular in their success. one of the best instances of this unevenness and irregularity was edmund burke, whose career and practice are bound to afford food for thought and discussion to every student of the power and value of the spoken word. some of burke's speeches are models for imitation and study, others are warnings for avoidance. at one time when he felt personally disturbed by the actions of the house of commons, because he as a member of the minority could not affect the voting, he began a speech exactly as no man should under any circumstances. no man in a deliberative assembly can be excused for losing control of himself. yet burke opened his remarks with these plain words. "mr. speaker! i rise under some embarrassment occasioned by a feeling of delicacy toward one-half of the house, and of sovereign contempt for the other half." this is childish, of course. a man may not infrequently be forced by circumstances to speak before an audience whose sentiments, opinions, prejudices, all place them in a position antagonistic to his own. how shall he make them well-disposed, attentive, willing to be instructed? the situation is not likely to surround a beginning speaker, but men in affairs, in business, in courts, must be prepared for such circumstances. one of the most striking instances of a man who attempted to speak before an antagonistic group and yet by sheer power of his art and language ended by winning them to his own party is in shakespeare's _julius caesar_ when mark antony speaks over his dead friend's body. brutus allows it, but insists on speaking to the people first that he may explain why he and his fellow conspirators assassinated the great leader. it was a mistake to allow a person from the opposite party to have the last word before the populace, but that is not the point just here. brutus is able to explain why a group of noble romans felt that for the safety of the state and its inhabitants, they had to kill the rising favorite who would soon as king rule them all. when he ceases speaking, the citizens approve the killing. mark antony perceives that, so at the beginning of his speech he seems to agree with the people. caesar was his friend, yet brutus says he was ambitious, and brutus is an honorable man. thus the skilful orator makes the populace well-disposed towards him, then attentive. having secured those things he proceeds slowly and unobtrusively to instruct them. it takes only a few lines until he has made them believe all he wants them to; before the end of his oration he has them crying out upon the murderers of their beloved caesar, for whose lives they now thirst. yet only ten minutes earlier they were loudly acclaiming them as deliverers of their country. the entire scene should be analyzed carefully by the student. it is the second scene of the third act of the play. in actual life a man would hardly have to go so far as seemingly to agree with such opposite sentiments as expressed in this situation from a stage tragedy. it is general knowledge that during the early years of the american civil war england sympathized with the southern states, mainly because the effective blockade maintained by the north prevented raw cotton from reaching the british mills. henry ward beecher attempted to present the union cause to the english in a series of addresses throughout the country. when he appeared upon the platform in liverpool the audience broke out into a riot of noise which effectively drowned all his words for minutes. the speaker waited until he could get in a phrase. finally he was allowed to deliver a few sentences. by his patience, his appeal to their english sense of fair play, and to a large degree by his tolerant sense of humor, he won their attention. his material, his power as a speaker did all the rest. it is a matter of very little consequence to me, personally, whether i speak here tonight or not. [_laughter and cheers._] but one thing is very certain, if you do permit me to speak here tonight, you will hear very plain talking. [_applause and hisses_.] you will not find me to be a man that dared to speak about great britain three thousand miles off, and then is afraid to speak to great britain when he stands on her shores. [_immense applause and hisses_.] and if i do not mistake the tone and temper of englishmen they had rather have a man who opposes them in a manly way [_applause from all parts of the hall_] than a sneak that agrees with them in an unmanly way. [_applause and "bravo!"_] now, if i can carry you with me by sound convictions, i shall be immensely glad [_applause_]; but if i cannot carry you with me by facts and sound arguments, i do not wish you to go with me at all; and all that i ask is simply fair play. [_applause, and a voice: "you shall have it too."_.] those of you who are kind enough to wish to favor my speaking--and you will observe that my voice is slightly husky, from having spoken almost every night in succession for some time past--those who wish to hear me will do me the kindness simply to sit still and to keep still; and i and my friends the secessionists will make the noise. [_laughter._] henry ward beecher, in speech at liverpool, the beginning of one of daniel webster's famous speeches was a triumph of the deliverer's recognition of the mood of an audience. in the senate in feeling had been running high over a resolution concerning public lands. innocent enough in its appearance, this resolution really covered an attempt at the extension of the slavery territory. both north and south watched the progress of the debate upon this topic with almost held breath. hayne of south carolina had spoken upon it during two days when webster rose to reply to him. the senate galleries were packed, the members themselves were stirred up to the highest pitch of keen intensity. nearly the entire effect of webster's statement and argument for the north depended upon the effect he could make upon the senators at the very opening of his speech. webster began in a low voice, with a calm manner, to speak very slowly. in a second he had soothed the emotional tension, set all the hearers quite at ease, and by the time the secretary had read the resolution asked by webster, he had them in complete control. his task was to make them attentive, but more especially, ready to be instructed. mr. president: when the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. let us imitate this prudence; and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may, at least, be able to conjecture where we now are. i ask for the reading of the resolution before the senate. daniel webster: _reply to hayne_, linking the introduction to preceding speeches. so many speeches are replies to preceding addresses that many introductions adapt themselves to their audiences by touching upon such utterances. in debates, in pleas in court, in deliberative assemblies, this is more usually the circumstance than not. the following illustrates how courteously this may be done, even when it serves merely to make all the clearer the present speaker's position. in moments of tensest feeling great speakers skilfully move from any one position or attitude to another as patrick henry did. while you are regarding these paragraphs as an example of introduction do not overlook their vocabulary and sentences. mr. president: no man thinks more highly than i do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. but different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, i hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as i do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, i shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. this is no time for ceremony. the question before the house is one of awful moment to the country. for my own part, i consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. it is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to god and our country. should i keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, i should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which i revere above all earthly things. mr. president, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? are we disposed to be of the number of those who having eyes see not, and having ears hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, i am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it. patrick henry in the virginia convention, difficulties of introductions. people who are scheduled to make speeches are heard to declare that they know exactly what they want to say but they do not know how to begin. another way they have of expressing this is that they do not know how to bring their material before their hearers. undoubtedly the most difficult parts of speeches are the beginnings and conclusions. in chapter ii one of the methods of preparing for delivery recognized this difference by recording that one way is to memorize the beginning and ending, the opening and closing sentences. practised speakers are more likely not to fix too rigidly in their minds any set way for starting to speak. they realize that a too carefully prepared opening will smack of the study. the conditions under which the speech is actually delivered may differ so widely from the anticipated surroundings that a speaker should be able to readjust his ideas instantly, seize upon any detail of feeling, remark, action, which will help him into closer communication with his audience. many practised speakers, therefore, have at their wits' ends a dozen different manners, so that their appearance may fit in best with the circumstances, and their remarks have that air of easy spontaneity which the best speaking should have. thus, sometimes, the exactly opposite advice of the method described above and in chapter ii is given. a speaker will prepare carefully his speech proper, but leave to circumstances the suggestion of the beginning he will use. this does not mean that he will not be prepared--it means that he will be all the more richly furnished with expedients. a speaker should carefully think over all the possibilities under which his speech will be brought forward, then prepare the best introduction to suit each set. spirit of the introduction. the combination of circumstances and material will determine what we shall call the spirit of the introduction. in what spirit is the introduction treated? there are as many different treatments as there are human feelings and sentiments. the spirit may be serious, informative, dignified, scoffing, argumentative, conversational, startling, humorous, ironic. the student should lengthen this list by adding as many other adjectives as he can. the serious treatment is always effective when it is suitable. there is a conviction of earnestness and sincerity about the speech of a man who takes his subject seriously. without arousing opposition by too great a claim of importance for his topic he does impress its significance upon listeners. this seriousness must be justified by the occasion. it must not be an attempt to bolster up weakness of ideas or commonplaceness of expression. it must be straightforward, manly, womanly. notice the excellent effect of the following which illustrates this kind of treatment. may it please your honor: i was desired by one of the court to look into the books, and consider the question now before them concerning writs of assistance. i have accordingly considered it, and appear not only in obedience to your order, but likewise in behalf of the inhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. and i take this opportunity to declare, that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as this i despise a fee) i will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties god has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other, as this writ of assistance is. it appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of english liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an english law-book. james otis: _on writs of assistance_, informative and argumentative introductions are quite usual. they abound in legislative bodies, business organizations, and courts of law. having definite purposes to attain they move forward as directly and clearly as they can. in such appearances a speaker should know how to lead to his topic quickly, clearly, convincingly. introductions should be reduced to a minimum because time is valuable. ideas count; mere talk is worthless. attempts at humorous speeches are only too often the saddest exhibitions of life. the mere recital of "funny stories" in succession is in no sense speech-making, although hundreds of misguided individuals act as though they think so. nor is a good introduction the one that begins with a comic incident supposedly with a point pat to the occasion or topic, yet so often miles wide of both. the funny story which misses its mark is a boomerang. even the apparently "sure-fire" one may deliver a disturbing kick to its perpetrator. the grave danger is the "o'er done or come tardy off" of hamlet's advice to the players. humor must be distinctly marked off from the merely comic or witty, and clearly recognized as a wonderful gift bestowed on not too many mortals in this world. the scoffing, ironic introduction may depend upon wit and cleverness born in the head; the humorous introduction depends upon a sympathetic instinct treasured in the heart. look back at the remarks made by beecher to his turbulent disturbers in liverpool. did he help his cause by his genial appreciation of their sentiments? the student should study several introductions to speeches in the light of all the preceding discussions so that he may be able to prepare his own and judge them intelligently. printed speeches will provide material for study, but better still are delivered remarks. if the student can hear the speech, then see it in print, so much the better, for he can then recall the effect in sound of the phrases. preparing and delivering introductions. actual practice in preparation and delivery of introductions should follow. these should be delivered before the class and should proceed no farther than the adequate introduction to the hearers of the topic of the speech. they need not be so fragmentary as to occupy only three seconds. by supposing them to be beginnings of speeches from six to fifteen minutes long these remarks may easily last from one to two minutes. aside from the method of its delivery--pose, voice, speed, vocabulary, sentences--each introduction should be judged as an actual introduction to a real speech. each speaker should keep in mind these questions to apply during his preparation. each listener should apply them as he hears the introduction delivered. is the topic introduced gracefully? is it introduced clearly? is the introduction too long? does it begin too far away from the topic? is it interesting? has it any defects of material? has it any faults of manner? can any of it be omitted? do you want to hear the entire speech? can you anticipate the material? is it adapted to its audience? is it above their heads? is it beneath their intelligences? topics for these exercises in delivering introductions should be furnished by the interests, opinions, ideas, experiences, ambitions of the students themselves. too many beginning speakers cause endless worry for themselves, lower the quality of their speeches, bore their listeners, by "hunting" for things to talk about, when near at hand in themselves and their activities lie the very best things to discuss. the over-modest feeling some people have that they know nothing to talk about is usually a false impression. in elizabethan england a young poet, sir phillip sidney, decided to try to tell his sweetheart how much he loved her. so he "sought fit words, studying inventions fine, turning others' leaves, to see if thence would flow, some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sunburnt brain." but "words came halting forth" until he bit his truant pen and almost beat himself for spite. then said the muse to him, "fool, look in thy heart and write." and without that first word, this is the advice that should be given to all speakers. "look in your heart, mind, life, experiences, ideas, ideals, interests, enthusiasms, and from them draw the material of your speeches--_yours_ because no one else could make that speech, so essentially and peculiarly is it your own." the following may serve as suggestions of the kind of topic to choose and the various methods of approaching it. they are merely hints, for each student must adapt his own method and material. exercises . by a rapid historical survey introduce the discussion that women will be allowed to vote in the united states. . by a historical survey introduce the topic that war will cease upon the earth. . using the same method introduce the opposite. . using some history introduce the topic that equality for all men is approaching. . using the same method introduce the opposite. . starting with the amount used introduce an explanation of the manufacture of cotton goods. any other manufactured article may be used. . starting with an incident to illustrate its novelty, or speed, or convenience, or unusualness, lead up to the description or explanation of some mechanical contrivance. dictaphone adding machine comptometer wireless telegraph knitting machine moving picture camera moving picture machine self-starter egg boiler newspaper printing press power churn bottle-making machine voting machine storm in a play pneumatic tube periscope, etc. . describe some finished product (as a cup of tea, a copper cent) as introduction to an explanation of its various processes of development. . start with the opinion that reading should produce pleasure to introduce a recommendation of a book. . start with the opinion that reading should impart information to introduce a recommendation of a book. . start with the money return a business or profession offers to introduce a discussion advising a person to follow it or not. . beginning with the recent war lead up to the topic that military training should be a part of all regular education. . beginning from the same point introduce the opposite. . beginning with an item--or a fictitious item--from a newspaper recounting an accident lead up to workmen's compensation laws, or preventive protective measures in factories, or some similar topic. . using a personal or known experience introduce some topic dealing with the survival of superstitions. . choosing your own material and treatment introduce some theme related to the government, or betterment of your community. . introduce a topic dealing with the future policy of your city, county, state, or nation. . lead up to the statement of a change you would like to recommend strongly for your school. . in as interesting a manner as possible lead up to a statement of the business or profession you would like to follow. . introduce a speech in which you intend to condemn something, by dealing with your introductory material ironically. . imagine that you are presiding at a meeting of some club, society, or organization which has been called to discuss a definite topic. choose the topic for discussion and deliver the speech bringing it before the session. . you have received a letter from a member of some organization who suggests that a society to which you belong join with it in some kind of contest or undertaking. present the suggestion to your society. . you believe that soma memorial to the memory of some person should be established in your school, lodge, church, club. introduce the subject to a group of members so that they may discuss it intelligently. . introduce some topic to the class, but so phrase your material that the announcement of the topic will be a complete surprise to the members. try to lead them away from the topic, yet so word your remarks that later they will realize that everything you said applies exactly to the topic you introduce. . lead up to the recital of some mystery, or ghostly adventure. . lead up to these facts. "for each , american-born workmen in a steel plant in eight years, were killed; and for each non-english speaking foreign born, were killed. non-english speaking show permanently disabled as compared with who spoke english. of temporarily disabled only spoke english as compared with who did not." . introduce the topic: training in public speaking is valuable for all men and women. . in a genial manner suitable to the season's feelings introduce some statement concerning new year's resolutions. . frame some statement concerning aviation. introduce it. . introduce topics or statements related to the following: the eight-hour day. the principles of socialism. legitimate methods of conducting strikes. extending the monroe doctrine. studying the classics, or modern languages. private fortunes. college education for girls. direct presidential vote. a good magazine. some great woman. sensible amusements. fashions. agriculture. business practice. minimum wages. equal pay for men and women. chapter v concluding the speech preparing the conclusion. no architect would attempt to plan a building unless he knew the purpose for which it was to be used. no writer of a story would start to put down words until he knew exactly how his story was to end. he must plan to bring about a certain conclusion. the hero and heroine must be united in marriage. the scheming villain must be brought to justice. or if he scorn the usual ending of the "lived happily ever after" kind of fiction, he can plan to kill his hero and heroine, or both; or he can decide for once that his story shall be more like real life than is usually the case, and have wickedness triumph over virtue. whatever he elects to do at the conclusion of his story, whether it be long or short, the principle of his planning is the same--he must know what he is going to do and adequately prepare for it during the course of, previous events. one other thing every writer must secure. the ending of a book must be the most interesting part of it. it must rise highest in interest. it must be surest of appeal. otherwise the author runs the risk of not having people read his book through to its conclusion, and as every book is written in the hope and expectation that it will be read through, a book which fails to hold the attention of its readers defeats its own purpose. the foregoing statements are self-evident but they are set down because their underlying principles can be transferred to a consideration of the preparation of conclusions for speeches. is a conclusion necessary? but before we use them let us ask whether all speeches require conclusions. there are some people--thoughtless, if nothing worse--who habitually end letters by adding some such expression as "having nothing more to say, i shall now close." is there any sense in writing such a sentence? if the letter comes only so far and the signature follows, do not those items indicate that the writer has nothing more to say and is actually closing? why then, when a speaker has said all he has to say, should he not simply stop and sit down? will that not indicate quite clearly that he has finished his speech? what effect would such an ending have? in the first place the speaker runs the risk of appearing at least discourteous, if not actually rude, to his audience. to fling his material at them, then to leave it so, would impress men and women much as the brusque exit from a group of people in a room would or the slamming of a door of an office. in the second place the speaker runs the graver risk of not making clear and emphatic the purpose of his speech. he may have been quite plain and effective during the course of his explanation or argument but an audience hears a speech only once. can he trust to their recollection of what he has tried to impress upon them? will they carry away exactly what he wants them to retain? has he made the main topics, the chief aim, stand out prominently enough? can he merely stop speaking? these are quite important aspects of a grave responsibility. in the third place--though this may be considered less important than the preceding--the speaker gives the impression that he has not actually "finished" his speech. no one cares for unfinished articles, whether they be dishes of food, pieces of furniture, poems, or speeches. without unduly stressing the fact that a speech is a carefully organized and constructed product, it may be stated that it is always a profitable effort to try to round off your remarks. a good conclusion gives an impression of completeness, of an effective product. audiences are delicately susceptible to these impressions. twenty-two centuries ago aristotle, in criticizing greek oratory, declared that the first purpose of the conclusion was to conciliate the audience in favor of the speaker. as human nature has not changed much in the ages since, the statement still holds true. speakers, then, should provide conclusions for all their speeches. although the entire matter of planning the speech belongs to a later chapter some facts concerning it as they relate to the conclusion must be set down here. relation of the conclusion to the speech. the conclusion should reflect the purpose of the speech. it should enforce the reason for the delivery of the speech. as it emphasizes the purpose of the speech it should be in the speaker's mind before he begins to plan the development of his remarks. it should be kept constantly in his mind as he delivers his material. a train from chicago bound for new york is not allowed to turn off on all the switches it meets in its journey. a speaker who wants to secure from a jury a verdict for damages from a traction company does not discuss presidential candidates. he works towards his conclusion. a legislator who wants votes to pass a bill makes his conclusion and his speech conform to that purpose. in all likelihood, his conclusion plainly asks for the votes he has been proving that his fellow legislators should cast. a school principal pleading with boys to stop gambling knows that his conclusion is going to be a call for a showing of hands to pledge support of his recommendations. a labor agitator knows that his conclusion is going to be an appeal to a sense of class prejudice, so he speaks with that continually in mind. an efficiency expert in shop management knows that his conclusion is going to enforce the saving in damages for injury by accident if a scheme of safety devices be installed, so he speaks with that conclusion constantly in his mind. in court the prosecuting attorney tells in his introduction exactly what he intends to prove. his conclusion shows that he has proved what he announced. one is tempted to say that the test of a good speech, a well-prepared speech, is its conclusion. how many times one hears a speaker floundering along trying to do something, rambling about, making no impression, not advancing a pace, and then later receives from the unfortunate the confession, "i wanted to stop but i didn't know how to do it." no conclusion had been prepared beforehand. it is quite as disturbing to hear a speaker pass beyond the place where he could have made a good conclusion. if he realizes this he slips into the state of the first speaker described in this paragraph. if he does not realize when he reaches a good conclusion he talks too long and weakens the effect by stopping on a lower plane than he has already reached. this fault corresponds to the story teller whose book drops in interest at the end. the son of a minister was asked whether his father's sermon the previous sunday had-not had some good points in it. the boy replied, "yes, three good points where he should have stopped." length of the conclusion. it must not be inferred from anything here stated concerning the importance of the conclusion that it need be long. a good rule for the length of the conclusion is the same rule that applies to the length of the introduction. it should be just long enough to do best what it is intended to do. as in the case of the introduction, so for the conclusion, the shorter the better, if consistent with clearness and effect. if either introduction or conclusion must deliberately be reduced the conclusion will stand the most compression. a conclusion will frequently fail of its effect if it is so long that the audience anticipates its main points. it fails if it is so long that it adds nothing of clearness or emphasis to the speech itself. it will end by boring if it is too long for the importance of its material. it will often produce a deeper, more lasting impression by its very conciseness. brevity is the soul of more than mere humor. a brief remark will cut deeper than a long involved sentence. the speaker who had shown that the recent great war fails unless the reconstruction to be accomplished is worthy needed no more involved conclusion than the statement, "it is what we do tomorrow that will justify what we did yesterday." coupled with this matter of effect is the length of the speech itself. short speeches are likely to require only short conclusions. long speeches more naturally require longer conclusions. consider the following conclusions. comment upon them. it would be interesting to try to decide the length of the speeches from which they are taken, then look at the originals, all of which are easily procurable at libraries. that is in substance my theory of what our foreign policy should be. let us not boast, not insult any one, but make up our minds coolly what it is necesary to say, say it, and then stand to it, whatever the consequences may be. theodore roosevelt at waukesha, the foregoing is quite matter-of-fact. it contains no emotional appeal at all. yet even a strong emotional feeling can be put into a short conclusion. from the date and the circumstances surrounding the next the reader can easily picture for himself the intense emotion of the audience which listened to these words from the leader of the free states against the south. neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. abraham lincoln: _cooper union speech_, while the student planning his own speech must determine exactly what he shall put into his conclusion--depending always upon his material and his purpose--there are a few general hints which will help him. the retrospective conclusion. a conclusion may be entirely retrospective. this means merely that it may refer back to the remarks which have been delivered in the body of the speech. a speaker does this to emphasize something he has already discussed by pointing out to his audience that he wants them to remember that from what he has said. conclusions of this kind usually have no emotional appeal. they are likely to be found in explanatory addresses, where the clearness of the exposition should make hearers accept it as true. if a man has proven a fact--as in a law court--he does not have to make an appeal to feeling to secure a verdict. juries are supposed to decide on the facts alone. this kind of conclusion emphasizes, repeats, clarifies, enforces. the first of the following is a good illustration of one kind of conclusion which refers to the remarks made in the speech proper. notice that it enforces the speaker's opinions by a calm explanation of his sincerity. i want you to think of what i have said, because it represents all of the sincerity and earnestness that i have, and i say to you here, from this platform, nothing that i have not already stated in effect, and nothing i would not say at a private table with any of the biggest corporation managers in the land. theodore roosevelt at fitchburg, the next, while it is exactly the same kind in material, adds some elements of stronger feeling. yet in the main it also enforces the speaker's opinion by a clear explanation of his action. from this conclusion alone we know exactly the material and purpose of the entire speech. sir, i will detain you no longer. there are some parts of this bill which i highly approve; there are others in which i should acquiesce; but those to which i have now stated my objections appear to me so destitute of all justice, so burdensome and so dangerous to that interest which has steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that nothing can prevail upon me to give it my support. daniel webster: _the tariff_, the anticipatory conclusion. just as a conclusion may be retrospective, so it may be anticipatory. it may start from the position defined or explained or reached by the speech and look forward to what may happen, what must be done, what should be instituted, what should be changed, what votes should be cast, what punishment should be inflicted, what pardons granted. the student should make a list of all possible things in the future which could be anticipated in the conclusions of various speeches. if one will think of the purposes of most delivered speeches he will realize that this kind of conclusion is much more frequent than the previous kind as so many speeches anticipate future action or events. dealing with entirely different topics the three following extracts illustrate this kind of conclusion. washington was arguing against the formation of parties in the new nation, trying to avert the inevitable. there is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. this within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence if not with favor upon the spirit of party. but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. from their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. a fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. george washington: _farewell address_, with the dignity and the calmness of the preceding, contrast the biblical fervor of the next--the magnanimous program of the reuniter of a divided people. with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. abraham lincoln: _second inaugural_, in totally different circumstances the next conclusion was delivered, yet it bears the same aspect of anticipation. there is not a single hint in it of the material of the speech which preceded it, it takes no glance backward, it looks forward only. its effectiveness comes from the element of leadership, that gesture of pointing the way for loyal americans to follow. no nation as great as ours can expect to escape the penalty of greatness, for greatness does not come without trouble and labor. there are problems ahead of us at home and problems abroad, because such problems are incident to the working out of a great national career. we do not shrink from them. scant is our patience with those who preach the gospel of craven weakness. no nation under the sun ever yet played a part worth playing if it feared its fate overmuch--if it did not have the courage to be great. we of america, we, the sons of a nation yet in the pride of its lusty youth, spurn the teachings of distrust, spurn the creed of failure and despair. we know that the future is ours if we have in us the manhood to grasp it, and we enter the new century girding our loins for the contest before us, rejoicing in the struggle, and resolute so to bear ourselves that the nation's future shall even surpass her glorious past. theodore roosevelt at philadelphia, grave times always make men look into the future. all acts are judged and justified after they are performed. all progress depends upon this straining the vision into the darkness of the yet-to-be. upon the eve of great struggles anticipation is always uppermost in men's minds. in the midst of the strife it is man's hope. in the next extract, only one sentence glances backward. for us there is but one choice. we have made it. woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way in this day of high resolution when every principle we hold dearest is to be vindicated and made secure for the salvation of the nations. we are ready to plead at the bar of history, and our flag shall wear a new luster. once more we shall make good with our lives and fortunes the great faith to which we were born, and a new glory shall shine in the face of our people. woodrow wilson: _flag day address_, retrospective and anticipatory conclusion. while it does not occur so frequently as the two kinds just illustrated it is possible for a conclusion to be both retrospective and anticipatory--to look both backward and forward. the conclusion may enforce what the speech has declared or proved, then using this position as a safe starting point for a new departure, look forward and indicate what may follow or what should be done. the only danger in such an attempt is that the dual aspect may be difficult to make effective. either one may neutralize the other. still, a careful thinker and master of clear language may be able to carry an audience with him in such a treatment. the division in the conclusion between the backward glance and the forward vision need not be equal. here again the effect to be made upon the audience, the purpose of the speech, must be the determining factor. notice how the two are blended in the following conclusion from a much read commemorative oration. and now, friends and fellow-citizens, it is time to bring this discourse to a close. we have indulged in gratifying recollections of the past, in the prosperity and pleasures of the present, and in high hopes for the future. but let us remember that we have duties and obligations to perform, corresponding to the blessings which we enjoy. let us remember the trust, the sacred trust, attaching to the rich inheritance which we have received from our fathers. let us feel our personal responsibility, to the full extent of our power and influence, for the preservation of the principles of civil and religious liberty. and let us remember that it is only religion, and morals, and knowledge, that can make men respectable, under any form of government.... daniel webster: _completion of bunker hill monument_, conclusions are classified in general under three headings: . recapitulation; . summary; . peroration. the recapitulation. the first of these--recapitulation--is exactly defined by the etymology of the word itself. its root is latin _caput_, head. so recapitulation means the repetition of the heads or main topics of a preceding discussion. coming at the end of an important speech of some length, such a conclusion is invaluable. if the speaker has explained clearly or reasoned convincingly his audience will have been enlightened or convinced. then at the end, to assure them they are justified in their knowledge or conviction, he repeats in easily remembered sequence the heads which he has treated in his extended remarks. it is as though he chose from his large assortment a small package which he does up neatly for his audience to carry away with them. frequently, too, the recapitulation corresponds exactly to the plan as announced in the introduction and followed throughout the speech. this firmly impresses the main points upon the brains of the hearers. a lawyer in court starts by announcing that he will prove a certain number of facts. after his plea is finished, in the conclusion of his speech, he recapitulates, showing that he has proved these things. a minister, a political candidate, a business man, a social worker--in fact, every speaker will find such a clear-cut listing an informative, convincing manner of constructing a conclusion. this extract shows a clear, direct, simple recapitulation. to recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that the constitution, by its grants to congress and its prohibitions on the states, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, or medium of payment. second, that, by like means, it has endeavored to provide for one uniform mode of discharging debts, when they are to be discharged without payment. third, that these objects are connected, and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be not accomplished. fourth, that, reading the grant to congress and the prohibition on the states together, the inference is strong that the constitution intended to confer an exclusive power to pass bankrupt laws on congress. fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reaches to all contracts, existing or future, in the same way that the other prohibition, in the same section, extends to all debts, existing or future. sixth, that, upon any other construction, one great political object of the constitution will fail of its accomplishment. daniel webster: _ogden vs. saunders_, the summary. the second kind--a summary--does somewhat the same thing that the recapitulation does, but it effects it in a different matter. note that the recapitulation _repeats_ the main headings of the speech; it usually uses the same or similar phrasing. the summary does not do this. the summary condenses the entire material of the speech, so that it is presented to the audience in shortened, general statements, sufficient to recall to them what the speaker has already presented, without actually repeating his previous statements. this kind of conclusion is perhaps more usual than the preceding one. it is known by a variety of terms--summing up, resume, epitome, review, precis, condensation. in the first of the subjoined illustrations notice that the words "possible modes" contain practically all the speech itself. so the four words at the end, "faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism," hold a great deal of the latter part of the speech. these expressions do not repeat the heads of divisions; they condense long passages. the extract is a summary. i have thus presented all possible modes in which a government founded upon the will of an absolute majority will be modified; and have demonstrated that, in all its forms, whether in a majority of the people, as in a mere democracy, or in a majority of their representatives, without a constitution, to be interpreted as the will of the majority, the result will be the same: two hostile interests will inevitably be created by the action of the government, to be followed by hostile legislation, and that by faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism. john c. calhoun: _speech on the force bill, _ from the following pick out the expressions which summarize long passages of the preceding speech. amplify them to indicate what they might cover. i firmly believe in my countrymen, and therefore i believe that the chief thing necessary in order that they shall work together is that they shall know one another--that the northerner shall know the southerner, and the man of one occupation know the man of another occupation; the man who works in one walk of life know the man who works in another walk of life, so that we may realize that the things which divide us are superficial, are unimportant, and that we are, and must ever be, knit together into one indissoluble mass by our common american brotherhood. theodore roosevelt at chattanooga, the peroration. a peroration is a conclusion which--whatever may be its material and treatment--has an appeal to the feelings, to the emotions. it strives to move the audience to act, to arouse them to an expression of their wills, to stir them to deeds. it usually comes at the end of a speech of persuasion. it appeals to sentiments of right, justice, humanity, religion. it seldom merely concludes a speech; it looks forward to some such definite action as casting a vote, joining an organization or movement, contributing money, going out on strike, returning to work, pledging support, signing a petition. these purposes suggest its material. it is usually a direct appeal, personal and collective, to all the hearers. intense in feeling, tinged with emotion, it justifies itself by its sincerity and honesty alone. its apparent success is not the measure of its merit. too frequently an appeal to low prejudices, class sentiment and prejudice, base motives, mob instincts will carry a group of people in a certain direction with as little sense and reason as a flock of sheep display. every student can cite a dozen instances of such unwarranted and unworthy responses to skilful perverted perorations. answering to its emotional tone the style of a peroration is likely to rise above the usual, to become less simple, less direct. in this temptation for the speaker lies a second danger quite as grave as the one just indicated. in an attempt to wax eloquent he is likely to become grandiloquent, bombastic, ridiculous. many an experienced speaker makes an unworthy exhibition of himself under such circumstances. one specimen of such nonsense will serve as a warning. when the terms for the use of the panama canal were drawn up there arose a discussion as to certain kinds of ships which might pass through the canal free of tolls. a treaty with great britain prevented tolls-exemption for privately owned vessels. in a speech in congress upon this topic one member delivered the following inflated and inconsequential peroration. can any one with any sanity see any connection of the revolutionary war, jefferson, valley forge, with a plain understanding of such a business matter as charging tolls for the use of a waterway? to get the full effect of this piece of "stupendous folly"--to quote the speaker's own words--the student should declaim it aloud with as much attempt at oratorical effect as its author expended upon it. now, may the god of our fathers, who nerved , , backwoods americans to fling their gage of battle into the face of the mightiest monarch in the world, who guided the hand of jefferson in writing the charter of liberty, who sustained washington and his ragged and starving army amid the awful horrors of valley forge, and who gave them complete victory on the blood-stained heights of yorktown, may he lead members to vote so as to prevent this stupendous folly--this unspeakable humiliation of the american republic. when the circumstances are grave enough to justify impassioned language a good speaker need not fear its effect. if it be suitable, honest, and sincere, a peroration may be as emotional as human feelings dictate. so-called "flowery language" seldom is the medium of deep feeling. the strongest emotions may be expressed in the simplest terms. notice how, in the three extracts here quoted, the feeling is more intense in each succeeding one. analyze the style. consider the words, the phrases, the sentences in length and structure. explain the close relation of the circumstances and the speaker with the material and the style. what was the purpose of each? sir, let it be to the honor of congress that in these days of political strife and controversy, we have laid aside for once the sin that most easily besets us, and, with unanimity of counsel, and with singleness of heart and of purpose, have accomplished for our country one measure of unquestionable good. daniel webster: _uniform system of bankruptcy_, lord chatham addressed the house of lords in protest against the inhumanities of some of the early british efforts to suppress the american revolution. i call upon that right reverend bench, those holy ministers of the gospel, and pious pastors of our church--i conjure them to join in the holy work, and vindicate the religion of their god. i appeal to the wisdom and law of this learned bench, to defend and support the justice of their country. i call upon the bishops to interpose the unsullied sanctity of their lawn; upon the learned judges, to interpose their purity upon the honor of your lordships, to reverence the dignity of your ancestors and to maintain your own. i call upon the spirit and humanity of my country, to vindicate the national character. i invoke the genius of the constitution. from the tapestry that adorns these walls the immortal ancestor of this noble lord frowns with indignation at the disgrace of his country.... i again call upon your lordships, and the united powers of the state, to examine it thoroughly and decisively, and to stamp upon it an indelible stigma of the public abhorrence. and i again implore those holy prelates of our religion to do away with these iniquities from among us! let them perform a lustration; let them purify this house, and this country, from this sin. my lords, i am old and weak, and at present unable to say more; but my feelings and indignation were too strong to have said less. i could not have slept this night in my bed, nor reposed my head on my pillow, without giving vent to my eternal abhorrence of such preposterous and enormous principles. at about the same time the same circumstances evoked several famous speeches, one of which ended with this well-known peroration. it is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. gentlemen may cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. the war is actually begun! the next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! our brethren are already in the field! why stand we here idle? what is it that gentlemen wish? what would they have? is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god! i know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! patrick henry in the virginia convention, preparing and delivering conclusions. students cannot very well be asked to prepare and deliver conclusions to speeches which do not yet exist, so there is no way of devising conclusions until later. but students should report upon conclusions to speeches they have recently listened to, and explain to the class their opinions concerning their material, methods, treatment, delivery, effect. the following questions will help in judging and criticizing: was the conclusion too long? was it so short as to seem abrupt? did it impress the audience? how could it have been improved? was it recapitulation, summary, peroration? was it retrospective, anticipatory, or both? what was its relation to the main part of the speech? did it refer to the entire speech or only a portion? what was its relation to the introduction? did the speech end where it began? did it end as it began? was the conclusion in bad taste? what was its style? what merits had it? what defects? what suggestions could you offer for its improvement? with reference to the earlier parts of the speech, how was it delivered? the following conclusions should be studied from all the angles suggested in this chapter and previous ones. an air of reality will be secured if they are memorized and spoken before the class. exercises . there are many qualities which we need alike in private citizen and in public man, but three above all--three for the lack of which no brilliancy and no genius can atone--and those three are courage, honesty, and common sense. theodore roosevelt at antietam, . poor sprat has perished despite his splendid tomb in the abbey. johnson has only a cracked stone and a worn-out inscription (for the hercules in st. paul's is unrecognizable) but he dwells where he would wish to dwell--in the loving memory of men. augustine birrell: _transmission of dr. johnson's personality_, . so, my fellow citizens, the reason i came away from washington is that i sometimes get lonely down there. there are so many people in washington who know things that are not so, and there are so few people who know anything about what the people of the united states are thinking about. i have to come away and get reminded of the rest of the country. i have to come away and talk to men who are up against the real thing and say to them, "i am with you if you are with me." and the only test of being with me is not to think about me personally at all, but merely to think of me as the expression for the time being of the power and dignity and hope of the united states. woodrow wilson: _speech to the american federation of labor_, . but if, sir henry, in gratitude for this beautiful tribute which i have just paid you, you should feel tempted to reciprocate by taking my horses from my carriage and dragging me in triumph through the streets, i beg that you will restrain yourself for two reasons. the first reason is--i have no horses; the second is--i have no carriage. simeon ford: _me and sir henry_ (irving), . literature has its permanent marks. it is a connected growth and its life history is unbroken. masterpieces have never been produced by men who have had no masters. reverence for good work is the foundation of literary character. the refusal to praise bad work or to imitate it is an author's professional chastity. good work is the most honorable and lasting thing in the world. four elements enter into good work in literature:-- an original impulse--not necessarily a new idea, but a new sense of the value of an idea. a first-hand study of the subject and material. a patient, joyful, unsparing labor for the perfection of form. a human aim--to cheer, console, purify, or ennoble the life of the people. without this aim literature has never sent an arrow close to the mark. it is only by good work that men of letters can justify their right to a place in the world. the father of thomas carlyle was a stone-mason, whose walls stood true and needed no rebuilding. carlyle's prayer was: "let me write my books as he built his houses." henry van dyke: _books, literature and the people_, . all this, i know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us--a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material; and who, therefore, far from being qualified to be directors of the great movement of empire, are unfit to turn a wheel in the machine. but to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as i have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything and all in all. magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom: and a great empire and little minds go ill together. if we are conscious of our station, and glow with zeal to fill our places as becomes our situation and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceedings on america with the old warning of the church, _sursum corda!_ we ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of providence has called us. by adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire; and have made the most extensive, and the only honorable conquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race. let us get an american revenue as we have got an american empire. english privileges have made it all that it is; english privileges alone will make it all it can be. in full confidence of this unalterable truth, i now (_quod felix faustumque sit!_) lay the first stone of the temple of peace; and i move you;-- that the colonies and plantations of great britain in north america, consisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court of parliament. edmund burke: _conciliation with america_, . now, mr. speaker, having fully answered all the arguments of my opponents, i will retire to the cloak-room for a few moments, to receive the congratulations of admiring mends. john allen in a speech in congress . relying then on the patronage of your good will, i advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. and may that infinite power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity. thomas jefferson, _first inaugural_, . my friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. i did not expect to be called or to say a word when i came here. i supposed i was merely to do something toward raising a flag. i may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. but i have said nothing but what i am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of almighty god, to die by. abraham lincoln at philadelphia, . i have spoken plainly because this seems to me the time when it is most necessary to speak plainly, in order that all the world may know that even in the heat and ardor of the struggle and when our whole thought is of carrying the war through to its end we have not forgotten any ideal or principle for which the name of america has been held in honor among the nations and for which it has been our glory to contend in the great generations that went before us. a supreme moment of history has come. the eyes of the people have been opened and they see. the hand of god is laid upon the nations. he will show them favor, i devoutly believe, only if they rise to the clear heights of his own justice and mercy. woodrow wilson in a speech to congress, . this is what i have to say--ponder it; something you will agree with, something you will disagree with; but think about it, if i am wrong, the sooner the wrong is exposed the better for me--this is what i have to say: god is bringing the nations together. we must establish courts of reason for the settlement of controversies between civilized nations. we must maintain a force sufficient to preserve law and order among barbaric nations; and we have small need of an army for any other purpose. we must follow the maintenance of law and the establishment of order and the foundations of civilization with the vitalizing forces that make for civilization. and we must constantly direct our purpose and our policies to the time when the whole world shall have become civilized; when men, families, communities, will yield to reason and to conscience. and then we will draw our sword excalibur from its sheath and fling it out into the sea, rejoicing that it is gone forever. lyman abbott: _international brotherhood_, . i give you, gentlemen, in conclusion, this sentiment: "the little court-room at geneva--where our royal mother england, and her proud though untitled daughter, alike bent their heads to the majesty of law and accepted justice as a greater and better arbiter than power." william m. evarts: _international arbitration_, . you recollect the old joke, i think it began with preston of south carolina, that boston exported no articles of native growth but granite and ice. that was true then, but we have improved since, and to these exports we have added roses and cabbages. mr. president, they are good roses, and good cabbages, and i assure you that the granite is excellent hard granite, and the ice is very cold ice. edward everett hale: _boston_, . long live the republic of washington! respected by mankind, beloved of all its sons, long may it be the asylum of the poor and oppressed of all lands and religions--long may it be the citadel of that liberty which writes beneath the eagle's folded wings, "we will sell to no man, we will deny to no man, right and justice." long live the united states of america! filled with the free, magnanimous spirit, crowned by the wisdom, blessed by the moderation, hovered over by the guardian angel of washington's example; may they be ever worthy in all things to be defended by the blood of the brave who know the rights of man and shrink not from their assertion--may they be each a column, and altogether, under the constitution, a perpetual temple of peace, unshadowed by a caesar's palace, at whose altar may freely commune all who seek the union of liberty and brotherhood. long live our country! oh, long through the undying ages may it stand, far removed in fact as in space from the old world's feuds and follies, alone in its grandeur and its glory, itself the immortal monument of him whom providence commissioned to teach man the power of truth, and to prove to the nations that their redeemer liveth. john w. daniel: _washington_, . when that great and generous soldier, u.s. grant gave back to lee, crushed, but ever glorious, the sword he had surrendered at appomattox, that magnanimous deed said to the people of the south: "you are our brothers." but when the present ruler of our grand republic on awakening to the condition of war that confronted him, with his first commission placed the leader's sword in the hands of those gallant confederate commanders, joe wheeler and fitzhugh lee, he wrote between the lines in living letters of everlasting light the words: "there is but one people of this union, one flag alone for all." the south, mr. toastmaster, will feel that her sons have been well given, that her blood has been well spilled, if that sentiment is to be indeed the true inspiration of our nation's future. god grant it may be as i believe it will. clare howell: _our reunited country_, . two years ago last autumn, we walked on the sea beach together, and with a strange and prophetic kind of poetry, he likened the scene to his own failing health, the falling leaves, the withered sea-weed, the dying grass upon the shore, and the ebbing tide that was fast receding from us. he told me that he felt prepared to go, for he had forgiven his enemies, and could even rejoice in their happiness. surely this was a grand condition in which to step from this world across the threshold to the next! joseph jefferson: _in memory of edwin booth_, . a public spirit so lofty is not confined to other lands. you are conscious of its stirrings in your soul. it calls you to courageous service, and i am here to bid you obey the call. such patriotism may be yours. let it be your parting vow that it shall be yours. bolingbroke described a patriot king in england; i can imagine a patriot president in america. i can see him indeed the choice of a party, and called to administer the government when sectional jealousy is fiercest and party passion most inflamed. i can imagine him seeing clearly what justice and humanity, the national law and the national welfare require him to do, and resolved to do it. i can imagine him patiently enduring not only the mad cry of party hate, the taunt of "recreant" and "traitor," of "renegade" and "coward," but what is harder to bear, the amazement, the doubt, the grief, the denunciation, of those as sincerely devoted as he to the common welfare. i can imagine him pushing firmly on, trusting the heart, the intelligence, the conscience of his countrymen, healing angry wounds, correcting misunderstandings, planting justice on surer foundations, and, whether his party rise or fall, lifting his country heavenward to a more perfect union, prosperity, and peace. this is the spirit of a patriotism that girds the commonwealth with the resistless splendor of the moral law--the invulnerable panoply of states, the celestial secret of a great nation and a happy people. george william curtis: _the public duty of educated men_, chapter vi. getting material the material of speeches. so far this book has dealt almost entirely with the manner of speaking. now it comes to the relatively more important consideration of the material of speech. necessary as it is that a speaker shall know how to speak, it is much more valuable that he shall know what to speak. we frequently hear it said of a speaker, "it wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it," indicating clearly that the striking aspect of the delivery was his manner; but even when this remark is explained it develops frequently that there was some value in the material, as well as some charm or surprise or novelty in the method of expression. in the last and closest analysis a speech is valuable for what it conveys to its hearers' minds, what it induces them to do, not what temporary effects of charm and entertainment it affords. persons of keen minds and cultivated understandings have come away from gatherings addressed by men famous as good speech-makers and confessed to something like the following: "i was held spellbound all the time he was talking, but for the life of me, i can't tell you one thing he said or one idea he impressed upon me." a student should judge speeches he hears with such things in mind, so that he can hold certain ones up as models, and discard others as "horrible examples." it should be the rule that before a man attempts to speak he should have something to say. this is apparently not always the case. many a man tries to say something when he simply has nothing at all to say. recall the description of gratiano's talk, quoted earlier in this book. a speaker then must have material. he must get material. the clergyman knows that he must deliver about a hundred sermons a year. the lawyer knows he must go into court on certain days. the lecturer must instruct his various audiences. the business man must address executive boards, committees, conventions, customers. the student must address classes, societies. the beginner in speech training must seize every opportunity to talk. certainly the natural reserve stock of ideas and illustrations will soon be exhausted, or it will grow so stale that it will be delivered ineffectively, or it will be unsuitable to every occasion. a celebrated frenchman, called upon unexpectedly to speak, excused himself by declaring, "what is suitable to say i do not know, and what i know is not suitable." getting material. there are three ways of getting material. the first is by observation, the second by interview, the third by reading. observation. the value of securing material by observation is apparent at first glance. that which you have experienced you know. that which you have seen with your own eyes you can report correctly. that which has happened to you you can relate with the aspect of absolute truth. that which you have done you can teach others to do. that which has touched you you can explain correctly. that which you know to be the fact is proof against all attack. these are the apparent advantages of knowledge gained at first hand. the faculty of accurate observation is one of the most satisfying that can enter into a person's mental equipment. it can be trained, broadened, and made more and more accurate. in some trades and professions it is an indispensable part of one's everyday ability. the faculty may be easily developed by exercise and test for accuracy. everyone acknowledges the weight and significance of material gained by observation. in america especially we accord attention and regard to the reports and accounts made by men who have done things, the men who have experienced the adventures they relate. there is such a vividness, a reality, a conviction about these personal utterances that we must listen respectfully and applaud sincerely. magazines and newspapers offer hundreds of such articles for avid readers. hundreds of books each year are based upon such material. with all its many advantages the field of observation is limited. not every person can experience or see all he is interested in and wants to talk about. we must choose presidents but we cannot observe the candidates themselves and their careers. we must have opinions about the league of nations, the mexican situation, the radical labor movements, the changing taxes, but we cannot observe all phases of these absorbing topics. if we restrict speeches to only what we can observe we shall all be uttering merely trivial personalities based upon no general knowledge and related to none of the really important things in the universe. nor is it always true that the person who does a thing can report it clearly and accurately. ask a woman or girl how she hemstitches a handkerchief, or a boy how he swims or throws a curve, and note the involved and inaccurate accounts. if you doubt this, explain one of these to the class. it is not easy to describe exactly what one has seen, mainly because people do not see accurately. people usually see what they want to see, what they are predisposed to see. witnesses in court, testifying upon oath concerning an accident, usually produce as many different versions as there are pairs of eyes. books upon psychology report many enlightening and amusing cases of this defect of accurate observation in people.[ ] the two negative aspects of material secured in this first manner-- , limited range of observation, , inaccuracy of observation--placed beside the advantages already listed will clearly indicate in what subjects and circumstances this method should be relied upon for securing material for speeches. [footnote : good cases are related by swift, e.j.: _psychology and the day's work_.] exercises . make a list of recent articles based upon observation which you have seen or read in newspapers and magazines. . with what kind of material does each deal? . which article is best? why? . list four topics upon which your observation has given you material which could be used in a speech. . what kind of speech? a speech for what purpose? . consider and weigh the value of your material. . why is it good? . what limits, or drawbacks has it? . what could be said against it from the other side? interview. if a person cannot himself experience or observe all he wants to use for material his first impulse will be to interview people who have had experience themselves. in this circumstance the speaker becomes the reporter of details of knowledge furnished by others. the value of this is apparent at once. next to first-hand knowledge, second-hand knowledge will serve admirably. every newspaper and magazine in the world uses this method because its readers' first query, mental or expressed, of all its informative articles is "is this true?" if the author is merely repeating the experience of an acknowledged expert in the field under discussion, the value of the interview cannot be questioned. in this case the resulting report is almost as good as the original testimony or statement of the man who knows. the first requisite, therefore, of material gathered in such a manner is that it be reproduced exactly as first delivered. the man who told a woman that a critic had pronounced her singing "heavenly" had good intentions but he was not entirely accurate in changing to that nattering term the critic's actual adjective "unearthly." the frequency with which alleged statements published in the daily press are contradicted by the supposed utterers indicates how usual such misrepresentation is, though it may be honestly unintentional. the speaker before an audience must be scrupulously correct in quoting. this accuracy is not assured unless a stenographic transcript be taken at the time the information is given, or unless the person quoted reads the sentiments and statements credited to him and expresses his approval. signed statements, personal letters, printed records, photographs, certified copies, and other exhibits of all kinds are employed to substantiate material secured from interviews and offered in speeches. if you notice newspaper accounts of lectures, political speeches, legislative procedure, legal practice, you will soon become familiar with such usages as are described by the expressions, filing as part of the record, taking of a deposition in one city for use in a lawsuit in another, exhibit a, photograph of an account book, statement made in the presence of a third party, as recorded by a dictaphone, etc. the first danger in securing material by the personal interview is the natural error of misunderstanding. the second danger is the natural desire--not necessarily false, at that--to interpret to the user's benefit, the material so secured, or to the discredit of all views other than his own. it is so easy, so tempting, in making out a strong case for one's own opinions to omit the slight concession which may grant ever so little shade of right to other beliefs. judicious manipulation of any material may degenerate into mere juggling for support. quotations and reports, like statistics, can be made to prove anything, and the general intellectual distrust of mere numbers is cleverly summed up in the remark, "figures can't lie, but liars can figure." to have the material accepted as of any weight or value the person from whom it is secured must be recognized as an authority. he must be of such eminence in the field for which his statements are quoted as not only to be accepted by the speaker using his material but as unqualifiedly recognized by all the opponents of the speaker. his remarks must have the definiteness of the expert witness whose testimony in court carries so much weight. to secure due consideration, the speaker must make perfectly clear to his audience the position of his authority, his fitness to be quoted, his unquestioned knowledge, sincerity, and honesty. knowledge secured in this manner may be used with signal effect in a speech, either to supply all the material or to cover certain portions. if you listen to many speeches (and you should), notice how often a speaker introduces the result of his interviews--formal or merely conversational--with persons whose statement he is certain will impress his audience. exercises . make a list of five topics of which you know so little that you would have to secure information by interviews. . of these choose two, define your opinion or feeling in each, and tell to whom you could apply for material. . choose one dealing with some topic of current interest in your locality; define your own opinion or feeling, and tell to whom you could apply for material. . explain exactly why you name this person. . prepare a set of questions to bring out material to support your position. . prepare some questions to draw out material to dispose of other views. . interview some person upon one of the foregoing topics or a different one, and in a speech present this material before the class. . in general discussion comment on the authorities reported and the material presented. reading. the best way and the method most employed for gathering material is reading. every user of material in speeches must depend upon his reading for the greatest amount of his knowledge. the old expression "reading law" shows how most legal students secured the information upon which their later practice was based. nearly all real study of any kind depends upon wide and careful reading. reading, in the sense here used, differs widely from the entertaining perusal of current magazines, or the superficial skimming through short stories or novels. reading for material is done with a more serious purpose than merely killing time, and is regulated according to certain methods which have been shown to produce the best results for the effort and time expended. the speaker reads for the single purpose of securing material to serve his need in delivered remarks. he has a definite aim. he must know how to serve that end. not everyone who can follow words upon a printed page can read in this sense. he must be able to read, understand, select, and retain. the direction is heard in some churches to "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest." this is a picturesque phrasing of the same principles. you must know how to read. have you often in your way through a book suddenly realized at the bottom of a page that you haven't the slightest recollection of what your eye has been over? you may have felt this same way after finishing a chapter. people often read poetry in this manner. this is not really reading. the speaker who reads for material must concentrate. if he reaches the bottom of a page without an idea, he must go back to get it. it is better not to read too rapidly the first time, in order to save this repetition. the ability to read is trained in exactly the same way as any other ability. accuracy first, speed later. perhaps the most prevalent fault of students of all kinds is lack of concentration. understanding. after reading comes understanding. to illustrate this, poetry again might be cited, for any one can _read_ poetry, though many declare they cannot understand it. the simplest looking prose may be obscure to the mind which is slow in comprehending. when we read we get general ideas, cursory impressions; we catch the drift of the author's meaning. reading for material must be more thorough than that. it must not merely believe it understands; it must preclude the slightest possibility of misunderstanding. a reader who finds in a printed speech approval of a system of _representation_ but a condemnation of a system of _representatives_ must grasp at once, or must work out for himself, the difference between these two: the first meaning a relationship only, the second meaning men serving as delegates. when he meets an unusual word like _mandatory_, he must not be content to guess at its significance by linking it with _command_ and _mandate_, for as used in international affairs it means something quite definite. to secure this complete understanding of all his reading he will consult consistently every book of reference. he should read with a good dictionary at his elbow, and an atlas and an encyclopedia within easy reach. if he is able to talk over with others what he reads, explaining to them what is not clear, he will have an excellent method of testing his own understanding. the old-fashioned practice of "saying lessons over" at home contributed to this growth of a pupil's understanding. selecting. third, the reader for material must know how to select. as he usually reads to secure information or arguments for a certain definite purpose, he will save time by knowing quickly what not to read. all that engages his attention without directly contributing to his aim is wasting time and energy. he must learn how to use books. if he cannot handle alphabetized collections quickly he is wasting time. if he does not know how material is arranged he will waste both time and energy. he must know books. every printed production worthy of being called a book should have an index. is the index the same as the table of contents? the table of contents is printed at the beginning of the volume. it is a synopsis, by chapter headings or more detailed topics, of the plan of the book. it gives a general outline of the contents of the book. you are interested in public speaking. you wonder whether a book contains a chapter on debating. does this one? you notice that a speaker used a series of jerky gesticulations. you wonder whether this book contains a chapter upon gestures. does it? the table of contents is valuable for the purposes just indicated. it appears always at the beginning of a work. if the work fills more than one volume, the table of contents is sometimes given for all of them in the first; sometimes it is divided among the volumes; sometimes both arrangements are combined. the table of contents is never so valuable as the index. this always comes at the end of the book. if the work is in more than one volume the index comes at the _end of the last volume_. what did you learn of the topic _gestures_ in this book from your reference to the table of contents? now look at the index. what does the index do for a topic? if a topic is treated in various parts of a long work the volumes are indicated by roman numerals, the pages by ordinary numerals. interpret this entry taken from the index of _a history of the united states_ by h.w. elson. slavery, introduced into virginia, i, ; in south carolina, ; in georgia, ; in new england, ; in the south, ; during colonial period, iii, , ; in missouri, ; attacked by the abolitionists, - ; excluded from california, ; character of, in the south, _seq_.; population, iv, ; abolished in district of columbia, in new territories, ; abolished by thirteenth amendment, , . retaining knowledge. the only valid test of the reader's real equipment is what he retains and can use. how much of what you read do you remember? the answer depends upon education, training in this particular exercise, and lapse of time. what method of remembering do you find most effective in your own case? to answer this you should give some attention to your own mind. what kind of mind have you? do you retain most accurately what you see? can you reproduce either exactly or in correct substance what you read to yourself without any supporting aids to stimulate your memory? if you have this kind of mind develop it along that line. do not weaken its power by letting it lean on any supports at all. if you find you can do without them, do not get into the habit of taking notes. if you can remember to do everything you should do during a trip downtown don't make a list of the items before you go. if you can retain from a single reading the material you are gathering, don't make notes. impress things upon your memory faculty. develop that ability in yourself. have you a different kind of mind, the kind which remember best what it tells, what it explains, what it does? do you fix things in your brain by performing them? does information become rooted in your memory because you have imparted it to others? if so you should secure the material you gather from your reading by adapting some method related to the foregoing. you may talk it over with some one else, you may tell it aloud to yourself, you may imagine you are before an audience and practise impressing them with what you want to retain. any device which successfully fixes knowledge in your memory is legitimate. you should know enough about your own mental processes to find for yourself the best and quickest way. it is often said of teachers that they do not actually feel that they _know_ a subject until they have tried to teach it to others. taking notes. another kind of mind recalls or remembers material it has read when some note or hint suggests all of it. this kind of mind depends upon the inestimably valuable art of note-taking, a method quite as worthy as the two just considered if its results justify its employment. note-taking does not mean a helter-skelter series of exclamatory jottings. it means a well-planned, regularly organized series of entries so arranged that reference to any portion recalls vividly and exactly the full material of the original. books and speeches are well planned. they follow a certain order. notes based upon them should reproduce that plan and show the relative value of parts. when completed, such notes, arranged in outline form, should enable the maker to reproduce the extended material from which they were made. if he cannot do that, his reading and his note-taking were to little purpose. a speaker who has carefully written out his full speech and delivers it form the manuscript can use that speech over and over again. but that does not indicate that he really _knows_ much about the topic he is discussing. he did know about it once. but the man who from a series of notes can reconstruct material worked up long before proves that he has retained his knowledge of it. besides, this method gives him the chance to adapt his presentation to the changing conditions and the new audience. in using this method, when a particularly important bit of information is met, it should be set down very carefully, usually verbatim, as it may be quoted exactly in the speech. this copy may be made upon the paper where the regular notes are being entered so that it may be found later embodied in the material it supports. or it may later be cut from this sheet to be shifted about and finally fixed when planning the speech, or preparing the outline (discussed in the next two chapters). many practised speech-makers copy such material upon the regularly sized library catalog cards ( by inches), some distinguishing by the colors of cards the various kinds of material, such as arguments supporting a position, opposite arguments, refutation, statistics, court judgments, etc. the beginner will find for himself what methods he can use best. of course he must never let his discriminating system become so elaborate that he consumes unjustifiable time and thought in following its intricate plan. in all cases of quotations--either verbatim or in resume--the authority must be noted. author, official title or position, title of work, circumstances, date, volume, page, etc., should be clearly set down. in law cases the date is especially important as so frequently the latest decision reverses all the earlier ones. for convenience of filing and handling these items are placed at the top of the card. monroe doctrine--meaning w. wilson--hist. amer. people, v, the u.s. had not undertaken to maintain an actual formal protectorate over the s. amer. states, but it did frankly undertake to act as their nearest friend in the settlement of controversies with european nations, and no president, whether rep. or dem., had hesitated since this critical dispute concerning the boundaries of brit. guiana arose to urge its settlement upon terms favorable to venezuela. the following notes were made by a student in preparation for a speech upon the opposition to the covenant of the league of nations. these excerpts are from the notes upon the newspaper reports of the debate in boston in between senator lodge and president lowell of harvard. notice how accurately they suggest the material of the original. the numbers represent the paragraph numbers. [sidenote: monroe doctrine.] . monroe doctrine a fence that cannot be extended by taking it down. . monroe doctrine a corollary of washington's foreign policy. . geographical considerations on which monroe doctrine rested still obtain. . systems of morality and philosophy are not transient, because they rest on verities. . monroe doctrine rests on law of self-preservation. . offers a larger reservation of monroe doctrine as third constructive criticism. senator lodge [sidenote: what a league should provide.] . wants to consider what such a league must contain. . must have provision for obligatory arbitration. . obligation not to resort to war must be compulsory. . compulsion must be such that no nation will venture to incur it. . nation that does not submit to arbitration must be treated as outlaw. . if decisions of arbitrations are clear and generally considered just, a nation desiring to wage war should be prevented. . points of contact are not points of friction except when made too infrequent. . travel, intercourse, frequent meetings help amicable adjustments. . league should provide councils where men can meet and talk over differences. . penalty for violating agreements should be automatic. . all should be obliged to make war on attacking nation. president lowell. using the library. a reader must know how to use libraries. this means he must be able to find books by means of the card catalogs. these are arranged by both authors and subjects. if he knows the author of a book or its title he can easily find the cards and have the book handed to him. very often he will seek information upon topics entirely new to him. in this case he must look under the entry of the topic for all the books bearing upon his. from the titles, the brief descriptions, and (sometimes) the tables of contents upon the cards he can select intelligently the books he needs. for instance, if he is searching for arguments to support a new kind of city government he could discard at once several books cataloged as follows, while he could pick unerringly the four which might furnish him the material he wants. these books are listed under the general topic "cities." _the spirit of youth and the city streets. old english towns. municipal administration. the modern city and its problems. personality of american cities. historic towns of the southern states. romantic germany. cities of italy. american municipal progress_. cross references are also valuable. in addition to books cataloged under the topic consulted, others grouped under other subjects may contain related information. here are three actual cross references taken from a library catalog. land: ownership, rights, and rent. see also conservation, production, agriculture. laboring classes: morals and habits. see also ethics, amusements, sunday. church. see also church and state, persecutions. the continual use of a library will familiarize a student with certain classes of books to which he may turn for information. if he is permitted to handle the books themselves upon the shelves he will soon become skilful in using books. many a trained speaker can run his eye over titles, along tables of contents, scan the pages, and unerringly pick the heart out of a volume. nearly all libraries now are arranged according to one general plan, so a visitor who knows this scheme can easily find the class of books he wants in almost any library he uses. this arrangement is based upon the following decimal numbering and grouping of subject matter. library classification to , _general works_. bibliography. library economy. cyclopedias. collections. periodicals. societies, museums. journalism, newspapers. special libraries, polygraphy. book rarities. to , _philosophy_. metaphysics. special topics. mind and body. philosophic systems. mental faculties, psychology. logic, dialectics. ethics. ancient philosophers. modern. to , _religion_. natural theology. bible. doctrinal dogmatics, theology. devotional, practical. homiletic, pastoral, parochial. church, institutions, work. religious history. christian churches and sects. ethnic, non-christian. to , _sociology_. statistics. political science. political economy. law. administration. associations, institutions. education. commerce, communication. customs, costumes, folklore. to , _philology_. comparative. english. german. french. italian. spanish. latin. greek. minor literatures. to , _natural science_. mathematics, astronomy. physics. chemistry. geology. paleontology. biology. botany. zoölogy. to , _useful arts_. medicine. engineering. agriculture. domestic economy. communication, commerce. chemic technology. manufactures. mechanic trades. building. to , _fine arts_. landscape gardening. architecture. sculpture. drawing, decoration, design. painting. engraving. photography. music. amusements. to , _literature_ (same order as under _philology_, ). to , _history_. geography and travels. biography. ancient history. modern europe. asia. africa. north america. south america. oceanica and polar regions. m. dewey: _decimal classification_ using periodicals. in the section on taking notes the direction was given that in citing legal decisions the latest should be secured. why? that same principle applies to citing any kind of information in a speech. science, history, politics, government, international questions, change so rapidly in these times that the fact of yesterday is the fiction of today, and _vice versa._ a speaker must be up to date in his knowledge. this he can be only by consulting current periodicals. he cannot read them all so he must use the aids provided for him. the best of these is the _reader's guide to periodical literature_ issued every month and kept in the reference room of all libraries. in it, arranged under both subject and author's name, are listed the articles which have appeared in the various magazines. the december issue contains the entries for the entire year. a group of topics from a recent monthly issue will show its value to the speaker securing material. eastern question. british case in the east. h. sidebotham, asia : - mr ' .--england and her eastern policy. h. sidebotham. asia, : - . f ' .--khanates of the middle east. ikbal ali shah. contemp. : - f ' .--more secret treaties in the near east. l. stoddard. maps. world's work. : - . mr ' .--part of the united states in the near east. r of rs : - mr ' .--should america act as trustee of the near east? asia, : - f' . by this time the student speaker will have that mental alertness referred to early in this book. he will be reading regularly some magazine--not to pass the time pleasantly--but to keep himself posted on current topics and questions of general interest, in which the articles will direct him to other periodicals for fuller treatment of the material he is gathering. the nature of some of these is suggested here. _the outlook_, "an illustrated weekly journal of current events." _current opinion_, monthly. review of the world, persons in the foreground, music and drama, science and discovery, religion and social ethics, literature and art, the industrial world, reconstruction. _the literary digest_, weekly. topics of the day, foreign comment, science and invention, letters and art, religion and social service, current poetry, miscellaneous, investments and finance. _the independent_, an illustrated weekly. exercises . describe to the class the contents of a recent issue of a magazine. concentrate upon important departments, articles, or policies, so that you will not deliver a mere list. . tell how an article in some periodical led you to read more widely to secure fuller information. . explain why you read a certain periodical regularly. . speak upon one of the following topics: freak magazines. my magazine. policies of magazines. great things magazines have done. technical magazines. adventures at a magazine counter. propaganda periodicals. . explain exactly how you study. . how would you secure an interview with some person of prominence? . is the "cramming" process of studying a good one? . is it ever justifiable? . explain how, why, and when it may be used by men in their profession. . give the class an idea of the material of some book you have read recently. . explain how reading a published review or hearing comments on a book induced you to read a volume which proved of value to you. . can you justify the reading of the last part only of a book? consider non-fiction. . for preserving clippings, notes, etc., which method is better--cards filed in boxes or drawers, scrap-books, or slips and clippings grouped in envelopes? . report to the class some information upon one of the following. tell exactly how and where you secured your information. opium traffic in china. morphine habit in the united states. women in literature. a drafted army as compared with a volunteer army. orpheum as a theater name. prominent business women. war time influence of d'annunzio. increasing cost of living. secretarial courses. the most beautiful city of the american continent. alfalfa. women surgeons. the blimp. democracy in great britain compared with that of the united states. the root of the mexican problem. san marino. illiteracy in the united states. how women vote. (note.--the teacher should supply additions, substitutes, and modifications.) chapter vii planning the speech selecting material. it can be assumed, by the time you have reached this point in the study and practice of making speeches, that you have words to express your thoughts and some fair skill of delivery, that you know something about preparing various kinds of introductions and conclusions, that you know how your own mind operates in retaining new information, and that you know how to secure material for various purposes. either clearly assimilated in your brain or accurately noted upon paper you have all the ideas that are to appear in your speech. the length of the speech. look over this material again. consider it carefully in your thoughts, mentally deciding how long a time or how many words you will devote to each topic or entry. can you from such a practical consideration determine how long in time your speech will be? are you limited by requirements to a short time as were the four minute speakers? have you been allotted a half hour? will you hold your audience longer? these may appear simple things, but they cover the first essential of planning any speech. it should be just the correct length--neither too long nor too short. many beginners--timid, hesitant, untrained--will frequently fill too short a time, so that they must drill themselves into planning longer productions. on the other hand, it may be stated, as a general criticism, that many speakers talk too long. a united states senator, in order to block the vote on a bill he was opposing, decided to speak until congress had to adjourn, so he deliberately planned to cover a long time. he spoke for some twenty-two hours. of course he did not say much, nor did he talk continuously; to get rests, he requested the clerk to call the roll, and while the list was being marked, he ate and drank enough to sustain him. technically his speech was uninterrupted, for he still had the floor. though we may not approve of such methods of legislative procedure we must see that for this speech the first element of its plan was its length. keep this consideration of time always in mind. speakers always ask how long they are to speak, or they stipulate how much time they require. legislative bodies frequently have limiting rules. courts sometimes allow lawyers so much time. a minister must fit his sermon to the length of the service. a business man must not waste his hearers' time. a lecturer must not tire his audience. in congress members must be given chances to eat. in parliament, which meets in the evening, men grow anxious for bed. making the speech too long. the rule is fundamental, yet it is violated continually. i have known of instances when four men, asked to present material in a meeting announced months in advance as lasting two hours, have totally disregarded this fact, and prepared enough material to consume over an hour each. in such cases the presiding officer should state to each that he will be allowed exactly thirty minutes and no more. he may tap on the table after twenty-five have elapsed to warn the speaker to pass to his conclusion, and at the expiration of the time make him bring his remarks to a close and give way to the next speaker. there is no unfairness in this. the real offense is committed by the speaker who proves himself so inconsiderate, so discourteous of the conditions that he places himself in such an embarrassing circumstance. he deserves only justice tempered by no mercy. i have heard the first of two speakers who were to fill an hour of a commemorative service in a church talk on for an hour and ten minutes, boring the congregation to fidgety restlessness and completely preventing the second speaker--the more important--from delivering a single word. mark twain tells how he went to church one hot night to hear a city mission worker describe his experiences among the poor people of the crowded districts who, though they needed help, were too modest or proud to ask for it. the speaker told of the suffering and bravery he found. then he pointed out that the best gifts to charity are not the advertised bounties of the wealthy but the small donations of the less fortunate. his appeals worked mark twain up to great enthusiasm and generosity. he was ready to give all he had with him--four hundred dollars--and borrow more. the entire congregation wanted to offer all it had. but the missionary kept on talking. the audience began to notice the heat. it became hotter and hotter. they grew more and more uncomfortable. mark's generosity began to shrink. it dwindled to less and less as the speech lengthened until when the plate did finally reach him, he stole ten cents from it. he adds that this simply proves how a little thing like a long-winded speech can induce crime. plan your speech so that it will be the proper length. discarding material. this first consideration very likely indicates to you that you have much more material than you can use in the time allowed or assigned you. you must discard some. strange as it may seem, this is one of the must difficult directions to carry out. it seems such a waste of time and material to select for actual presentation so small a part of all you have carefully gathered. there is always the temptation to "get it all in somehow." yet the direction must remain inflexible. you can use only part of it. you must carefully select what will serve your purpose. what is the purpose of your speech? what is the character of your audience? these two things will determine to a large extent, what and how much you must relinquish. your finished speech will be all the better for the weeding-out process. better still, in all your preliminary steps for subsequent speeches you will become skilful in selecting while you are gathering the material itself. finally you will become so practised that you will not burden yourself with waste, although you will always secure enough to supply you with a reserve supply for assurance and emergency. relation of material to the purpose of the speech. a few examples will show the wide application of this principle. a boy who has explained to his father the scholarship rules of his school concerning athletes will discard a great deal of that material when he addresses a student gathering. a speaker on child labor in a state where women have voted for a long time will discard much of the material presented in a neighboring state where general franchise has just been granted. if in a series of remarks you want to emphasize the thrilling experience you have had with a large fish which jerked you out of a boat, you would not include such material as the trip on the train to the lake where you had your adventure. why not? these are humble instances, but the principle of selection is the same for all speeches. a man who was asked to lecture on mark twain knew the contents of the thirty published volumes written by him, all the biographies, practically every article written about him; he had conversed with people who had known him; he had visited scenes of his life; yet when he planned to talk for an hour he had to reject everything except two striking periods of his life with their effects upon his writing. burke, in one great effort, declared he had no intention of dealing with the _right_ of taxation; he confined himself merely to the _expediency_ of great britain's revenue laws for america. other great speakers have--in their finished speeches--just as clearly indicated the plans they have decided to follow. such definite announcements determine the material of many introductions. my task will be divided under three different heads: first, the crime against kansas, in its origin and extent; secondly, the apologies for the crime; and, thirdly, the true remedy. charles sumner: _the crime against kansas_, mr. president and fellow citizens of new york: the facts with which i shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use i shall make of them. if there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. in his speech last autumn at columbus, ohio, as reported in the _new york times_, senator douglas said: "our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now." i fully indorse this, and i adopt it as a text for this discourse. i so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between republicans and that wing of the democracy headed by senator douglas. it simply leaves the inquiry: what was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned? abraham lincoln: _cooper union speech_, indicating the plan in the speech. in some finished and long speeches parts of the plan are distributed to mark the divisions in the progress of the development. the next quotation shows such an insertion. and now sir, against all these theories and opinions, i maintain-- . that the constitution of the united states is not a league, confederacy, or compact between the people of the several states in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals. . that no state authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without revolution. . that there is a supreme law, consisting of the constitution of the united states, and acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, congress must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation; and in cases capable of assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the supreme court of the united states is the final interpreter. . that an attempt by a state to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general government, and on the equal rights of other states; a plain violation of the constitution, a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency. daniel webster: _the constitution not a compact between sovereign states_, such a statement to the audience is especially helpful when the speaker is dealing with technical subjects, or material with which most people are not usually and widely conversant. scientific considerations always become clearer when such plans are simply constructed, clearly announced, and plainly followed. so far as i know, there are only three hypotheses which ever have been entertained, or which well can be entertained, respecting the past history of nature. i will, in the first place, state the hypotheses, and then i will consider what evidence bearing upon them is in our possession, and by what light of criticism that evidence is to be interpreted. upon the first hypothesis, the assumption is, that phenomena of nature similar to those exhibited by the present world have always existed; in other words, that the universe has existed from all eternity in what may be broadly termed its present condition. the second hypothesis is, that the present state of things has had only a limited duration; and that, at some period in the past, a condition of the world, essentially similar to that which we now know, came into existence, without any precedent condition from which it could have naturally proceeded. the assumption that successive states of nature have arisen, each without any relation of natural causation to an antecedent state, is a mere modification of this second hypothesis. the third hypothesis also assumes that the present state of things has had but a limited duration; but it supposes that this state has been evolved by a natural process from an antecedent state, and that from another, and so on; and, on this hypothesis, the attempt to assign any limit to the series of past changes is, usually, given up. thomas h. huxley: _lectures on evolution_, exercises . according to what methods are the foregoing plans arranged? which division in sumner's speech was the most important? was he trying to get his listeners to do anything? what do you think that object was? . in lincoln's speech do you think he planned the material chronologically? historically? what reasons have you for your answer? . which of webster's four parts is the most important? give reasons for your answer. . which hypothesis (what does the word mean?) did huxley himself support? what induces you to think thus? is this plan in any respect like sumner's? explain your answer. . make a list of the ways in which material of speeches may be arranged. arrangement. importance. if you have several topics to cover in a single speech where would you put the most important? first or last? write upon a piece of paper the position you choose. you have given this plan some thought so you doubtlessly put down the correct position. what did you write? first? that is usually the answer of nine pupils out of every ten. are you with the majority? if you wrote that the most important topic should be treated first, you are wrong. the speech would be badly planned. think for a moment. which should be the most important part of a story or a play? the beginning or the ending? if it is the early part, why should any one read on to the end or stay for the curtain to come down the last time? so in speeches the importance of topics should always increase as the speech proceeds. this, then, is a principle of planning. arrange your topics in an ascending order of importance. work up to what is called the climax. the list you made in response to direction given above should now be presented to the class and its contents discussed. what kind of material is likely to be arranged according to each of your principles? you have put down the chronological order, or the order of time, or some similar phrase. just what do you mean by that? do you mean, begin with the earliest material and follow in chronological order down to the latest? could the reverse order ever be used? can you cite some instance? is contrast a good order to follow in planning? cite material which could be so arranged. would an arrangement from cause to effect be somewhat like one based on time? explain your answer. under what circumstances do you think the opposite might be used--from effect to cause? while there are almost countless methods of arrangements--for any one used in one part of a speech may be combined with any other in some different portion--the plan should always be determined by three fundamental matters; the material itself, the audience to which it is to be presented, and the effect the speaker wants to produce. even during this preliminary planning of the speech the author must be careful that when his arrangement is decided upon it possesses the three qualities necessary to every good composition. these three are unity, coherence, and emphasis. unity. unity explains itself. a speech must be about one single thing. a good speech produces one result. it induces action upon one single point. it allows no turning aside from its main theme. it does not stray from the straight and narrow road to pick flowers in the adjacent fields, no matter how enticing the temptation to loiter may be. in plain terms it does not admit as part of its material anything not closely and plainly connected with it. it does not step aside for everything that crops into the speaker's mind. it advances steadily, even when not rapidly. it does not "back water." it goes somewhere. to preserve unity of impression a speaker must ruthlessly discard all material except that which is closely associated with his central intention. he must use only that which contributes to his purpose. the same temptation to keep unrelated material--if it be good in itself--will be felt now as when the other unsuitable material was set aside. this does not prevent variety and relief. illustrative and interesting minor sections may be, at times must be, introduced. but even by their vividness and attractiveness they must help the speech, not hinder it. the decorations and ornaments must never be allowed to detract from the utility of the composition. unity may be damaged by admitting parts not in the direct line of the theme. it may be violated by letting minor portions become too long. the illustration may grow so large by the introduction of needless details that it makes the listeners forget the point it was designed to enforce. or it may be so far-fetched as to bear no real relation to the thread of development. here lies the pitfall of the overworked "funny," story, introduced by "that reminds me." too often it is not humorous enough to justify repetition; or--what is worse--it does not fit into the circumstances. another fault of many speakers is over-elaboration of expression, not only for non-essentials, but in the important passages as well. involved language demands explanation. the attempts to clear up what should have been simply said at first may lead a speaker to devote too many words to a single point. this matter of unity must not be misunderstood as prohibiting the inclusion of more than one topic in a speech. a legislator in urging the repeal of a law might have several topics, such as how the law was passed, its first operations, its increasing burdens upon people, the disappearance of the necessity for it, better methods of securing the same or better results, etc., yet all grouped about the motivating theme of securing the repeal of the law. to emphasize the greatness of a man's career a speaker might introduce such topics as his obscure origin, his unmarked youth, the spur that stimulated his ambition, his early reverses, provided that they contribute to the impression intended, to make vivid his real achievements. in early attempts at delivering speeches don't be afraid to pause at certain places to consider whether what you are about to say really contributes to the unity or destroys it. aside from helping you to think upon your feet, this mental exercise will help your speech by making you pause at times--a feature of speaking often entirely disregarded by many persons. coherence. the second quality a finished composition should have is coherence. if you know what _cohere_ and _cohesion_ mean (perhaps you have met these words in science study) you have the germ of the term's meaning. it means "stick-together-itive-ness." the parts of a speech should be so interrelated that every part leads up to all that follows. likewise every part develops naturally from all that goes before, as well as what immediately precedes. there must be a continuity running straight through the material from start to finish. parts should be placed where they fit best. each portion should be so placed--at least, in thought--that all before leads naturally and consistently up to it, and it carries on the thread to whatever follows. this prevents rude breaks in the development of thought. skilfully done, it aids the hearer to remember, because so easily did the thought in the speech move from one point to another, that he can carry the line of its progression with him long after. so the attainment of coherence in a speech contributes directly to that desired end--a deep impression. incoherent speeches are so mainly because of absence of plan, whether they be short or long, conversational or formal. emphasis. the third quality a speech should have is emphasis. applied to a connected sequence of words this means that what is of most importance shall stand out most forcefully; that what is not so important shall show its subordinate relation by its position, its connection with what goes before and after; that what is least important shall receive no emphasis beyond its just due. such manipulation requires planning and rearranging, careful weighing of the relative importance of all portions. recall what was said of the place of the most important part. throughout the speech there must also be variety of emphasis. it would not be fitting to have everything with a forceful emphasis upon it. to secure variation in emphasis you must remember that in speeches the best effects will be made upon audiences by offering them slight relief from too close attention or too impressive effects. if you observe the plans finally followed by good speakers you will be able to see that they have obeyed this suggestion. they have the power to do what is described as "swaying the audience." in its simplest form this depends upon varying the emphasis. in making an appeal for funds for destitute portions of europe a telling topic would surely be the sufferings of the needy. would it be wise to dwell upon such horrors only? would a humorous anecdote of the happy gratitude of a child for a cast-off toy be good to produce emphasis? which would make the most emphatic ending--the absolute destitution, the amount to be supplied, the relief afforded, or the happiness to donors for sharing in such a worthy charity? you can see how a mere mental planning, or a shuffling of notes, or a temporary numbering of topics will help in clearing up this problem of how to secure proper and effective emphasis. making the first plan. it would be a helpful thing at this point in the planning to make a pencil list of the topics to be included. this is not a final outline but a mere series of jottings to be changed, discarded, and replaced as the author considers his material and his speech. it is hardly more than an informal list, a scrap of paper. in working with it, don't be too careful of appearances. erase, cross out, interline, write in margins, draw lines and arrows to carry portions from one place to another, crowd in at one place, remove from another, cut the paper sheets, paste in new parts, or pin slips together. manipulate your material. mold it to suit your purposes. make it follow your plan. by this you will secure a good plan. if this seems a great deal to do, compare it with the time and energy required to learn how to swim, how to play a musical instrument, how to "shoot" in basketball, how to act a part in a play. knowing how to speak well is worth the effort. every time you plan a speech these steps will merge into a continuous process while you are gathering the material. in informal discussion upon topics you are familiar with, you will become able to arrange a plan while you are rising to your feet. transitions. as this preliminary plan takes its form under your careful consideration of the material you will decide that there are places between topics or sections which will require bridging over in order to attain coherence and emphasis. these places of division should be filled by transitions. a transition is a passage which carries over the meaning from what precedes to what follows. it serves as a connecting link. it prevents the material from falling apart. it preserves the continuity of ideas. a transition may be as short as a single word, such as _however_, _consequently_, _nevertheless_. it may be a sentence. it may grow into a paragraph. the purpose of transitions--to link parts together--may induce beginners to consider them as of little importance since they manifestly add no new ideas to the theme. this opinion is entirely erroneous. even in material for reading, transitions are necessary. in material to be received through the ear they are the most valuable helps that can be supplied to have the listener follow the development. they mark the divisions for him. they show that a certain section is completed and a new one is about to begin. they show the relation in meaning of two portions. the shorter forms of transitions--words and phrases--belong rather to the expression, the language, of the speech than to this preliminary planning. a speaker should never fail to use such phrases as _on the other hand_, _continuing the same line of reasoning_, _passing to the next point_, _from a different point of view_, because they so clearly indicate the relation of two succeeding passages of a speech. in planning, the speaker frequently has to consider the insertion of longer transitions--paragraphs or even more extended passages. just how such links appear in finished speeches the following extracts show. in the first selection washington when he planned his material realized he had reached a place where he could conclude. he wanted to add more. what reason should he offer his audience for violating the principle discussed in the chapter on conclusions? how could he make clear to them his desire to continue? we cannot assert that he actually did this, but he might have jotted down upon the paper bearing a first scheme of his remarks the phrase, "my solicitude for the people." that, then, was the germ of his transition paragraph. notice how clearly the meaning is expressed. could any hearer fail to comprehend? the transition also announces plainly the topic of the rest of the speech. here, perhaps, i ought to stop. but a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. these will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsels. nor can i forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiment on a former and not dissimilar occasion. george washington: _farewell address_, the next selection answers to a part of the plan announced in a passage already quoted in this chapter. notice how this transition looks both backward and forward: it is both retrospective and anticipatory. if you recall that repetition helps to emphasize facts, you will readily understand why a transition is especially valuable if it adheres to the same language as the first statement of the plan. in a written scheme this might have appeared under the entry, "pass from to ; list apologies for crime." this suggests fully the material of the passage. and with this exposure i take my leave of the crime against kansas. emerging from all the blackness of this crime, where we seem to have been lost, as in a savage wood, and turning our backs upon it, as upon desolation and death, from which, while others have suffered, we have escaped, i come now to the apologies which the crime has found.... they are four in number, and fourfold in character. the first is the apology tyrannical; the second, the apology imbecile; the third, the apology absurd; and the fourth, the apology infamous. that is all. tyranny, imbecility, absurdity, and infamy all unite to dance, like the weird sisters, about this crime. the apology tyrannical is founded on the mistaken act of governor reeder, in authenticating the usurping legislature, etc. charles sumner: _the crime against kansas_, the beginning speaker should not hesitate to make his transitions perfectly clear to his audience. when they add to the merely bridging use the additional value of serving as short summaries of what has gone before and as sign posts of what is to follow, they are trebly serviceable. the attempt to be clear will seldom be waste of time or effort. the obvious statements of the preceding selections, the use of figures, are excellent models for speakers to imitate. with practice will come skill in making transitions of different kinds, in which the same purposes will be served in various other ways, in what may be considered more finished style. the next extracts represent this kind of transition. sir, like most questions of civil prudence, this is neither black nor white, but gray. the system of copyright has great advantages and great disadvantages; and it is our business to ascertain what these are, and then to make an arrangement under which the advantages may be as far as possible secured, and the disadvantages as far as possible excluded. the charge which i bring against my honorable and learned friend's bill is this, that it leaves the advantages nearly what they are at present, and increases the disadvantages at least fourfold. thomas b. macaulay: _copyright bill_, one-third of the population of the south is of the negro race. no enterprise seeking the material, civil, or moral welfare of this section can disregard this element of our population and reach the highest success. i but convey to you, mr. president and directors, the sentiment of the masses of my race when i say that in no way have the value and manhood of the american negro been more fittingly and generously recognized than by the managers of this magnificent exposition at every stage of its progress. it is a recognition that will do more to cement the friendship of the two races than any occurrence since the dawn of our freedom. booker t. washington in a speech at the atlanta exposition, thinking before you speak. while students may feel that the steps outlined here demand a great deal of preparation before the final speech is delivered, the explanation may be given that after all, this careful preparation merely carries out the homely adage--think before you speak. if there were more thinking there would be at once better speaking. anybody can talk. the purpose of studying is to make one a better speaker. the anticipation of some relief may be entertained, for it is comforting to know that after one has followed the processes here explained, they move more rapidly, so that after a time they may become almost simultaneous up to the completion of the one just discussed--planning the speech. it is also worth knowing that none of this preliminary work is actually lost. nor is it unseen. it appears in the speech itself. the reward for all its apparent slowness and exacting deliberation is in the clearness, the significance of the speech, its reception by the audience, its effect upon them, and the knowledge by the speaker himself that his efforts are producing results in his accomplishments. all speakers plan carefully for speeches long in advance. a famous alumnus of yale was invited to attend a banquet of harvard graduates. warned that he must "speak for his dinner" he prepared more than a dozen possible beginnings not knowing of course, in what manner the toastmaster would call upon him. the remainder of his speech was as carefully planned, although not with so many possible choices. note that from each possible opening to the body of the speech he had to evolve a graceful transition. edmund burke, in his great speech on conciliation with the american colonies, related that some time before, a friend had urged him to speak upon this matter, but he had hesitated. true, he had gone so far as to throw "my thoughts into a sort of parliamentary form"--that is, he made a plan or an outline, but the passage of a certain bill by the house of commons seemed to have taken away forever the chance of his using the material. the bill, however, was returned from the house of lords with an amendment and in the resulting debate he delivered the speech he had already planned. daniel webster said that his reply to hayne had been lying in his desk for months already planned, merely waiting the opportunity or need for its delivery. henry ward beecher, whose need for preliminary preparation was reduced to its lowest terms, and who himself was almost an instantaneous extemporizer, recognized the need for careful planning by young speakers and warned them against "the temptation to slovenliness in workmanship, to careless and inaccurate statement, to repetition, to violation of good taste." slovenliness in planning is as bad as slovenliness in expression. exercises choose any topic suggested in this book. make a short preliminary plan of a speech upon it. present it to the class. consider it from the following requirements: . does it show clearly its intention? . how long will the speech be? . too long? too short? . for what kind of audience is it intended? . has it unity? . has it coherence? . where are transitions most clearly needed? . what suggestions would you make for rearranging any parts? . what reasons have you for these changes? . is proper emphasis secured? chapter viii making the outline or brief orderly arrangement. a speech should have an orderly arrangement. the effect upon an audience will be more easily made, more deeply impressed, more clearly retained, if the successive steps of the development are so well marked, so plainly related, that they may be carried away in a hearer's understanding. it might be said that one test of a good speech is the vividness with which its framework is discernible. hearers can repeat outlines of certain speeches. those are the best. of others they can give merely confused reports. these are the badly constructed ones. the way to secure in the delivered speech this delight of orderly arrangement is by making an outline or brief. most pupils hate to make outlines. the reason for this repugnance is easily understood. a teacher directs a pupil to make an outline before he writes a composition or delivers a speech. the pupil spends hours on the list of entries, then submits his finished theme or address. he feels that the outline is disregarded entirely. sometimes he is not even required to hand it to the instructor. he considers the time he has spent upon the outline as wasted. it is almost impossible to make him feel that his finished product is all the better because of this effort spent upon the preliminary skeleton, so that in reality his outline is not disregarded at all, but is judged and marked as embodied in the finished article. most students carry this mistaken feeling about outlines to such an extent that when required to hand in both an outline and a finished composition they will write in haphazard fashion the composition first, and then from it try to prepare the outline, instead of doing as they are told, and making the outline first. it is easier--though not as educating or productive of good results--to string words together than it is to do what outline-making demands--to think. professional writers' use of outlines. professional writers realize the helpfulness of outline-making and the time it saves. many a magazine article has been sold before a word of the finished manuscript was written. the contributor submitted an outline from which the editor contracted for the finished production. many a play has been placed in the same form. books are built up in the same manner. the ubiquitous moving-picture scenario is seldom produced in any other manner. macaulay advised a young friend who asked how to keep his brain active to read a couple of solid books, making careful outlines of their material at the same time. one of these should be--if possible--a work in a foreign tongue, so that the strangeness of the language would necessitate slow, careful reading and close thinking. all good students know that the best way to prepare for an examination is to make outlines of all the required reading and study. it is just because the making of the outline demands such careful thinking that it is one of the most important steps in the production of a speech. the outline in the finished speech. if the outline really shows in the finished speech, let us see if we can pick the entries out from a portion of one. edmund burke in tried to prevent great britain from using coercive measures against the restive american colonies. many englishmen were already clamoring for war when burke spoke in parliament upon conciliating the colonies. i am sensible, sir, that all which i have asserted in my detail, is admitted in the gross; but that quite a different conclusion is drawn from it. america, gentlemen say, is a noble object. it is an object well worth fighting for. certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. gentlemen in this respect will be led to their choice of means by their complexions and their habits. those who understand the military art, will of course have some predilection for it. those who wield the thunder of the state, may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms. but i confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management, than of force; considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate connexion with us. first, sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but _temporary_. it may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. my next objection is its _uncertainty_. terror is not always the effect of force; and an armament is not a victory. if you do not succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. a further objection to force is, that you _impair the object_ by your very endeavors to preserve it. the thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. nothing less will content me, than _whole america_. i do not choose to consume its strength along with our own; because in all parts it is the british strength that i consume. i do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less in the midst of it. i may escape; but i can make no assurance against such an event. let me add, that i do not choose wholly to break the american spirit; because it is the spirit that has made the country. lastly, we have no sort of _experience_ in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies. their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. it may be so. but we know if feeling is evidence that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our penitence. these, sir, are my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion of untried force, by which many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in other particulars i have great respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. but there is still behind a third consideration concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the management of america, even more than its population and its commerce, i mean its _temper and character_. edmund burke: _conciliation with america_, reconstructing the outline. in the preliminary arrangement burke knew that he was going to give his reasons against the use of military force. in his first plan he may not have decided just where he was going to place his four arguments. so they very likely appeared as four topic entries: against use of force. . temporary . uncertain . damages america . no experience notice that these are jottings to suggest the germs of the arguments. when burke revised this section he may have changed the expression to indicate more certainty. force should not be used against the colonies, because: . it is only temporary . it is uncertain in its results . it would damage the wealth of the colonies . it is based on no experience of great britain with colonies of course, a practised statesman would not have to analyze farther, perhaps not so far, but to illustrate for a student how he might build up his outline, let us analyze one degree farther. just what is meant by such terms as _temporary, uncertain?_ under each statement, then, might be added a detailed explanation. the finished part of the outline would then appear somewhat like this. force should not be used against the colonies, because: . it is only temporary, for _a._ though it subdue for a time, it would have to be used again. . it is uncertain in its results, for _a._ great britain might not subdue the colonies. . it would damage the wealth of the colonies, for _a._ we would fight to retain a wealthy land, yet after the war we should have a ruined one. . it is based on no experience of great britain with colonies, for _a._ great britain has always been indulgent rather than severely strict. speaking or writing from such a detailed outline as this, consider how much thinking has already been done. with these entries under his eye the speaker need think only of the phrasing of his remarks. he would feel perfectly certain that he would not wander from his theme. notice how the ideas can be emphasized. the suggestion of damage can be expressed in _impair the object_, and in _depreciated, sunk, wasted, consumed_. so far this outline--though it covers all its own material--does not indicate the place at which it shall be used in the speech. it could be used near the conclusion where burke planned to answer all the supporters of plans other than his own. that would be a good place for it. but burke found a better one. he separated this from his other remarks against his opponents, and brought it in much earlier, thereby linking it with what it most concerned, emphasizing it, and disposing of it entirely so far as his speech was concerned. he had just enumerated the wealth of the colonies as represented by their commerce. he knew that the war party would argue, "if america is so wealthy, it is worth fighting for." that was the place, then, to refute them. to introduce his material he had to make clear the transition from the colonial wealth to his arguments. notice how plainly the first paragraph quoted here does this. having given his four reasons against the use of force, notice that he must bring his audience back to the theme he has been discussing. the last paragraph does this in a masterly manner. he has cited two facts about the colonies. to make understanding doubly certain he repeats them--population and commerce--and passes to the next, plainly numbering it as the third. this recital of the process is not an account of what actually took place in burke's preparation, but it will give to the student the method by which great speakers _may_ have proceeded; we do know that many did follow such a scheme. no amateur who wants to make his speeches worth listening to should omit this helpful step of outline or brief making. whether he first writes out his speeches in full, or composes them upon his feet, every speaker should prepare an outline or brief of his material. this is a series of entries, so condensed and arranged as to show the relative significance of all the parts of the speech in the proper order of development. outline, brief, legal brief. an outline contains entries which are merely topics, not completed statements or sentences. a brief contains completed statements (sentences). a legal brief is a formally prepared document (often printed) submitted to a certain court before a case is tried, showing the material the lawyer intends to produce, citing all his authorities, suggesting interpretations of laws and legal decisions to support his contentions, and giving all his conclusions. it is prepared for the use of the court, to reduce the labor in examining records, etc. practice in the drawing up of such briefs is an important phase of legal study. the outline. an outline may recall to a person's mind what he already has learned, but it is seldom definite and informative enough to be as helpful as a brief. a good distinction of the two--besides the one respecting the forms already given--is that the outline represents the point of view of the speaker while the brief represents that of the hearer. consider again the analyses of burke in this chapter. notice that the first list does not give nearly so clear an idea of what burke actually said as the third. a person seeing only the first might _guess_ at what the speaker intended to declare. a person who looked at the third could not fail to _know exactly_ the opinions of the speaker and the arguments supporting them. pupils frequently make this kind of entry: introduction--time place characters the main objections to such an outline are that it tells nothing definite, and that it might fit a thousand compositions. even an outline should say more than such a list does. in one edition of burke's speech the page from which the following is quoted is headed "brief." is it a brief? part ii. how to deal with america. a. introduction. b. first alternative and objections. c. second alternative and objections. d. third alternative. e. introduction. f. considerations. . question one of policy, not of abstract right. . trade laws. . constitutional precedents. . application of these. the brief. one of the shortest briefs on record was prepared by abraham lincoln for use in a suit to recover $ for the widow of a revolutionary veteran from an agent who had retained it out of $ pension money belonging to her. it formed the basis of his speech in court. no contract.--not professional services.--unreasonable charge.--money retained by def't not given to pl'ff.--revolutionary war.--describe valley forge privations.--pl'ff's husband.--soldier leaving for army.--_skin def't_.--close. the following will give some idea of the form and definiteness of briefs for debate. capital punishment _resolved:_ that capital punishment should be abolished.[ ] _brief for the affirmative_ i. capital punishment is inexpedient. (_a_) it is contrary to the tendency of civilization. (_b_) it fails to protect society. ( ) it does not prevent murder. ( ) new crimes follow hard on executions. (_c_) it makes punishment uncertain. ( ) many criminals are acquitted who would be convicted if the penalty were imprisonment. (_d_) it is not reformatory. ii. capital punishment is immoral. (_a_) it rests on the old idea of retribution. (_b_) it tends to weaken the sacredness of human life. (_c_) it endangers the lives of innocent people. (_d_) executions and the sensational newspaper accounts which follow have a corrupting influence. iii. capital punishment is unjust. (_a_) its mistakes are irremediable. (_b_) many men are criminals from force of circumstances. ( ) from heredity. ( ) from environment. (_c_) inequalities in administration are marked. ( ) in some states men are hung, in others imprisoned for the same crime. [footnote : taken from brookings and ringwalt: _briefs for debate_, longmans, green and co., where specific references of material for many of the topics are given, as well as general references for the entire subject.] ( ) many jurors have conscientious scruples against condemning a man to death. ( ) men of wealth and influence are rarely convicted. iv. the abolition of capital punishment has been followed by satisfactory results, (_a_) in europe. ( ) russia. ( ) switzerland. ( ) portugal. ( ) belgium. ( ) holland. ( ) finland. (_b_) in the united states. ( ) michigan. ( ) rhode island. ( ) maine. ( ) wisconsin. _brief for the negative_ i. capital punishment is permissible. (_a_) it has the sanction of the bible. ( ) genesis ix, - . (_b_) it has the sanction of history. ( ) it has been in vogue since the beginning of the world. (_c_) it has the sanction of reason. ( ) the most fitting punishment is one equal and similar to the injury inflicted. ii. capital punishment is expedient. (_a_) it is necessary to protect society from anarchy and private revenge. ( ) death is the strongest preventative of crime. (_b_) no sufficient substitute has been offered. ( ) life imprisonment is a failure. ( ) few serve the sentence. (_c_) its abolition has not been successful. ( ) in rhode island. ( ) in michigan. iii. the objections made to capital punishment are not sound. (_a_) prisons are not reformatory. (_b_) the fact that crimes have decreased in some places where executions have stopped is not a valid argument. ( ) all causes which increase the moral well-being of the race decrease crime. (_c_) the objection that the innocent suffer is not strong. ( ) the number of innocent thus suffering is inconsiderable when compared with the great number of murders prevented. (_d_) the objection that the penalty is uncertain may be overcome by making it certain. a few paragraphs back it was said that an outline or brief shows the relative significance of all the parts of a speech. this is done by a systematic use of margins and symbols. from the quoted forms in this chapter certain rules can easily be deduced. margins. the speech will naturally divide into a few main parts. these can be designated by spaces and general titles such as introduction, body, development, main argument, answer to opposing views, conclusion. other captions will be suggested by various kinds of material. main topics next in importance are placed the farthest to the left, making the first margin. a reader can run his eye down this line and pick out all the main topics of equal importance. entries just subordinate to these are put each on a separate line, starting slightly to the right. this separation according to connection and value is continued as long as the maker has any minor parts to represent in the brief. it should not be carried too far, however, for the purpose of the entries is to mark clearness and accuracy. if the helping system becomes too elaborate and complicated it destroys its own usefulness. it is perfectly plain that such an outline might be made and be quite clear, without the addition of any symbols at all, especially if it was short. discrimination in the use of words is secured by the study of synonyms antonyms homonyms and care in employing them. symbols. some scheme of marking the entries is a great help. there is no fixed system. every student may choose from among the many used. if there are many main topics it might be a mistake to use roman numerals (i, xviii) as few people can read them quickly enough to follow their sequence. capital letters may serve better to mark the sequences, but they do not indicate the numerical position. for instance, most of us do not know our alphabets well enough to translate a main topic marked n into the fourteenth point. by combinations of roman numerals, capitals, usual (arabic) numerals, small letters, parentheses, enough variety to serve any student purpose can easily be arranged. the following are samples of systems used. _specimen_ introduction argument i-------------------------------------------------- a------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- _a_-------------------------------------------- _b_-------------------------------------------- _c_-------------------------------------------- ( )---------------------------------------- ( )---------------------------------------- ( )---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- b------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ii------------------------------------------------- conclusion _specimen_ a-------------------------------------------------- i------------------------------------------------ _a_---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- _b_---------------------------------------------- ii----------------------------------------------- _a_---------------------------------------------- _b_---------------------------------------------- _c_---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- _specimen_ -------------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- _a_^ -------------------------------------------- _b_^ -------------------------------------------- _c_^ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- _a_^ -------------------------------------------- _b_^ -------------------------------------------- _c_^ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- ^ ---------------------------------------------- tabulations. with unusual kinds of material and for special purposes there may be value in evolving other forms of outlines. a technically trained person accustomed to reading tabulated reports with hosts of figures to interpret might find a statistical statement at times better suited to his needs. such tabulations are not any easier to prepare than the regular brief. in fact to most people they are infinitely more difficult to get into form and almost beyond speedy comprehension afterwards. the following is a good illustration of a simple one well adapted to the speaker's purpose--a report of the objections to the first published covenant of the league of nations. he knew the material of his introduction and conclusion so well that he did not represent them in his carefully arranged sheet. the form was submitted as regular work in a public speaking class and was spoken from during more than forty minutes. criticisms of proposed covenant of league of nations .--draft indefinite and loosely written. lg lo sp tt br hu .--should have clause-limiting powers to those specifically granted. lo .--proportion of votes required for action of council not generally stated--should be unanimous. lg sp tt hu .--should have clause reserving the monroe doctrine. lg lo sp tt br hu .--should state that no nation can be required to become a mandatory without its consent. lg lo br hu .--should have provision for withdrawals. lg lo sp tt hu .--jurisdiction of league over internal affairs (immigration, tariffs, coastwise trade) should be expressly excluded. lg br hu .--terms of admission of other nations too strict. br .--basis of representation not fair. br .--provision should be made for expansion of nations by peaceable means. br .--each nation should have right to decide whether it will follow advice of council as to use of force. br .--each nation should have right to determine whether it will boycott delinquent nations. br note:--items and are apparently directed against art. xvi containing the ipso facto clause and art. x. .--should not guarantee the integrity and independence of all members of the league. lg hu above criticisms taken from published statements of messrs. lodge lowell spencer taft bryan hughes (denoted respectively lg, lo, sp, tt, br and hu). authorities in the brief. authorities for the statements made in the brief may be put into parentheses, if they are to be included. such further devices will suggest themselves to students. in addition to such markings as here listed, some men who use many outlines emphasize upon them details which they may have to find quickly by underlining the symbol or first word with colored pencil. such a device is especially valuable to a technical expert whose system could be uniform through the outlines of all his reports, etc. or a lecturer with so much time to fill may mark upon the outline / , / , / , to indicate to himself that his material is being covered at a proper rate to correspond with the time. he might put in _ min._ or _ min._ or _ min._ if he was to speak for an hour. the first division is the better, for he might be required to condense a twenty-minute speech to ten. selections for briefing. before the student makes many briefs of his own he should work in the other direction by outlining material already in existence so that he can be assured he knows main topics from minor ones, important issues from subordinate reasons, headings from examples. if all the members of the class outline the same material the resulting discussion will provide additional exercise in speaking in explanation or support of an interpretation. after the teacher and class together have made one, the students should work independently. exercises besides the extracts quoted here others should be supplied. editorials from a single issue of a newspaper can easily be secured by the entire class for this work. a chapter from a book may be assigned. . incidents of government trading an expert before the president's street railway commission of inquiry testified that he disapproved of public ownership and operation theoretically, but approved it practically, because it was the quickest and surest way of making people sick of it. otherwise he thought that education of the public out of its favor for high costs and low profits by public utilities would require a generation, and the present emergency calls for prompt relief. new york city has just resolved to build with its own funds a coney island bathhouse, and has on file an offer to build it with private money at a cost of $ , , with a guarantee of -cent baths. accepting no responsibility for the merits of the private bidder's proposal, it does not appear likely that the city can supply cheaper baths or give more satisfaction to bathers than a management whose profits were related to its efforts to please patrons. on the other hand, it is sure that the city's financial embarrassment is due to supplying many privileges at the cost of the taxpayers, which might have been supplied both more cheaply and better by private enterprise with profit than by the city without profit, and with the use of ill-spared public funds. new york does not stand alone in these misadventures, which are warnings against trading by either local or national government. take, for example, the manner in which the army is disposing of its surplus blankets, as reported from boston. a chicago firm which wished to bid was permitted to inspect three samples of varying grades, but a guarantee that the goods sold would correspond to the samples was refused. the bales could neither be opened nor allowed to be opened, nor would information be given whether the blankets in the bales were cotton, wool, or mixed, whether single or double, whether bed blankets or regulation army blankets. the likelihood that the government will get the worth of its blankets is small. there may be unknown reasons for such uncommercial procedure, but what shall be said of the fact that at the same time that these blankets are being sold the interior department is asking for bids to supply , blankets for the indians? the reason for buying more when there is an embarrassing over-supply is that the specifications call for the words "interior department" to be woven into the blankets. to an outsider it would seem that the words might be indelibly stamped on the old blankets of similar description, and that the departure from custom would be better than the loss on the old blankets and the increased expenditure for the new blankets. the reason for mentioning such incidents is that there are so many more of which the public never hears. their combined educative effect would be great, but it is wasted without publicity. since the public is not unanimous against public ownership and operation, there must be a considerable number of persons who are proof against anything but a catastrophe greater than the prostration of the railway and utility industries. that is an expansive way of education, but perhaps dr. cooley, dean of the university of michigan, is right in his view that the method is necessary to prevent a greater calamity by persistence in the error. _new york times_, july , . fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived or so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battlefield of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather, to be here dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. abraham lincoln: _gettysburg address_, . every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind must see that such an evil as slavery will yield only to the most radical treatment. if you consider the work we have to do, you will not think us needlessly aggressive, or that we dig down unnecessarily deep in laying the foundations of our enterprise. a money power of two thousand millions of dollars, as the prices of slaves now range, held by a small body of able and desperate men; that body raised into a political aristocracy by special constitutional provisions; cotton, the product of slave labor, forming the basis of our whole foreign commerce, and the commercial class thus subsidized; the press bought up, the pulpit reduced to vassalage, the heart of the common people chilled by a bitter prejudice against the black race; our leading men bribed, by ambition, either to silence or open hostility;--in such a land, on what shall an abolitionist rely? on a few cold prayers, mere lip-service, and never from the heart? on a church resolution, hidden often in its records, and meant only as a decent cover for servility in daily practice? on political parties, with their superficial influence at best, and seeking ordinarily only to use existing prejudices to the best advantage? slavery has deeper root here than any aristocratic institution has in europe; and politics is but the common pulse-beat, of which revolution is the fever-spasm. yet we have seen european aristocracy survive storms which seemed to reach down to the primal strata of european life. shall we, then, trust to mere politics, where even revolution has failed? how shall the stream rise above its fountain? where shall our church organizations or parties get strength to attack their great parent and moulder, the slave power? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? the old jest of one who tried to lift himself in his own basket, is but a tame picture of the man who imagines that, by working solely through existing sects and parties, he can destroy slavery. mechanics say nothing, but an earthquake strong enough to move all egypt can bring down the pyramids. experience has confirmed these views. the abolitionists who have acted on them have a "short method" with all unbelievers. they have but to point to their own success, in contrast with every other man's failure. to waken the nation to its real state, and chain it to the consideration of this one duty, is half the work. so much have we done. slavery has been made the question of this generation. to startle the south to madness, so that every step she takes, in her blindness, is one step more toward ruin, is much. this we have done. witness texas and the fugitive slave law. wendell phillips: _the abolition movement_, . until just a few years ago flying was popularly regarded as a dangerous hobby and comparatively few had faith in its practical purposes. but the phenomenal evolutions of the aircraft industry during the war brought progress which would otherwise have required a span of years. with the cessation of hostilities considerable attention has been diverted to the commercial uses of aircraft, which may conveniently be classified as mail-and passenger-service. men who first ventured the prediction that postal and express matter would one day be carried through the air were branded as dreamers. parts of that dream became a reality during , and a more extensive aerial-mail program will be adopted this year. the dispatch with which important communications and parcels are delivered between large cities has firmly established its need. large passenger-carrying aircraft are now receiving pronounced attention. lately developed by the navy is a flying-boat having a wing area of , square feet, equipped with three liberty motors and weighing , pounds with a full load. it is the largest seaplane in the world, and on a recent test-trip from virginia to new york carried fifty-one passengers. at the present moment the public is awaiting the thrilling details of the first flight between europe and america, which has just occurred as a result of the keen international rivalry involved between the various entrants. the british are now constructing a super-triplane fitted with six horse-power engines. originally intended to carry , pounds of bombs and a crew of eight over a distance of , miles, the converted machine is claimed to be able to carry approximately one hundred passengers. it has a wing span of feet and a fuselage length of feet. what about the power plants of the future aircraft? will the internal-combustion engine continue to reign supreme, or will increasing power demands of the huge planes to come lead to the development of suitable steam-engines? will the use of petroleum continue to be one of the triumphs of aviation, or will the time come when substitutes may be successfully utilized? for aerial motive-power, the principal requirements are: great power for weight with a fairly high factor of safety, compactness, reliability of operation under flying conditions, and safety from fire. bulk and weight of steam-driven equipment apparently impose severe restrictions upon its practical development for present aircraft purposes, but who is willing to classify its future use as an absurdity? steam operation in small model airplanes is no innovation. langley, in - , built four model airplanes, one driven by carbonic-acid gas and three by steam-engines. one of the steam-driven models weighed thirty pounds, and on one occasion flew a distance of about three thousand feet. in an englishman constructed a power plant weighing about two pounds which consisted of a flash boiler and single-acting engine. this unit employed benzolin, impure benzine, as fuel, and propelled a model plane weighing five pounds. _power plant engineering_, chicago, june , making a brief. the next step after making outlines or briefs of material already organized is to make your own from material you gather. speeches you have already prepared or considered as fit for presentation will supply you with ideas if you cannot work up new material in a short time. at first you will be more concerned with the form than the meaning of the entries, but even from the first you should consider the facts or opinions for which each topic or statement stands. weigh its importance in the general scheme of details. consider carefully its suitability for the audience who may be supposed to hear the finished speech. discard the inappropriate. replace the weak. improve the indefinite. be sure your examples and illustrations are apt. be wary about statistics. in listening to an address many people begin to distrust as soon as figures are mentioned. statistics will illustrate and prove assertions, but they must be used judiciously. do not use too many statistics. never be too detailed. in a speech, $ , , sounds more impressive than $ , , . . use round numbers. never let them stand alone. show their relationship. burke quotes exact amounts to show the growth of the commerce of pennsylvania, but he adds that it had increased fifty fold. a hearer will forget the numbers; he will remember the fact. similar reasons will warn you concerning the use of too many dates. they can be easily avoided by showing lapses of time--by saying, "fifty years later," or "when he was forty-six years old," or "this condition was endured only a score of months." the chapters on introductions, conclusions, and planning material will have suggested certain orders for your briefs. glance back at them for hints before you attempt to make the general scheme. let two factors determine your resultant development--the nature of the material itself and the effect you want to produce. in argumentative speeches a usual, as well as excellent, order is this: . origin of the question. the immediate cause for discussion. . history of the question. . definition of terms. . main arguments. . conclusion. why is the proposition worth discussing at this present time? why do you choose it? why is it timely? what is its importance? why is a settlement needed? any of these would fall under the first heading. has the matter engaged attention prior to the present? has it changed? was any settlement ever attempted? what was its result? are any of the words and phrases used likely to be misunderstood? are any used in special senses? do all people accept the same meaning? good illustrations of this last are the ideas attached to _socialism_, _anarchist_, _soviet_, _union_. to illustrate: the question of woman suffrage was brought into public interest once more by the advance woman has made in all walks of life and by the needs and lessons of the great war. to make clear how its importance had increased a speaker might trace its history from its first inception. as applied to women, what does "suffrage" mean exactly--the right to vote in all elections, or only in certain ones? does it carry with it the right to hold office? would the voting qualifications be the same for women as for men? then would follow the arguments. how could this scheme be used for a discussion of the monroe doctrine? for higher education? for education for girls? for child working laws? for a league of nations? for admitting asiatic laborers to the united states? for advocating the study of the sciences? for urging men to become farmers? for predicting aerial passenger service? for a scholarship qualification in athletics? for abolishing railroad grade crossings? for equal wages for men and women? exercises make the completed brief for one or more of the preceding. briefs should be made for propositions selected from the following list. . the president of the united states should be elected by the direct vote of the people. . the states should limit the right of suffrage to persons who can read and write. . the president of the united states should be elected for a term of seven years, and be ineligible to reëlection. . a great nation should be made the mandatory over an inferior people. . students should be allowed school credit for outside reading in connection with assigned work, or for editing of school papers, or for participation in dramatic performances. . this state should adopt the "short ballot." . the present rules of football are unsatisfactory. . coaching from the bench should be forbidden in baseball. . compulsory military drill should be introduced into all educational institutions. . participation in athletics lowers the scholarship of students. . pupils should receive credit in school for music lessons outside. . the united states should abandon the monroe doctrine. . in jury trials, a three-fourths vote should be enough for the rendering of a verdict. . strikes are unprofitable. . commercial courses should be offered in all high schools. . employers of children under sixteen should be required to provide at least eight hours of instruction a week for them. . current events should be studied in all history or civics courses. . the practice of christmas giving should be discontinued. . school buildings should be used as social centers. . bring to class an editorial and an outline of it. put the outline upon the board, or read it to the class. then read the editorial. speaking from the brief. now that the brief is finished so that it represents exactly the material and development of the final speech, how shall it be used? to use it as the basis of a written article to be memorized is one method. many speakers have employed such a method, many today do. the drawbacks of such memorizing have already been hinted at in an early chapter. if you want to grow in mental grasp, alertness, and power as a result of your speech training avoid this method. no matter how halting your first attempts may be, do not get into the seemingly easy, yet retarding habit of committing to memory. memorizing has a decided value, but for speech-making the memory should be trained for larger matters than verbal reproduction. it should be used for the retention of facts while the other brain faculties are engaged in manipulating them for the best effect and finding words to express them forcefully. memory is a helpful faculty. it should be cultivated in connection with the powers of understanding and expression, but it is not economical to commit a speech verbatim for delivery. the remarks will lack flexibility, spontaneity, and often direct appeal. there is a detached, mechanical air about a memorized speech which helps to ruin it. with the outline before you, go over it carefully and slowly, mentally putting into words and sentences the entries you have inserted. you may even speak it half aloud to yourself, if that fixes the treatment more firmly in your mind. then place the brief where you can reach it with your eye, and speak upon your feet. some teachers recommend doing this before a mirror, but this is not always any help, unless you are conscious of awkward poses or gestures or movements, or facial contortions. say the speech over thus, not only once but several times, improving the phraseology each time, changing where convenient or necessary, the emphasis, the amount of time, for each portion. self-criticism. try to criticize yourself. this is not easy at first, but if you are consistent and persistent in your efforts you will be able to judge yourself in many respects. if you can induce some friend whose opinion is worth receiving either to listen to your delivery or to talk the whole thing over with you, you will gain much. in conference with the teacher before your delivery of the speech such help will be given. as you work over your brief in this manner you will be delighted to discover suddenly that you need refer to it less and less frequently. finally, the outline will be in your mind, and when you speak you can give your entire attention to the delivery and the audience. do not be discouraged if you cannot retain all the outline the first times you try this method. many a speaker has announced in his introduction, "i shall present four reasons," and often has sat down after discussing only three. until you can dispense entirely with the brief keep it near you. speak from it if you need it. portions which you want to quote exactly (such as quotations from authorities) may be memorized or read. in reading be sure you read remarkably well. few people can read interestingly before a large audience. keep your papers where you can get at them easily. be careful not to lose your place so that you will have to shuffle them to get the cue for continuing. pauses are not dangerous when they are made deliberately for effect, but they are ruinous when they betray to the audience forgetfulness or embarrassment on the part of the speaker. anticipate your need. get your help before you actually need it, so that you can continue gracefully. results. this method, followed for a few months, will develop speaking ability. it produces results suited to modern conditions of all kinds of life. it develops practically all the mental faculties and personal attributes. it puts the speaker directly in touch with his audience. it permits him to adapt his material to an occasion and audience. it gives him the opportunity to sway his hearers and used legitimately for worthy ends, this is the most worthy purpose of any speech. chapter ix explaining the part which explanation plays in all phases of life is too apparent to need any emphasis here. it is to a great extent the basis of all our daily intercourse, from explaining to a teacher why a lesson has not been prepared, to painstakingly explaining to a merchant why a bill has not been paid. an instructor patiently explains a problem to a class, and a merchant explains the merits of an article or the operation of a device to his customers. the politician explains why he should be elected. the financier explains the returns from stock and bond purchases. the president explains to the senate the reason for treaty clauses. the minister explains the teachings of his faith to his congregation. you can make this list as long as the varied activities of all life. exposition. this kind of discourse, the purpose of which is explanation, is also called exposition. has it any relation to the underlying idea of the term _exposition_ as applied to a great exhibition or fair? its purpose is plainly information, the transmission of knowledge. while description and narration exist primarily to entertain, exposition exists to convey information. description and narration may be classed as literature of entertainment; exposition as literature of knowledge. it answers such questions as how? why? for what purpose? in what manner? by what method? it can sometimes be used to convince a person with opposing views, for frequently you hear a man to whom the explanation of a belief has been made, exclaim, "oh, if that's what you mean, i agree with you entirely." all instruction, all directions of work, all scientific literature, are in foundation expository. in its simplest, most disconnected form, exposition gives its value to that most essential volume, the dictionary. make a list of other kinds of books which are mainly or entirely expository in character. difficulties in exposition. such are the purpose and use of exposition. the difficulty of producing good exposition is evident from those two factors. as it, exists everywhere, as it purposes to inform, its first requisite is clearness. without that quality it is as nothing. when you direct a stranger how to reach a certain building in your town, of what value are your remarks unless they are clear? when a scientist writes a treatise on the topic of the immortality of man, of what value are his opinions unless his statements are clear? all the other qualities which prose may and should possess sink into subordinate value in exposition when compared with clearness. because of all three phases of exposition--its universal use, its informative purpose, its essential clarity--exposition is an all-important topic for the consideration and practice of the public speaker. in its demand for clearness lies also its difficulty. is it easy to tell the exact truth, not as a moral exercise, but merely as a matter of exactness? why do the careless talkers speak so often of "a sort of pink" or "a kind of revolving shaft" or tack on at the end of phrases the meaningless "something" or "everything" except that even in their unthinking minds there is the hazy impression--they really never have a well-defined idea--that they have not said exactly what they want to say? clear understanding. here then is the first requisite for the public speaker. he must have no hazy impressions, no unthinking mind, no ill-defined ideas, no inexactness. he must have a clear understanding of all he tries to tell to others. without this the words of a speaker are as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. or he may deliver a great roar of words signifying nothing. this is the fault with most recitations of pupils in school--they do not get a clear understanding of the material assigned to them for mastery. as a test of the degree of understanding, the recitation method serves admirably. the lecture method of instruction--clear though the presentation may be--offers no manner of finding out, until the final examination, how much the pupil actually understands. so far, in public speaking, the only way of learning that the student understands the principles and can apply them is to have him speak frequently to indicate his ability. can you not name among your associates and friends those whose explanations are lucid, concise, direct, unconfusing, and others whose attempts at exposition are jumbled, verbose, unenlightening? have you not criticized certain teachers by remarking "they may know their own subjects all right, but they couldn't impart their knowledge to the class"? command of language. what was lacking in their case? certainly, to be charitable, we cannot say they lacked a clear understanding of their own topic. it must have been something else. that second element, which is at times almost entirely absent when the first is present, is the command of language. many a man knows a great deal but is incapable of transmitting his knowledge. he lacks the gift of expression. he has not cultivated it--for it can be cultivated. the man whose desire or vocation forces him to make the effort to speak will train himself in methods of communication, until he arrives at comfort and fluency. the district manager of a large electric company related that as he would sit at a meeting of the directors or committee of a large corporation and realized that the moment was approaching when he would be called upon to speak he would feel his senses grow confused, a sinking feeling amounting almost to faintness would sweep over him. strong in his determination to do the best he could for his company he would steady his nerves by saying to himself, "you know more about this matter than any of these men. that's why you are here. tell them what you know so plainly that they will understand as well as you do." there was, you see, the reassurance of complete understanding of the subject coupled with the endeavor to express it clearly. these two elements, then, are of supreme significance to the public speaker. even to the person who desires to write well, they are all-important. to the speaker they are omnipresent. the effect of these two upon the intellectual development is marked. the desire for clear understanding will keep the mind stored with material to assimilate and communicate. it will induce the mind continually to manipulate this material to secure clarity in presentation. this will result in developing a mental adroitness of inestimable value to the speaker, enabling him to seize the best method instantaneously and apply it to his purposes. at the same time, keeping always in view the use of this material as the basis of communicating information or convincing by making explanations, he will be solicitous about his language. words will take on new values. he will be continually searching for new ones to express the exact differences of ideas he wants to convey. he will try different expressions, various phrases, changed word orders, to test their efficacy and appropriateness in transferring his meaning to his hearers. suggestions offered in the chapter of this book on words and sentences will never cease to operate in his thinking and speaking. there will be a direct result in his ability as a speaker and a reflex result upon his ability as a thinker. what is more encouraging, he will realize and appreciate these results himself, and his satisfaction in doing better work will be doubled by the delight in knowing exactly how he secured the ends for which he strove. methods of explaining. in order to make a matter clear, to convey information, a speaker has at his disposal many helpful ways of arranging his material. not all topics can be treated in all or even any certain one of the following manners, but if the student is familiar with certain processes he will the more easily and surely choose just that one suited to the topic he intends to explain and the circumstances of his exposition. division. one of these methods is by division. a speaker may separate a topic or term into the parts which comprise it. for instance, a scientist may have to list all the kinds of electricity; a red cross instructor may divide all bandages into their several kinds; an athletic coach may have to explain all the branches of sports in order to induce more candidates to appear for certain events; a banker may have to divide financial operations to make clear an advertising pamphlet soliciting new lines of business, such as drawing up of wills. the ability to do this is a valuable mental accomplishment as well as an aid to speaking. in dividing, care must be taken to make the separations according to one principle for any one class. it would not result in clearness to divide all men according to height, and at the same time according to color. this would result in confusion. divide according to height first, then divide the classes so formed according to color if needed--as might be done in military formation. each group, then, must be distinctly marked off from all other groups. in scientific and technical matters such division may be carried to the extreme limit of completeness. complete division is called classification. partition. in non-scientific compositions such completeness is seldom necessary. it might even defeat the purpose by being too involved, by including too many entries, and by becoming difficult to remember. speakers seldom have need of classification, but they often do have to make divisions for purposes of explanation. this kind of grouping is called partition. it goes only so far as is necessary for the purpose at the time. it may stop anywhere short of being complete and scientifically exact. all members of the large class not divided and listed are frequently lumped together under a last heading such as _all others, miscellaneous, the rest, those not falling under our present examination_. exercises . classify games. which principle will you use for your first main division--indoor and outdoor games, or winter and summer games, or some other? . classify the races of men. what principle would you use? . how would you arrange the books in a private library? . classify the forms of theatrical entertainments. is your list complete? . classify branches of mathematics. the entries may total over a hundred. . classify the pupils in your school. . classify the people in your school. is there any difference? . classify the following: the political parties of the country. methods of transportation. religions. magazines. the buildings in a city. aircraft. desserts. canned goods. skill in division is valuable not only as a method of exposition but it is linked closely with an effective method of proving to be explained in the next chapter--the method of residues. can you recall any extracts given in this book in which some form of division is used? is this form of material likely to be more important in preparation or in the finished speech? explain your opinion--in other words, present a specimen of exposition. definition. one of the simplest ways of explaining is to define a term. dictionary definitions are familiar to everyone. in a great many instances the dictionary definition is by means of synonyms. while this is a convenient, easy method it is seldom exact. why? recall what you learned concerning the meanings of synonyms. do they ever exactly reproduce one another's meanings? there is always a slight degree of inaccuracy in definition by synonym, sometimes a large margin of inexactness. is the following a good definition? a visitor to a school began his address: "this morning, children, i propose to offer you an epitome of the life of st. paul. it may be perhaps that there are among you some too young to grasp the meaning of the word _epitome_. _epitome_, children, is in its signification synonymous with synopsis!" london tid-bits logical definition. an exact definition is supplied by the logical definition. in this there are three parts--the term to be defined, the class (or genus) to which it belongs, and the distinguishing characteristics (differentia) which mark it off from all the other members of that same class. you can represent this graphically by inclosing the word _term_ in a small circle. around this draw a larger circle in which you write the word _class_. now what divides the term from the class in which it belongs? indicate the line around the _term_ as _distinguishing characteristics_, and you will clearly see how accurate a logical definition is. the class should be just larger than the term itself. the main difficulty is in finding exact and satisfying distinguishing characteristics. there are some terms which are so large that no classes can be found for them. others cannot be marked by acceptable distinguishing characteristics, so it is not possible to make logical definitions for all terms. consider such words as _infinity, electricity, gravity, man_. the words of the definition should be simple, more readily understood than the term to be defined. term class distinguishing characteristics a biplane is an airplane with two sets of supporting surfaces. a waitress is a woman who serves meals. narration is that form of discourse which relates events. a word is a combination of suggesting an idea. letters a dictionary is a book of definitions. a corporal is an army officer just higher than a private. exercises . make logical definitions for the following: a dynamo a circle a hammer a curiosity lightning a trip-hammer moving picture camera democracy a lady curiosity an anarchist a lady a door a sky-scraper man . analyze and comment on the following definitions: man is a two-legged animal without feathers. life is an epileptic fit between two nothings. genius is an infinite capacity for taking pains. the picture writings of the ancient egyptians are called hieroglyphics. a fly is an obnoxious insect that disturbs you in the morning when you want to sleep. real bravery is defeated cowardice. a brigantine is a small, two-masted vessel, square rigged on both masts, but with a fore-and-aft mainsail and the mainmast considerably longer than the foremast. a mushroom is a cryptogamic plant of the class _fungi_; particularly the agaricoid fungi and especially the edible forms. language is the means of concealing thought. a rectangle of equal sides is a square. hyperbole is a natural exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis. amplified definition. while such definitions are the first positions from which all interpretations must proceed, in actual speech-making explanations of terms are considerably longer. yet the form of the true logical definition is always imbedded--in germ at least--in the amplified statement. again, democracy will be, in a large sense, individualistic. that ideal of society which seeks a disciplined, obedient people, submissive to government and unquestioning in its acceptance of orders, is not a democratic ideal. you cannot have an atmosphere of "implicit obedience to authority" and at the same time and in the same place an atmosphere of democratic freedom. there is only one kind of discipline that is adequate to democracy and that is self-discipline. an observant foreigner has lately remarked, somewhat paradoxically, that the americans seemed to him the best disciplined people in the world. in no other country does a line form itself at a ticket office or at the entrance to a place of amusement with so little disorder, so little delay, and so little help from a policeman. in no other country would an appeal of the government for self-control in the use of food or fuel, for a restriction of hours of business, for "gas-less sundays," have met with so ready, so generous and so sufficient a response. our american lads, alert, adaptable, swiftly-trained, self-directed, have been quite the equal of the continental soldiers, with their longer technical training and more rigorous military discipline. in these respects the english, and especially the british colonial soldiers have been much like our own. democracy, whether for peace or for war, in america or in england, favors individuality. independence of thought and action on the part of the mass of the people are alike the result of democracy and the condition of its continuance and more complete development, and it is visibly growing in england as the trammels of old political and social class control are being thrown off. edward p. cheyney: _historical tests of democracy_ what is a constitution? certainly not a league, compact, or confederacy, but a fundamental law. that fundamental regulation which determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the constitution of a state. those primary rules which concern the body itself, and the very being of the political society, the form of government, and the manner in which power is to be exercised--all, in a word, which form together the constitution of a state--these are the fundamental laws. this, sir, is the language of the public writers. but do we need to be informed, in this country, what a constitution is? is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and well settled? we are at no loss to understand what is meant by the constitution of one of the states; and the constitution of the united states speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature. daniel webster: _the constitution not a compact between sovereign states_, particulars of a general statement. a general statement made at the beginning of a paragraph or section, serving as the topic sentence, may then be explained by breaking the general idea up into details and particulars. this may partake of the nature of both definition and partition, as the terms may be explained and their component parts listed. note that in the following selection the first sentences state the topic of the passage which the succeeding sentences explain by discussing the phrase _variety of evils_. so likewise a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. it leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld, and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation. george washington: _farewell address_, examples. a statement may be explained by giving examples. the speaker must be sure that his example fits the case exactly; that it is typical--that is, it must serve as a true instance of all cases under the statement, not be merely an exception; that it is perfectly clear; that it impresses the audience as unanswerable. the example may be either actual or suppositious, but it must illustrate clearly and accurately. the use of examples is a great aid in explanation. john c. calhoun expressed the value very distinctly in one of his speeches. i know how difficult it is to communicate distinct ideas on such a subject, through the medium of general propositions, without particular illustration; and in order that i may be distinctly understood, though at the hazard of being tedious, i will illustrate the important principle which i have ventured to advance, by examples. by the use of an example he does make himself distinctly understood. let us, then, suppose a small community of five persons, separated from the rest of the world; and, to make the example strong, let us suppose them all to be engaged in the same pursuit, and to be of equal wealth. let us further suppose that they determine to govern the community by the will of a majority; and, to make the case as strong as possible, let us suppose that the majority, in order to meet the expenses of the government, lay an equal tax, say of one hundred dollars on each individual of this little community. their treasury would contain five hundred dollars. three are a majority; and they, by supposition, have contributed three hundred as their portion, and the other two (the minority), two hundred. the three have the right to make the appropriations as they may think proper. the question is, how would the principle of the absolute and unchecked majority operate, under these circumstances, in this little community? john c. calhoun: _speech on the force bill_, the example should be taken from the same phase of life as the proposition it explains. as calhoun was discussing governmental regulation he supposed an example from majority rule. in the next the topic is copyright, so the illustration is not taken from patents. in introducing your own examples avoid the trite, amateurish expression "take, for instance." now, this is the sort of boon which my honorable and learned friend holds out to authors. considered as a boon to them, it is a mere nullity; but, considered as an impost on the public, it is no nullity, but a very serious and pernicious reality. i will take an example. dr. johnson died fifty-six years ago. if the law were what my honorable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of dr. johnson's works. who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we may venture to guess. i guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from black frank, the doctor's servant and residuary legatee, in or . now, would the knowledge that this copyright would exist in have been a source of gratification to johnson? would it have stimulated his exertions? would it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon? would it have once cheered him under a fit of the spleen? would it have induced him to give us one more allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of juvenal? i firmly believe not. i firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was writing our debates for the _gentleman's magazine_, he would very much rather have had twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a cook's shop underground. thomas babington macaulay: _copyright_, comparison. unfamiliar matter may be made plain by showing how it resembles something already clearly understood by the audience. this is comparison. it shows how two things are alike. the old geographies used to state that the earth is an oblate spheroid, then explain that term by comparison with an orange, pointing out the essential flattening at the poles. in any use of comparison the resemblance must be real, not assumed. many a speaker has been severely criticized for his facts because he asserted in comparison similarities that did not exist. contrast. when the _differences_ between two things are carefully enumerated the process is termed contrast. this is often used in combination with comparison, for no two things are exactly alike. they may resemble each other in nearly all respects, so comparison is possible and helpful up to a certain limit. to give an exact idea of the remainder the differences must be pointed out; that requires contrast. in contrast the opposing balance of details does not have to depend necessarily on a standard familiar to the audience. it may be an arrangement of opposite aspects of the same thing to bring out more vividly the understanding. in his _history of the english people_, green explains the character of queen elizabeth by showing the contrasted elements she inherited from her mother, anne boleyn, and her father, henry viii. such a method results not only in added clearness, but also in emphasis. the plan may call for half a paragraph on one side, the second half on the other; or it may cover two paragraphs or sections; or it may alternate with every detail--an affirmative balanced by a negative, followed at once by another pair of affirmative and negative, or statement and contrast, and so on until the end. the speaker must consider such possibilities of contrast, plan for his own, and indicate it in his brief. nearly any speech will provide illustrations of the methods of comparison and contrast. burke's _conciliation with america_ has several passages of each. cause to effect. explanations based on progressions from cause to effect and the reverse are admirably suited to operations, movements, changes, conditions, elections. an exposition of a manufacturing process might move from cause to effect. a legislator trying to secure the passage of a measure might explain its operation by beginning with the law (the cause) and tracing its results (the effect). so, too, a reformer might plead for a changed condition by following the same method. a speaker dealing with history or biography might use this same plan. effect to cause. in actual events, the cause always precedes the effect, but in discussion it is sometimes better not to follow natural or usual orders. many explanations gain in clearness and effect by working backwards. a voter might begin by showing the condition of a set of workmen (an effect), then trace conditions backward until he would end with a plea for the repeal of a law (the cause). a student might explain a low mark on his report by starting with the grading (the effect) and tracing backwards all his struggles to an early absence by which he missed a necessary explanation by the teacher. a doctor might begin a report by stating the illness of several persons with typhus; then trace preceding conditions step by step until he reached the cause--oysters eaten by them in a hotel were kept cool by a dealer's letting water run over them. this water in its course had picked up the disease germs--the cause. many crimes are solved by moving from effect to cause. a lawyer in his speeches, therefore, frequently follows this method. both these methods are so commonly employed that the student can cite instances from many speeches he has heard or books he has read. time order. somewhat similar to the two preceding arrangements of exposition are the next two based on time. the first of these is the natural time order, or chronological order. in this the details follow one another as events happened. it is to be noted, however, that not any group of succeeding details will make a good exposition of this sort. the parts must be closely related. they must be not merely _sequential_ but _consequential_. dictionary definitions will explain the difference in meaning of those two words. this method is somewhat like the order from cause to effect, but it is adapted to other kinds of topics and other purposes of explanation. it is excellently suited to historical material, or any related kind. it is the device usually employed in explaining mechanical or manufacturing processes. in mere frequency of occurrence it is doubtlessly the most common. time order reversed. the student who starts to cast his expositions into this scheme should judge its fitness for his particular purpose at the time. it will often become apparent upon thought that instead of the natural chronological order the exact opposite will suit better. this--time order reversed--explains itself as the arrangement from the latest occurrence back through preceding events and details until the earliest time is reached. it is quite like the arrangement from effect back to cause. it might be used to explain the legal procedure of a state or nation, to explain treaty relations, to explain the giving up of old laws. the movements of a man accused of crime might be explained in this way. an alibi for a person might be built up thus. the various versions of some popular story told over and over again through a long period of years might be explained after such a manner. although the time order reversed is not so common as the chronological order it does occur many times. place. certain material of exposition demands the order of place. this means that the details of the explanation are arranged according to the position of objects. if you have written many descriptions you are familiar with the problems brought up by such an order. a few illustrations will make it clear. a man on the street asks you how to reach a certain point in the city. on what plan do you arrange your directions? according to their place? you start to explain to a friend the general lay-out of new york, or chicago, or san francisco. how do you arrange the details of your exposition? you attempt to convey to another person the plan of some large building. what arrangement is inevitable? how do books on sports explain the baseball field, the football gridiron, the tennis court, the golf links? when specifications for a building are furnished to the contractor, what principle of arrangement is followed? if an inventor gives instructions to a pattern-maker for the construction of a model, what plan does he follow? would a man discussing drawings for a new house be likely to formulate his explanations on this scheme? you see, then, how well suited such an arrangement is to a variety of uses. in such expository passages the transition and connecting words are mainly expressions of place and relative position such as _to the right, above, below, to the rear, extending upwards at an angle of sixty degrees, dividing equally into three sections._ such indications must never be slighted in spoken explanations. they keep the material clear and exact in the hearer's comprehension. the speaker, remember, can never assume that his audience is bound to understand him. his task is to be so clear that no single individual can fail to understand him. importance. it has already been stated--in the chapter on planning--that topics may be arranged in the order of their importance. this same scheme may be used in delivery of expository matter. a hearer will follow the explanation if he be led gradually up the ascent; he will remember most clearly the latter part of the passage. if this include the prime factor of the information he will retain it longest and most clearly. you should listen to speeches of explanations critically to judge whether the plans are good. should you make a list of the number of times any of the plans here set down appears you will be struck by the fact that while other orders are quite frequent, this last principle of leading up to the most important outranks all the others. it may be simply a form of one of the others previously enumerated in which time order, or contrast, or cause to effect is followed simply because that does bring the most important last in the discussion. such an arrangement answers best to the response made to ideas by people in audiences. it is a principle of all attempts to instruct them, to appeal to them, to stimulate them, to move them, that the successive steps must increase in significance and impressiveness until the most moving details be laid before them. analyze for yourself or for the class a few long explanations you have listened to, and report whether this principle was followed. does it bear any relation to concluding a speech with a peroration? combinations of methods. while any one of the foregoing methods may be used for a single passage it is not usual in actual practice to find one scheme used throughout all the explanatory matter of the speech. in the first place, the attention of the audience would very likely become wearied by the monotony of such a device. certain parts of the material under explanation seem to require one treatment, other portions require different handling. therefore good speakers usually combine two or more of these plans. partition could hardly be used throughout an entire speech without ruining its interest. it occurs usually early to map out the general field or scope. definition also is likely to be necessary at the beginning of an explanation to start the audience with clear ideas. it may be resorted to at various times later whenever a new term is introduced with a meaning the audience may not entirely understand. both partition and definition are short, so they are combined with other forms. examples, likewise, may be introduced anywhere. the two most frequently closely combined are comparison and contrast. each seems to require the other. having shown how two things or ideas are alike, the speaker naturally passes on to secure more definiteness by showing that with all their likenesses they are not exactly the same, and that the differences are as essential to a clear comprehension of them as the similarities. so usual are they that many people accept the two words as meaning almost the same thing, though in essence they are opposites. the other orders cannot be used in such close combinations but they may be found in varying degrees in many extended speeches of explanation as the nature of the material lends itself to one treatment or another. a twelve-hundred word discussion of _the future of food_ uses examples, contrasted examples, effect to cause, cause to effect (the phrase beginning a paragraph is "there is already evidence that this has resulted in a general lowering "), while the succeeding parts grow in significance until the last is the most important. a great english statesman in a speech lasting some three hours on a policy of government employed the following different methods at various places where he introduced expository material--partition (he claimed it was classification, but he listed for consideration only three of the essential five choices), contrast, comparison, time, example, place, cause to effect. some of these methods of arranging explanatory matter were used several times. exercises . explain a topic by giving three examples. the class should comment upon their value. . explain to the class some mechanical operation or device. the class after listening should decide which method the speaker used. . explain some principle of government or society following the time order. . with a similar topic follow time reversed. . with a similar topic use comparison only. . follow an arrangement based on contrast only. . in explaining a topic combine comparison and contrast. . explain some proverb, text, or quotation. the class should discuss the arrangement. . choose some law or government regulation. condemn or approve it in an explanation based on cause to effect. . with the same or a similar topic use effect to cause. . explain to the class the plan of some large building or group of buildings. is your explanation easily understood? . explain why a certain study fits one for a particular vocation. use the order of importance. . give an idea of two different magazines, using comparison and contrast. . explain some game. time order? . how is a jury trial conducted? . explain the principles of some political party. . speak for four minutes upon exercise in a gymnasium. . tell how a school paper, or daily newspaper, or magazine is conducted. . what is slang? . explain one of your hobbies. . classify and explain the qualities of a good speaker. order of importance? . explain some natural phenomenon. . explain the best method for studying. . contrast business methods. . from some business (as stock selling) or industry (as automobile manufacturing) or new vocation (as airplaning) or art (as acting) or accomplishment (as cooking) choose a group of special terms and explain them in a connected series of remarks. . why is superstition so prevalent? the class should discuss the explanations presented. . "the point that always perplexes me is this: i always feel that if all the wealth was shared out, it would be all the same again in a few years' time. no one has ever explained to me how you can get over that." explain clearly one of the two views suggested here. . explain the failure of some political movement, or the defeat of some nation. . select a passage from some book, report, or article, couched in intricate technical or specialized phraseology. explain it clearly to the class. . ben jonson, a friend of shakespeare's, wrote of him, "he was not of an age, but for all time." what did he mean? chapter x proving and persuading what argumentation is. it is an old saying that there are two sides to every question. any speaker who supports some opinion before an audience, who advances some theory, who urges people to do a certain thing, to vote a certain way, to give money for charitable purposes, recognizes the opposite side. in trying to make people believe as he believes, to induce them to act as he advises, he must argue with them. argumentation, as used in this book, differs widely from the informal exchange of opinions and views indulged in across the dinner table or on the trolley car. it does not correspond with the usual meaning of argue and argument which both so frequently suggest wrangling and bickering ending in ill-tempered personal attacks. argumentation is the well-considered, deliberate means employed to convince others of the truth or expediency of the views advocated by the speaker. its purpose is to carry conviction to the consciousness of others. this is its purpose. its method is proof. proof is the body of facts, opinions, reasons, illustrations, conclusions, etc., properly arranged and effectively presented which makes others accept as true or right the proposition advanced by the speaker. of course, argumentation may exist in writing but as this volume is concerned with oral delivery, the word speaker is used in the definition. so much for the purpose and nature of argumentation. use of argumentation. where is it used? everywhere, in every form of human activity. argumentation is used by a youngster trying to induce a companion to go swimming and by a committee of world statesmen discussing the allotment of territory. in business a man uses it from the time he successfully convinces a firm it should employ him as an office boy until he secures the acceptance of his plans for a combination of interests which will control the world market. lawyers, politicians, statesmen, clergymen, live by argumentation. in the life of today, which emphasizes so markedly the two ideas of individuality and efficiency, argumentation is of paramount importance. any person can argue, in the ordinary sense of stating opinions and views, in so far as any one can converse. but to produce good, convincing argumentation is not so easy as that. the expression of personal preferences, opinions, ideas, is not argumentation, although some people who advance so far as to become speakers before audiences seem never to realize that truth, and display themselves as pretending to offer argumentation when they are in reality doing no more than reciting personal beliefs and suggestions. cite instances of speakers who have indulged in such personal opinions when they might or should have offered arguments. while argumentation is not so easily assembled as running conversation is, it may be made quite as fascinating as the latter, and just as surely as a person can have his conversational ability developed so can a person have his argumentative power strengthened. conviction. what should be the first requisite of a speaker of argumentation? should it be conviction in the truth or right of the position he takes and the proposition he supports? at first thought one would answer emphatically "yes." a great deal of discredit has been brought upon the study of argumentation by the practice of speakers to pretend to have opinions which in reality they do not sincerely believe. the practical instance is the willingness of paid lawyers to defend men of whose guilt they must be sure. such criticism does not apply to cases in which there are reasonable chances for opposing interpretations, nor to those cases in which our law decrees that every person accused of crime shall be provided with counsel, but to those practices to which lincoln referred when he recommended the lawyer not to court litigation. nor should this criticism deter a student of public speaking from trying his skill in defense of the other side, when he feels that such practice will help him in weighing his own arguments. in every instance of this highly commendable double method of preparation which the author has seen in classrooms, the speaker, after his speech has been commented upon, has always declared his real position and explained why he advocated the opposite. even school and college debating has been criticized in the same way for becoming not an attempt to discover or establish the truth or right of a proposition, but a mere game with formal rules, a set of scoring regulations, and a victory or defeat with consequent good or bad effects upon the whole practice of undergraduate debating. if such contests are understood in their true significance, as practice in training, and the assumption of conviction by a student is not continued after graduation so that he will in real life defend and support opinions he really does not believe, the danger is not so great. the man who has no fixed principles, who can argue equally glibly on any side of a matter, whose talents are at any man's command of service, is untrustworthy. convictions are worthy elements in life. a man must change his stand when his convictions are argued away, but the man whose opinions shift with every new scrap of information or influence is neither a safe leader nor a dependable subordinate. for the sake of the training, then, a student _may_ present arguments from attitudes other than his own sincere conviction, but the practice should be nothing more than a recognized exercise. because of its telling influence upon the opinion of others let us, without further reservation, set down that the first essential of a good argument is the ability to convince others. aside from the language and the manner of delivery--two elements which must never be disregarded in any speech--this ability to convince others depends upon the proof presented to them in support of a proposition. the various kinds and methods of proof, with matters closely related to them, make up the material of this chapter. the proposition. in order to induce argument, there must be a proposition. a proposition in argument is a statement--a declarative sentence--concerning the truth or expediency of which there may be two opinions. notice that not every declarative statement is a proposition for argument. "the sun rises" is not a statement about which there can be any varying opinions. it is not a proposition for argument. but "missionaries should not be sent to china," and "john doe killed simon lee," are statements admitting of different opinions and beliefs. they are propositions for argument. no sane person would argue about such a statement as "missionaries are sent to china," nor would any one waste time on such a statement as "some day a man named john doe will kill a man named simon lee." although in common language we speak of arguing a question the student must remember that such a thing is impossible. you cannot argue about a question. nor can you argue about a subject or a topic. the only expression about which there can be any argument is a proposition. the question must be answered. the resulting statement is then proved or disproved. the topic must be given some definite expression in a declarative sentence before any real argument is possible. even when the matter of argument is incorrectly phrased as a topic or question you will find almost immediately in the remarks the proposition as a sentence. "should women vote?" may be on the posters announcing an address, but the speaker will soon declare, "women should vote in all elections in the united states upon the same conditions that men do." that is the proposition being argued; the question has been answered. kinds of propositions. certain kinds of propositions should never be chosen for argumentation. many are incapable of proof, so any speech upon them would result in the mere repetition of personal opinions. such are: the pen is mightier than the sword; business men should not read poetry; every person should play golf; ancient authors were greater than modern authors. others are of no interest to contemporary audiences and for that reason should not be presented. in the middle ages scholars discussed such matters as how many angels could stand on the point of a needle, but today no one cares about such things. propositions of fact. propositions fall into the two classes already illustrated by the statements about missionaries in china and the killing of simon lee. the second--john doe killed simon lee--is a proposition of fact. all argument about it would tend to prove either the affirmative or the negative. one argument would strive to prove the statement a fact. the other argument would try to prove its opposite the actual fact. facts are accomplished results or finished events. therefore propositions of fact refer to the past. they are the material of argument in all cases at law, before investigation committees, and in similar proceedings. lincoln argued a proposition of fact when he took douglas's statement, "our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," and then proved by telling exactly how they voted upon every measure dealing with slavery exactly what the thirty-nine signers of the constitution did believe about national control of the practice. courts of law demand that pleadings "shall set forth with certainty and with truth the matters of fact or of law, the truth or falsity of which must be decided to decide the case." propositions of policy. notice that the other proposition--missionaries should not be sent to china--is not concerned with a fact at all. it deals with something which should or should not be done. it deals with future conduct. it depends upon the value of the results to be secured. it looks to the future. it deals with some principle of action. it is a question of expediency or policy. it induces argument to show that one method is the best or not the best. propositions of expediency or policy are those which confront all of us at every step in life. which college shall a boy attend? what kind of work shall a woman enter? how large shall taxes be next year? which candidate shall we elect? how shall we better the city government? how shall i invest my money? what kind of automobile shall i buy? what kind of will shall i make? the answers to all such questions make propositions of expediency or policy upon which arguments are being composed and delivered every day. in choosing propositions for argument avoid, , those which are obviously truth; , those in which some ambiguous word or term covers the truth; , those in which the truth or error is practically impossible of proof; , those involving more than one main issue; , those which do not interest the audience. wording the proposition. the proposition should be accurately worded. in law if the word _burglary_ is used in the indictment, the defense, in order to quash the charge, need show merely that a door was unlocked. the phrasing should be as simple and concise as possible. the proposition should not cover too wide a field. although these directions seem self-evident they should be kept in mind continually. when the proposition is satisfactory to the maker of the argument he is ready to begin to build his proof. in actual speech-making few arguments can be made as convincing as a geometrical demonstration but a speaker can try to make his reasoning so sound, his development so cogent, his delivery so convincing, that at the end of his speech, he can exclaim triumphantly, "quod erat demonstrandum." burden of proof. every argument presupposes the opposite side. even when only one speaker appears his remarks always indicate the possibility of opposite views in the minds of some of the hearers. the affirmative and negative are always present. it is frequently asserted that the burden of proof is on the negative. this is no more correct than the opposite statement would be. the place of the burden of proof depends entirely upon the wording of the proposition and the statement it makes. in general the burden of proof is upon the side which proposes any change of existing conditions, the side which supports innovations, which would introduce new methods. with the passage of time the burden of proof may shift from one side to the other. there was a time when the burden of proof was upon the advocates of woman suffrage; today it is undoubtedly upon the opponents. at one period the opponents of the study of latin and greek had the burden of proof, now the supporters of such study have it. other topics upon which the burden of proof has shifted are popular election of senators, prohibition, league of nations, self-determination of small nations, the study of vocations, civics, and current topics in schools, an all-year school term, higher salaries for teachers, the benefits of labor unions, americanization of the foreign born. evidence. one of the best ways of proving a statement is by giving evidence of its truth. evidence is made up of facts which support any proposition. in court a witness when giving testimony (evidence) is not allowed to give opinions or beliefs--he is continually warned to offer only what he knows of the fact. it is upon the facts marshaled before it that the jury is charged to render its verdict. direct evidence. evidence may be of two kinds--direct and indirect. this second, especially in legal matters, is termed circumstantial evidence. direct evidence consists of facts that apply directly to the proposition under consideration. if a man sees a street car passenger take a wallet from another man's pocket and has him arrested at once and the wallet is found in his pocket, that constitutes direct evidence. outside criminal cases the same kind of assured testimony can be cited as direct evidence. circumstantial evidence. in most cases in court such direct evidence is the exception rather than the rule, for a man attempting crime would shun circumstances in which his crime would be witnessed. indirect evidence--circumstantial evidence--is much more usual. it lacks the certainty of direct evidence, yet from the known facts presented it is often possible to secure almost the same certainty as from direct evidence. in serious crimes, such as murder, juries are extremely cautious about convicting upon circumstantial evidence. there are many chances of error in making chains of evidence. in indirect evidence a group of facts is presented from which a conclusion is attempted. suppose a boy had trouble with a farmer and had been heard to threaten to get even. one day the man struck him with a whip as he passed on the road. that night the farmer's barn was set on fire. neighbors declared they saw some one running from the scene. next day the boy told his companions he was glad of the loss. circumstantial evidence points to the boy as the culprit. yet what might the facts be? in presenting arguments get as much direct evidence as possible to prove your statements. when direct evidence cannot be secured, link your indirect evidence so closely that it presents not a single weak link. let the conclusion you draw from it be the only possible one. make certain no one else can interpret it in any other way. when you present evidence be sure it completely covers your contention. be sure it is clear. be sure it fits in with all the other facts and details presented. do not let it conflict with usual human experience. consider the sources of your evidence. if you do not, you can be certain your audience will. are your sources reliable? is the information authoritative? is it first-hand material, or merely hearsay? is it unprejudiced? many of the other facts for evidence have already been suggested in the chapter on getting material. two general methods of reasoning. frequently the evidence to be used in argumentation must be interpreted before it can be of any value, especially when dealing with propositions of expediency or policy. there are two general methods of reasoning. one is the inductive method, the other the deductive. inductive reasoning. when we discover that a certain operation repeated many times always produces the same result we feel justified in concluding that we can announce it as a universal law. after thousands of falling bodies have been measured and always give the same figures, scientists feel that they may state the law that all falling bodies acquire an acceleration of . feet per second. this illustrates the inductive method of reasoning. in this system we reason from the specific instance to the general law, from the particular experiment to the universal theory, from the concrete instance to the wide principle. all modern science is based upon this method--the experimental one. all general theories of any kind today must--to be accepted--be supported by long and careful consideration of all possible and probable circumstances. the theory of evolution as applied to the living things upon the earth is the result of countless observations and experiments. hasty generalization. the speaker cannot himself examine all the specific instances, he cannot consider all the illustrations which might support his position, but he must be careful of a too hasty generalization. having talked with a dozen returned soldiers he may not declare that all american army men are glad to be out of france, for had he investigated a little further he might have found an equal number who regret the return to this land. he must base his general statement on so many instances that his conclusion will convince not only him, but people disposed to oppose his view. he must be better prepared to show the truth of his declaration than merely to dismiss an example which does not fit into his scheme by glibly asserting that "exceptions prove the rule." he must show that what seems to contradict him is in nature an exception and therefore has nothing at all to do with his rule. beginning speakers are quite prone to this fault of too hasty generalization. exercises . write down five general theories or statements which have been established by inductive reasoning. . is there any certainty that they will stand unchanged forever? . under what circumstances are such changes made? . can you cite any accepted laws or theories of past periods which have been overturned? deductive reasoning. after general laws have been established, either by human experience or accepted inductive reasoning, they may be cited as applying to any particular case under consideration. this passing from the general law to the particular instance is deductive reasoning. deductive reasoning has a regular form called the syllogism. major premise. all men are mortal. minor premise. socrates is a man. conclusion. therefore, socrates is mortal. if the three parts of a syllogism are correct it has absolute convincing power. most attempts to disprove its statement attack the first two statements. although it carries such an air of certainty it is likely to many errors in use. an error like this is common: all horses are animals. all cows are animals. therefore, all cows are horses. explain the fallacy in this syllogism. quite as frequently the incorrect syllogism is of this kind. the edge of a stream is a bank. a bank is a financial institution. therefore, the edge of a stream is a financial institution. you will comment upon this that its evident silliness would prevent any speaker from using such a form in serious argument. but recall that in the discussion of any idea a term may get its meaning slightly changed. in that slight change of meaning lurks the error illustrated here, ready to lead to false reasoning and weakening of the argument. certain words of common use are likely to such shifting meanings--_republic, equality, representative, monarchy, socialistic_. any doubtful passage in which such an error is suspected should be reduced to its syllogistic form to be tested for accuracy. a representative of the people must vote always as they would vote. a congressman is a representative of the people. therefore, congressmen must vote always as the people who elect them would vote. is not the expression, _representative of the people_, here used in two different senses? when an argument is delivered, one of the premises--being a statement which the speaker assumes everyone will admit as true--is sometimes omitted. this shortened form is called an enthymeme. smith will be a successful civil engineer for he is a superior mathematician. supply the missing premise. which is it? in the bald, simple forms here set down, the syllogism and enthymeme are hardly suited to delivery in speeches. they must be amplified, explained, emphasized, in order to serve a real purpose. the following represent better the way a speaker uses deductive reasoning. the appointing power is vested in the president and senate; this is the general rule of the constitution. the removing power is part of the appointing power; it cannot be separated from the rest. daniel webster: _the appointing and removing power_, then daniel webster stated in rather extended form the conclusion that the senate should share in the removing proceedings. sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that is, that the majority _must_ govern. in matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole. daniel webster: _reply to calhoun_, then, he argues, as these revenue laws were passed by a majority, they must be obeyed in south carolina. methods of proof. in extended arguments, just as in detailed exposition, many different methods of proof may be employed. explanation. often a mere clear explanation will induce a listener to accept your view of the truth of a proposition. you have heard men say, "oh, if that is what you mean, i agree with you entirely. i simply didn't understand you." when you are about to engage in argument consider this method of exposition to see if it will suffice. in all argument there is a great deal of formal or incidental explanation. authority. when authority is cited to prove a statement it must be subjected to the same tests in argument as in explanation. is the authority reliable? is he unprejudiced? does his testimony fit in with the circumstances under consideration? will his statements convince a person likely to be on the opposing side? why has so much so-called authoritative information concerning conditions in europe been so discounted? is it not because the reporters are likely to be prejudiced and because while what they say may be true of certain places and conditions it does not apply to all the points under discussion? the speaker who wants the support of authority will test it as carefully as though its influence is to be used against him--as indeed, it frequently is. examples. where examples are used in argumentation they must serve as more than mere illustrations. in exposition an illustration frequently explains, but that same example would have no value in argument because while it illustrates it does not prove. a suppositious example may serve in explanation; only a fact will serve as proof. the more inevitable its application, the more clinching its effect, the better its argumentative value. notice how the two examples given below prove that the heirs of a literary man might be the very worst persons to own the copyrights of his writings since as owners they might suppress books which the world of readers should be able to secure easily. while these examples illustrate, do they not also prove? i remember richardson's grandson well; he was a clergyman in the city of london; he was a most upright and excellent man; but he had conceived a strong prejudice against works of fiction. he thought all novel-reading not only frivolous but sinful. he said--this i state on the authority of one of his clerical brethren who is now a bishop--he said that he had never thought it right to read one of his grandfather's books. i will give another instance. one of the most instructive, interesting, and delightful books in our language is boswell's _life of johnson_. now it is well known that boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the whole relation of boswell to johnson, as a blot in the escutcheon of the family. thomas babington macaulay: _copyright_, analogy. in argument by analogy the speaker attempts to prove that because certain things are known to be true in something that can be observed they are likely to be true in something else which in so far as it can be observed is quite like the first. we continually argue by analogy in daily life. lincoln was really using analogy when he replied to the urging to change his army leaders during the civil war, that he didn't think it wise to "swap horses while crossing a stream." scientists use this method to draw conclusions when it is impossible to secure from actual observation or experiment a certain last step in the reasoning. the planet mars and the earth are similar in practically all observable matters; they are about the same distance from the sun, they have the same surface conditions. the earth has living creatures upon it. hence--so goes the reasoning of analogy--mars is probably inhabited. reasoning by analogy is used to prove that universal suffrage is good for the united states because it has been good for one particular state. a student may argue by analogy that the elective system should be introduced into all high schools, because it has been followed in colleges. it may be asserted that a leading bank president will make a good university president, because he has managed one complex institution. the essence of all good reasoning by analogy is that the two things considered must be so nearly alike in all that is known that the presumption of belief is that they must also be alike in the one point the arguer is trying to establish. this is the test he must apply to his own analogy arguments. our community frowns with indignation upon the profaneness of the duel, having its rise in this irrational point of honor. are you aware that you indulge the same sentiment on a gigantic scale, when you recognize this very point of honor as a proper apology for war? we have already seen that justice is in no respect promoted by war. is true honor promoted where justice is not? charles sumner: _the true grandeur of nations_, residues. the method of residues is frequently employed when the speaker is supporting a policy to be carried out, a measure to be adopted, a change to be instituted, or a law to be passed. granting the assumption that something must be done he considers all the various methods which may be employed, disposes of them one by one as illegal, or unsuited, or clumsy, or inexpedient, leaving only one, the one he wants adopted, as the one which must be followed. this is a good practical method of proof, provided the speaker really considers _all_ the possible ways of proceeding and does show the undesirability of all except the one remaining. a speaker pleading for the installation of a commission form of city control might list all the possible ways of city government, a business manager, a mayor, a commission. by disposing completely of the first two, he would have proven the need for the last. a good speaker will aways go farther than merely to reach this kind of conclusion. he will, in addition to disproving the unworthy choices, strongly support his residue, the measure he wants adopted. in supporting amounts of taxes, assessments, etc., this method may be used. one amount can be proven so large as to cause unrest, another so small as to be insufficient, a third to produce a total just large enough to meet all anticipated expenses with no surplus for emergencies; therefore the correct amount must be just larger than this but not reaching an amount likely to produce the result caused by the first considered. used in trials of criminal cases it eliminates motives until a single inevitable remainder cannot be argued away. this may be the clue to follow, or it may be the last one of all suspected persons. burke considered several possible ways of dealing with the american colonies; one he dismissed as no more than a "sally of anger," a second could not be operated because of the distance, a scheme of lord north's he proved would complicate rather than settle matters, to change the spirit of america was impossible, to prosecute it as criminal was inexpedient, therefore but one way remained, to conciliate the spirit of discontent by letting the colonies vote their own taxes. it is interesting that what burke described as the sally of anger was the way the matter was actually settled--great britain had to give up the american colonies. this method is also called elimination. cause to effect. just as the explainer may pass from cause to effect so may the arguer. other names for this method are antecedent probability and _a priori_ argument. in argument from a known cause an effect is proven as having occurred or as likely to occur. in solving crime this is the method which uses the value of the motives for crime as known to exist in the feelings or sentiments of a certain accused person. a person trying to secure the passage of a certain law will prove that it as the cause will produce certain effects which make it desirable. changed conditions in the united states will be brought forward as the cause to prove that the federal government must do things never contemplated by the framers of the constitution. great military organization as the cause of the recent war is used now in argument to carry on the plea for the securing of peace by disarmament. the main difficulty in reasoning from cause to effect is to make the relationship so clear and so close that one thing will be accepted by everybody as the undisputed cause of the alleged effect. effect to cause. in reasoning from effect to cause the reverse method is employed. this is also termed argument from sign or the _a posteriori_ method. in it, from some known effect the reasoning proves that it is the result of a certain specified cause. statistics indicating business prosperity might be used as the effect from which the arguer proves that they are caused by a high protective tariff. a speaker shows the good effects upon people to prove that certain laws--claimed as the causes--should be extended in application. arguments from effect to cause may be extremely far reaching; as every effect leads to some cause, which is itself the effect of some other cause, and so on almost to infinity. the good speaker will use just those basic causes which prove his proposition--no more. in actual practice the two forms of reasoning from cause to effect and from effect to cause are frequently combined to make the arguments all the more convincing. grouped together they are termed causal relations. persuasion. when a speaker has conclusively proven what he has stated in his proposition, is his speech ended? in some cases, yes; in many cases, no. mere proof appeals to the intellect only; it settles matters perhaps, but leaves the hearer cold and humanly inactive. he may feel like saying, "well, even if what you say is true, what are you going to do about it?" mathematical and scientific proofs exist for mere information, but most arguments delivered before audiences have a purpose. they try to make people do something. a group of people should be aroused to some determination of purposeful thought if not to a registered act at the time. in days of great stress the appeal to action brought the immediate response in military enlistments; in enrollment for war work; in pledges of service; in signing membership blanks and subscription blanks; in spontaneous giving. persuasion produces a response. the end of most argumentative speaking is to produce a response. it may be the casting of a vote, the joining of a society, the repudiation of an unworthy candidate, the demonstrating of the solidarity of labor, the affiliating with a religious sect, the changing of a mode of procedure, the purchasing of a new church organ, the wearing of simpler fashions, or any of the thousand and one things a patient listener is urged to do in the course of his usual life. when the speaker passes on from mere convincing to appealing for some response he has passed from argumentation to persuasion. nearly every argumentative speech dealing with a proposition of policy shows first what ought to be done, then tries to induce people to do it, by appealing as strongly as possible to their practical, esthetic, or moral interests. all such interests depend upon what we call sentiments or feelings to which worthy--note the word _worthy_--appeals may legitimately be addressed. attempts to arouse unworthy motives by stirring up ignorance and prejudice are always to be most harshly condemned. such practices have brought certain kinds of so-called persuasion into well-deserved contempt. the high sounding spell-binder with his disgusting spread-eagleism cannot be muzzled by law, but he may be rendered harmless by vacant chairs and empty halls. real eloquence is not a thing of noise and exaggeration. beginning speakers should avoid the tawdry imitation as they would a plague. elements of persuasion. what elements may aid the persuasive power of a speech? first of all, the occasion may be just the right one. the surroundings may have prepared the audience for the effect the speaker should make if he knows how to seize upon the opportunity for his own purpose. the speaker must know how to adapt himself to the circumstances present. in other cases, he must be able to do the much more difficult thing--adapt the circumstances to his purpose. secondly, the subject matter itself may prepare for the persuasive treatment in parts. everyone realizes this. when emotional impulses are present in the material the introduction of persuasion is inevitable and fitting, if not overdone. thirdly, the essence of persuasion depends upon the speaker. all the good characteristics of good speaking will contribute to the effect of his attempts at persuasion. a good speaker is sincere to the point of winning respect even when he does not carry conviction. he is in earnest. he is simple and unaffected. he has tact. he is fair to every antagonistic attitude. he has perfect self-control. he does not lose his temper. he can show a proper sense of humor. he has genuine sympathy. and finally--perhaps it includes all the preceding--he has personal magnetism. with such qualities a speaker can make an effective appeal by means of persuasion. if upon self-criticism and self-examination, or from outside kindly comment, he concludes he is lacking in any one of these qualities he should try to develop it. exercises prepare and deliver speeches upon some of the following or upon propositions suggested by them. if the speech is short, try to employ only one method of proof, but make it convincing. where suitable, add persuasive elements. . make a proposition from one of the following topics. deliver an argumentative speech upon it. the next election. entrance to college. child labor. the study of the classics. the study of science. . recommend changes which will benefit your school, your club or society, your church, your town, your state. . the japanese should be admitted to the united states upon the same conditions as other foreigners. . men and women should receive the same pay for the same work done. . all church property should be taxed. . all laws prohibiting secular employment on sunday should be repealed. . the purely protective tariff should be withdrawn from goods the manufacture of which has been firmly established in this country. . large incomes should be subject to a graduated income tax. . employers should not be forced to recognize labor unions. . immigration into the united states of persons who cannot read or write some language should be prohibited, except dependents upon such qualified entrants. . an amendment should be added to the constitution providing for uniform marriage and divorce laws throughout the entire country. . a city is the best place for a college. . military training should be obligatory in all public schools. . colleges and universities should reduce the attention paid to athletics. . the negro in the south should be disfranchised. . the number of representatives in congress should be reduced. . moving pictures should be used in schools. . street car systems should be owned and operated by municipalities. . education should be compulsory until the completion of high school. . athletes whose grade is below % should be debarred from all participation until the marks are raised. . the federal government should own and operate the telegraph and telephone systems. . the state should provide pensions for indigent mothers of children below the working age. . the study of algebra (or some other subject) in the high school should be elective. the initiative should be adopted in all states. . the referendum should be adopted in all states. . all governmental officials should be subject to recall. . the public should support in all ways the movement of labor to secure the closed shop system. . railroad crossings should be abolished. . the federal government should pass laws controlling all prices of foodstuffs. . a trial before a group of competent judges should be substituted for trial by jury. chapter xi refuting answering the other side. it has been said already that even in a single argumentative speech some account must be taken of the possibility among the audience of the belief in other views. a speaker must always assume that people will believe otherwise than he does. in such cases as debate or questioning after a speech is made, this opposing side will very clearly be brought out, so that any person training for any kind of public speaking will give much attention to the contentions of others in order to strengthen his own convictions as displayed in his speeches. a sincere thinker may believe that trial before a group of competent judges is a better procedure than trial by jury. were he to speak upon such a proposition he would realize that he would meet at once the solid opposition of the general opinion that jury trials, sanctioned by long practice, are in some mysterious way symbolic of the liberty and equality of mankind. before he could expect to arouse sympathetic understanding he would have to answer all the possible objections and reasons against his new scheme. this he would do by refutation, by disproving the soundness of the arguments against his scheme. he could cite the evident and recorded injustices committed by juries. he could bring before them the impossibility of securing an intelligent verdict from a group of farmers, anxious to get to their farms for harvest, sitting in a case through july, while the days passed in lengthy examinations of witnesses--one man was on the stand eight days--and the lawyers bandied words and names like socialist, pagan, bolsheviki, anarchy, ideal republic, aristotle, plato, herbert spencer, karl marx, tolstoi, jane addams, lenin. then when he felt assured he had removed all the reasons for supporting the present jury system he could proceed to advance his own substitute. need and value of refutation. in all argumentation, therefore, refutation is valuable and necessary. by it opposing arguments are reasoned away, their real value is determined, or they are answered and demolished if they are false or faulty. to acquire any readiness as a speaker or debater a person must pay a great deal of attention to refutation. it has also an additional value. it has been stated that every argumentative speaker must study the other side of every question upon which he is to speak. one great debater declared that if he had time to study only one side of a proposition or law case he would devote that time to the other side. study your own position from the point of view of the other side. consider carefully what arguments that side will naturally advance. in fact, try to refute your own arguments exactly as some opponent would, or get some friend to try to refute your statements. many a speaker has gained power in reasoning by having his views attacked by members of his family who would individually and collectively try to drive him into a corner. in actual amount, perhaps you will never deliver as much refutation of an opponent as you will conjure up in your mind against your own speeches. perhaps, also, this great amount advanced by you in testing your own position will prevent your opponents from ever finding in your delivered arguments much against which they can pit their own powers of refutation. in judging your own production you will have to imagine yourself on the other side, so the methods will be the same for all purposes of self-help or weakening of an opponent's views. contradiction is not refutation. in the first place contradiction is not refutation. no unsupported fact or statement has any value in argumentation. such expressions as "i don't believe, i don't think so, i don't agree" introduce not arguments, but personal opinions. you must, to make your refutation valuable, _prove_ your position. never allow your attempts at refutation to descend to mere denial or quibbling. be prepared to support, to prove everything you say. three phases of refutation. in general, refutation consists of three phases: . the analysis of the opposite side. . the classification of the arguments according to importance. . the answering of only the strongest points. analysis of opposing side for accuracy. in the first analysis, you will probably examine the opposing statements to test their accuracy. mere slips, so evident that they deceive no one, you may disregard entirely, but gross error of fact or conclusion you should note and correct in unmistakably plain terms. the kind of statement which gives insufficient data should be classed in analysis with this same kind of erroneous statement. a shoe dealer in arguing for increased prices might quote correctly the rising cost of materials, but if he stopped there, you in refutation should be able to show that profits had already risen to %, and so turn his own figures against him. another class of refutation similar to this is the questioning of authorities. something concerning this has already been said. in a recent trial a lawyer cast doubt upon the value of a passage read from a book by declaring its author could never have written such a thing. in refutation the opposing lawyer said, "you will find that passage on page of his _essays and letters."_ public speakers, realizing that errors of statement are likely to be the first to be picked out for correction, and recognizing the damaging effect of such conviction in error of fact and testimony, are extremely careful not to render themselves liable to attack upon such points. yet they may. we are told by webster's biographers that in later periods of his life he was detected in errors of law in cases being argued before the court, and refuted in statement. to catch such slips requires two things of the successful speaker. he must be in possession of the facts himself. he must be mentally alert to see the falsity and know how to answer it. begging the question. the expression "begging the question" is often heard as a fallacy in argument. in its simplest form it is similar to inaccurate statement, for it includes assertions introduced without proof, and the statement of things as taken for granted without attempting to prove them, yet using them to prove other statements. sometimes, also, a careless thinker, through an extended group of paragraphs will end by taking as proven exactly the proposition he started out to prove, when close analysis will show that nowhere during the discussion does he actually prove it. as this is frequent in amateur debates, students should be on their guard against it. ignoring the question. the same kind of flimsy mental process results in ignoring the question. instead of sticking closely to the proposition to be proved the speaker argues beside the point, proving not the entire proposition but merely a portion of it. or in some manner he may shift his ground and emerge, having proven the wrong point or something he did not start out to consider. an amateur theatrical producer whose playhouse had been closed by the police for violating the terms of his license started out to defend his action, but ended by proving that all men are equal. in fact he wound up by quoting the poem by burns, "a man's a man for a' that." such a shifting of propositions is a frequent error of speakers. it occurs so often that one might be disposed to term it a mere trick to deceive, or a clever though unscrupulous device to secure support for a weak claim. one of the first ways for the speaker to avoid it is to be able to recognize it when it occurs. one of the most quoted instances of its effective unmasking is the following by macaulay. the advocates of charles, like the advocates of other malefactors against whom overwhelming evidence is produced, generally decline all controversy about the facts, and content themselves with calling testimony to character. he had so many private virtues! and had james the second no private virtues! was oliver cromwell, his bitterest enemies themselves being judges, destitute of private virtues? and what, after all, are the virtues ascribed to charles? a religious zeal, not more sincere than that of his son, and fully as weak and narrow-minded, and a few of the ordinary household decencies which half the tombstones in england claim for those who lie beneath them. a good father! a good husband! ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of persecution, tyranny, and falsehood! we charge him with having broken his coronation oath; and we are told that he kept his marriage vow! we accuse him of having given up his people to merciless inflictions of the most hot-headed and hard-hearted of prelates; and the defence is, that he took his little son on his knee and kissed him! we censure him for having violated the articles of the petition of right, after having, for good and valuable consideration, promised to observe them; and we are informed that he was accustomed to hear prayers at six o'clock in the morning! it is to such considerations as these, together with his vandyke dress, his handsome face, and his peaked beard, that he owes, we verily believe, most of his popularity with the present generation. appealing to prejudice or passions. the question is also ignored when the speaker appeals to the prejudices or passions of his audience (_argumentum ad populum_). persons of some intellect resent this as almost an insult if they are in the audience, yet it is often resorted to by speakers who would rather produce the effect they desire by the use of any methods, right or wrong. its use in court by unscrupulous lawyers to win decisions is checked by attempts on the part of judges to counteract it in their charges to the jury, but its influence may still persist. mark antony in shakespere's play, _julius caesar_, used it in his oration over the dead body of caesar to further his own ends. taking advantage of ignorance. just as a speaker may take advantage of the prejudices and passions of an audience, so he may take advantage of their ignorance. against the blankness of their brains he may hurl unfamiliar names to dazzle them, cite facts of all kinds to impress them, show a wide knowledge of all sorts of things, "play up to them" in every way, until they become so impressed that they are ready to accept as truth anything he chooses to tell them. any daily paper will provide examples of the sad results of the power of this kind of fallacious reasoning. the get-rich-quick schemes, the worthless stock deals, the patent medicine quacks, the extravagantly worded claims of new religions and faddist movements, all testify to the power this form of seemingly convincing argument has over the great mass of the ignorant. the fallacy of tradition. in discussing the burden of proof it was said that such burden rests upon the advocate of change, or novel introductions, etc. this tendency of the people at large to be rather conservative in practice links with the fallacy of tradition, the belief that whatever is, is right. in many cases such a faith is worse than wrong, it is pernicious. many of the questions concerning relations of modern society--as capital and labor--are based upon this fallacy. henry clay was guilty of it when he announced, "two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property." the successful way to dispose of such a fallacy is illustrated by william ellery channing's treatment of this statement. but this property, we are told, is not to be questioned on account of its long duration. "two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property." nothing but respect for the speaker could repress criticism on this unhappy phraseology. we will trust it escaped him without thought. but to confine ourselves to the argument from duration; how obvious the reply! is injustice changed into justice by the practice of the ages? is my victim made a righteous prey because i have bowed him to the earth till he cannot rise? for more than two hundred years heretics were burned, and not by mobs, not by lynch law, but by the decrees of the councils, at the instigation of theologians, and with the sanction of the laws and religions of nations; and was this a reason for keeping up the fires, that they had burned two hundred years? in the eastern world successive despots, not for two hundred years, but for twice two thousand have claimed the right of life and death over millions, and, with no law but their own will, have beheaded, bowstrung, starved, tortured unhappy men without number who have incurred their wrath; and does the lapse of so many centuries sanctify murder and ferocious power? attacking a speaker's character or principles. sometimes a speaker who finds himself unable to attack the truth of a proposition, or the arguments cited to support it, changes his tactics from the subject-matter to the opponent himself and delivers an attack upon his character, principles, or former beliefs and statements. this is called the _argumentum ad hominem_. in no sense is it really argument; it is irrelevant attack, and should be answered in a clear accurate demonstration of its unsuitability to the topic under consideration. it is unworthy, of course, but it is a tempting device for the speaker who can combine with it an appeal to the prejudices or passions of his audience. the author has seen the entire population of rome agitated because in a senatorial debate one speaker attacked the family reputation of one of his opponents--a matter which, even if true, certainly had nothing to do with the bill under discussion. political campaigns used to be disgraced by a prevalence of such appeals for votes. we may pride ourselves upon an advance in such matters, but there is still too much of it to let us congratulate ourselves upon our political good manners. you cannot ascribe bad faith to a man who argues now from a different attitude from the one he formerly supported. changes of conviction are frequent in all matters. a man must be judged by the reasons he gives for his position at any one time. many a person, who ten years ago would have argued against it, now believes a league of nations possible and necessary. many a person who a few years back could see no advantage in labor organizations is anxious now to join an affiliated union. if you find the suggestion of such an attack in any of your own speeches, cast it out. if it is ever used against you, refute it by the strength of arguments you deliver in support of your position. remove all assertions which do not relate to the debated topic. make your audience sympathize with your repudiation of the remarks of your opponent, even though he has succeeded in delivering them. fallacies of causal relationship. the various fallacies that may be committed under the relation of cause and effect are many. just because something happened prior to something else (the effect), the first may be mistakenly quoted as the cause. or the reverse may be the error--the second may be assumed to be the effect of the first. the way to avoid this fallacy was suggested in the discussion of explanation by means of cause and effect where the statement was made that two events must not be merely _sequential_, they must be _consequential_. in argument the slightest gap in the apparent relationship is likely to result in poor reasoning, and the consequent fallacy may be embodied in the speech. when people argue to prove that superstitions have come true, do they present clear reasoning to show conclusively that the alleged cause--such as sitting thirteen at table--actually produced the effect of a death? do they _establish_ a close causal relationship, or do they merely _assert_ that after a group of thirteen had sat at table some one did die? mathematically, would the law of chance or probability not indicate that such a thing would happen a little less surely if the number had been twelve, a little more surely if fourteen? common sense, clear headedness, logical reasoning, and a wide knowledge of all kinds of things will enable a speaker to recognize these fallacies, anticipate them, and successfully refute them. methods of refuting. having found the fallacies in an argument you should proceed to refute them. just how you can best accomplish your purpose of weakening your opponent's position, of disposing of his arguments, of answering his contentions, must depend always upon the particular circumstances of the occasion, of the material presented, of the attitude of the judges or audience, of your opponent himself, and of the purpose you are striving to accomplish. practice, knowledge, skill, will in such cases all serve your end. you should be able to choose, and effectively use the best. it is impossible to anticipate and provide for all the possibilities, but a few of the most common probabilities and the methods of dealing with them can be here set down. courteous correction. in case of apparent error or over-sight you will do well to be courteous rather than over-bearing and dictatorial in your correction. never risk losing an advantage by driving your audience into sympathy for your opponent by any manner of your own. a newspaper discussing the objections made to the covenant of the league of nations points out an over-sight in this way: "how did senator knox happen to overlook the fact that his plan for compulsory arbitration is embodied in article xii of the proposed covenant?" refuting incorrect analogy. the caution was given that reasoning from analogy must show the complete correspondence in all points possible of the known from which the reasoning proceeds to the conclusion about the unknown, which then is to be accepted as true. unless that complete correspondence is established firmly the speaker is likely to have his carefully worked out analogy demolished before his eyes. notice how such refutation is clearly demonstrated in the following. so it does; but the sophistry here is plain enough, although it is not always detected. great genius and force of character undoubtedly make their own career. but because walter scott was dull at school, is a parent to see with joy that his son is a dunce? because lord chatham was of a towering conceit, must we infer that pompous vanity portends a comprehensive statesmanship that will fill the world with the splendor of its triumphs? because sir robert walpole gambled and swore and boozed at houghton, are we to suppose that gross sensuality and coarse contempt of human nature are the essential secrets of a power that defended liberty against tory intrigue and priestly politics? was it because benjamin franklin was not college-bred that he drew the lightning from heaven and tore the scepter from the tyrant? was it because abraham lincoln had little schooling that his great heart beat true to god and man, lifting him to free a race and die for his country? because men naturally great have done great service in the world without advantages, does it follow that lack of advantage is the secret of success? george william curtis: _the public duty of educated men_, reducing proof to absurdity. a very good way of showing the unreliability of an opposing argument is to pretend to accept it as valid, then carrying it on to a logical conclusion, to show that its end proves entirely too much, or that it reduces the entire chain of reasoning to absurdity. this is, in fact, called _reductio ad absurdum_. at times the conclusion is so plainly going to be absurd that the refuter need not carry its successive steps into actual delivery. in speaking to large groups of people nothing is better than this for use as an effective weapon. it gives the hearers the feeling that they have assisted in the damaging demonstration. it almost seems as though the speaker who uses it were merely using--as he really is--material kindly presented to him by his opponent. so the two actually contribute in refuting the first speaker's position. congress only can declare war; therefore, when one state is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. the president and the senate only can make peace; when peace is made for one state, therefore, it must be made for all. can anything be conceived more preposterous, than that any state should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general government respecting peace and war? when war is declared by a law of congress, can a single state nullify that law, and remain at peace? and yet she may nullify that law as well as any other. if the president and senate make peace, may one state, nevertheless, continue the war? and yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty. daniel webster: _the constitution not a compact between sovereign states_, lincoln could always use this method of _reductio ad absurdum_ most effectively because he seldom failed to accentuate the absurdity by some instance which made clear to the least learned the force of his argument. many of his best remembered quaint and picturesque phrases were embodied in his serious demolition of some high-handed presumption of a political leader. under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? but you will not abide the election of a republican president! in that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! that is cool. a highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, or i shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" abraham lincoln: _cooper union speech_, amplifying and diminishing. finally a good method of refuting the claim of importance made for an opposing proposition is by amplifying and diminishing. in plain terms this depends upon contrast in which you reduce the value of the opposing idea and emphasize the value of your own. an excellent use for this is as a rapid summary at the end of your speech, where it will leave in the hearer's mind an impression of the comparative value of the two views he has heard discussed, with an inevitable sense of the unquestioned worth of one above the other. burke sums up his extended refutations of lord north's plan for dealing with america in these telling contrasts. compare the two. this i offer to give you is plain and simple; the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes. this is mild; that harsh. this found by experience effectual for its purposes; the other is a new project. this is universal; the other calculated for certain colonies only. this is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling people--gratuitous, unconditional--and not held out as a matter of bargain and sale. edmund burke: _conciliation with america_, position of refutation in the speech. the position of refutation in the finished speech will depend always upon the nature of the proposition, the exact method of the refutation, and the audience. if you are making the only speech upon the proposition and you feel that the audience may have a slight prejudice against what you are about to urge, you may gain adherents at once by refuting at the beginning the possible arguments in their minds. by this procedure you will clear the field for your own operations. to change the figure of speech, you erase from the slate what is already written there, so that you may place upon it your own speech and its convictions. if you are debating and the speaker just before you has evidently made the judges accept his arguments, again you might remove that conviction by refutation before you proceed to build up your own side. if your regular arguments meet his squarely, proceed as you had planned, but be sure when any reasoning you offer nullifies any he has delivered, that you call the attention of the audience to the fact that you have wiped out his score. in this way your constructive argument and refutation will proceed together. you will save valuable time. constructive argument is more valuable than refutation. often the rebuttal speeches of debate, coming at the close of the regular debate speeches, seem reserved for all the refutation. this is certainly the place for much refutation, certainly not all. the last speakers of the rebuttal speeches should never rest content with leaving only refutation in the hearers' minds. if they do, the debate may leave the condition entirely where it was at the beginning, for theoretically every argument advanced by either side has been demolished by the other. after the rebuttal the last points left with the judges should be constructive arguments. in a single speech the refutation may be delivered in sections as the demands of coherence and the opportunities for emphasis may suggest. here again, always make the last section a constructive one with arguments in support of your proposition. chapter xii debating the ideal of debating. a long time ago so admirable a man as william penn stated the high ideal of all real debating whether practised in the limited range of school interests or in the extended field of life's activities. in all debates let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest; and endeavor to gain, rather than to expose thy antagonist. the quotation states exactly the true aim of all debating--the conclusion of the right, the truth rather than the securing of a decision over an opponent. the same rules which animate the true lover of sports, the clear distinction which is instilled into all participants of amateur athletics of the meanings and significance of the two terms _sportsman_ and _sport_, can be carried over to apply to school activities in debating. honest differences of opinion among people upon countless questions will always furnish enough material for regular debating so that no one need ever do violence to his convictions. value of debate. one of the greatest educational values of practice in debate is that the ability it develops can be applied instantly in the life beyond the schoolroom, that it operates in every person's daily life. there are differences in the manner in which debating is carried on in the two places, but practice in the earlier will result in skill and self-confidence in the second. debate in actual life. the most marked difference between debates in the two phases of life is the difference of form. in academic circles debate is a well-regulated game between matched sides. in actual life only in certain professions are the rules well defined. in most cases the debating is disguised under different forms, though the essential purposes and methods are the same. debate between lawyers in courts--technically termed pleading--is the most formal of all professional debating. its regulations are found in the stabilized court procedure which every lawyer must master and obey. much looser than the formal debate of the court room is the speech-making of the legislative organization from the lowest township board meeting up to the senate of the united states. of course the members of such bodies are regulated by certain restrictions, but the speeches are not likely to be curbed in time as are academic performances, nor are the speakers likely to follow a prearranged order, nor are they always equally balanced in number, nor do they agree so carefully upon "team work." sometimes in a legislative body the first speaker may be on the negative side, which is quite contrary to all the rules of regularly conducted debates. all the speakers may also be on one side of a measure, the opposing side not deigning to reply, resting secure in the knowledge of how many votes they can control when the real test of power comes. most informal of all are the general discussions in which business matters are decided. in these the speeches are never so set as in the two preceding kinds. the men are less formal in their relations and addresses to one another. the steps are less marked in their changes. yet underneath the seeming lack of regulation there is the framework of debate, for there is always present the sense of two sides upon every proposition, whether it be the purchase of new office equipment for a distant agent, an increase of salary for employees, or the increase of capitalization. certain speakers support some proposition. others oppose it until they are convinced and won over to the affirmative side, or until they are out-voted. two men seated in an office may themselves be debaters, audience, and judges of their own argumentative opinions. they may in themselves fill all the requirements of a real debate. they deliver the speeches on the affirmative and negative sides. each listens to the arguments of his opponent. and finally, the pair together give a decision upon the merits of the arguments presented. on all such occasions the speakers need and use just those qualities which classroom training has developed in them--knowledge of material, plan of presentation, skill in expression, conviction and persuasion of manner, graceful acceptance of defeat. debating demands a decision. debating goes one step farther than merely argumentative speaking. debating demands a decision upon the case, it requires a judgment, a registered action. again in this respect it is like a game. exercises . make a list of propositions which have been debated or might be debated in a courtroom. . make another list of propositions which have been debated or might be debated in legislative bodies. . make a list of propositions which might be debated in business. . as far as is possible, indicate the decisions upon them. . choose some proposition on which there is considerable difference of opinion in the class. make a list of those who favor and those who oppose. speak upon the proposition, alternating affirmative and negative. . discuss the speeches delivered in the fifth exercise. persons involved in a debate. who are the persons involved in a regular debate? they are the presiding officer, the speakers themselves, the audience, the judges. the presiding officer. every debate has a presiding officer. the vice-president of the united states is the presiding officer of the senate. the speaker is the presiding officer of the house of representatives. if you will refer to chapter iv on _beginning the speech_ you will see several other titles of presiding officers. in school debates the head of the institution may act in that capacity, or some person of note may be invited to preside. in regular classroom work the instructor may serve as presiding officer, or some member of the class may be chosen or appointed. the latter method is the best--after the instructor has shown by example just what the duties of such a position are. the presiding officer should announce the topic of debate in a short introductory speech. he should read the names of the speakers on the affirmative and those on the negative side. he should stipulate the terms of the debate--length of each speech, time for rebuttal, order of rebuttal, method of keeping speakers within time limits, conditions of judgment (material, presentation, etc.), announce the judges, and finally introduce the first speaker; then the subsequent speakers. at the close he might refer to the fact of the debate's being ended, he might rehearse the conditions of judgment, and request the judges to retire to consider their decision. practice varies as to who shall deliver the decision of the judges to the audience. sometimes the chairman elected by the judges announces the decision. sometimes the judges hand the decision to the presiding officer who announces it. the debaters. beyond saying that the speakers must do their best, there is nothing to be added here about their duty in the debate except to issue one warning to them in connection with the next personal element to be considered--the audience. the audience. debaters must remember that in practically no circumstances outside legislative bodies are the audience and the judges ever the same. debaters argue to convince the judges--not the entire audience, who are really as disconnected from the decision of the debate as are the straggling spectators and listeners in a courtroom detached from the jury who render the verdict of guilty or not guilty. the debater must therefore speak for the judges, not for his audience. many a debating team has in the course of its speeches won all the applause only to be bitterly disappointed in the end by hearing the decision awarded to the other side. recall the warnings given in the previous chapters against the tempting fallacies of appealing to crowd feelings and prejudices. in classroom debates it is a good distribution of responsibility to make all the members not participating in the speaking act as judges and cast votes in rendering a decision. this makes the judges and the audience one. moreover it changes the mere listener into a discriminating judge. if the instructor cares to carry this matter of responsibility one step farther, he can ask the members of the class to explain and justify their votes. the audience, when it is also the judge, has the responsibility of careful attention, analysis, and comparison. it is too much to expect usual general audiences to refuse to be moved by unworthy pleas and misrepresentations, to accord approval only to the best speakers and the soundest arguments. but surely in a class of public speakers any such tricks and schemes should be received with stolid frigidity. nothing is so damaging to appeals to prejudice, spread-eagleism, and fustian bombast as an impassive reception. the judges. in any debate the judges are of supreme importance. they decide the merits of the speakers themselves. the judges are of infinitely more importance than the audience. in interscholastic debates men of some prominence are invited to act as judges. in the instructions to them it should be made clear that they are not to decide which side of a proposition they themselves approve. they are to decide which group of speakers does the best work. they should try to be merely the impersonal registers of comparative merit. they should sink their own feelings as every teacher must when he hears a good speech from one of his own students supporting something to which the instructor is opposed. good judges of debates realize this and frequently award decisions to speakers who support opposite positions to their personal opinions. they must not be like the judges in an interscholastic debate who announced their decision thus, "the judges have decided that china must not be dismembered." that was an interesting fact perhaps, but it had nothing to do with their duty as judges of that debate. in business, the buyer, the head of the department, the board of directors, constitute the judges who render the decision. in legislative assemblies the audience and judges are practically identical, for after the debate upon a measure is concluded, those who have listened to it render individual verdicts by casting their votes. in such cases we frequently see decisions rendered not upon the merits of the debate, but according to class prejudice, personal opinion, or party lines. this is why so many great argumentative speeches were accounted failures at the time of their delivery. delivered to secure majority votes they failed to carry conviction to the point of changing immediate action, and so in the small temporary sense they were failures. in legal trials the jury is the real judge, although by our peculiar misapplication of the term a different person entirely is called judge. in court the judge is in reality more often merely the presiding officer. he oversees the observance of all the rules of court practice, keeps lawyers within the regulations, instructs the jury, receives the decision from them, and then applies the law. every lawyer speaks--not to convince the judge--but to convince the jury to render a decision in his favor. scholastic debating. choosing the proposition. in school debating the proposition may be assigned by the instructor or it may be chosen by him from a number submitted by the class. the class itself may choose by vote a proposition for debate. in interscholastic debating the practice now usually followed is for one school to submit the proposition and for the second school to decide which side it prefers to support. in any method the aim should be to give neither side any advantage over the other. the speakers upon the team may be selected before the question of debate is known. it seems better, when possible, to make the subject known first and then secure as speakers upon both sides, students who have actual beliefs upon the topic. such personal conviction always results in keener rivalry. time limits. since no debate of this kind must last too long, time restrictions must be agreed upon. in every class, conditions will determine these terms. three or four speakers upon each side make a good team. if each is allowed six minutes the debate should come well within an hour and still allow some time for voting upon the presentations. it should be distinctly understood that a time limit upon a speaker must be observed by him or be enforced by the presiding officer. the speakers upon one side will arrange among themselves the order in which they will speak but there should be a clear understanding beforehand as to whether rebuttal speeches are to be allowed. rebuttal speeches. rebuttal speeches are additional speeches allowed to some or all the speakers of a debating team after the regular argumentative speeches have been delivered. in an extended formal debate all the speakers may thus appear a second time. in less lengthy discussions only some of them may be permitted to appear a second time. as the last speaker has the advantage of making the final impression upon the judges it is usual to offset this by reversing the order of rebuttal. in the first speeches the negative always delivers the last speech. sometimes the first affirmative speaker is allowed to follow with the single speech in rebuttal. if the team consist of three speakers and all are allowed to appear in rebuttal the entire order is as follows. _first part rebuttal_ first affirmative first negative first negative first affirmative second affirmative second negative second negative second affirmative third affirmative third negative third negative third affirmative if not all the speakers are to speak in rebuttal the team itself decides which of its members shall speak for all. preparation. the proposition should be decided on and the teams selected long enough in advance to allow for adequate preparation. every means should be employed to secure sufficient material in effective arrangement. once constituted, the team should consider itself a unit. work should be planned in conference and distributed among the speakers. at frequent meetings they should present to the side all they are able to find. they should lay out a comprehensive plan of support of their own side. they should anticipate the arguments likely to be advanced by the other, and should provide for disposing of them if they are important enough to require refuting. it is a good rule for every member of a debating team to know all the material on his side, even though part of it is definitely assigned to another speaker. this preliminary planning should be upon a definite method. a good outline to use, although some parts may be discarded in the debate itself, is the following simple one. i. state the proposition clearly. . define the terms. . explain it as a whole. ii. give a history of the case. . show its present bearing or aspect. iii. state the issues. iv. prove. v. refute. vi. conclude. finding the issues. in debating, since time is so valuable, a speaker must not wander afield. he must use all his ability, all his material to prove his contention. it will help him to reject material not relevant if he knows exactly what is at issue between the two sides. it was avoiding the issue to answer the charge that charles i was a tyrant by replying that he was a good husband. unless debaters realize exactly what must be proven to make their position secure, there will be really no debate, for the two sides will never meet in a clash of opinion. they will pass each other without meeting, and instead of a debate they will present a series of argumentative speeches. this failure to state issues clearly and to support or refute them convincingly is one of the most common faults of all debating. in ordinary conversation a frequently heard criticism of a discussion or speech or article is "but that was not the point at issue at all." these issues must appear in the preliminary plans, in the finished brief, and in the debate itself. the only point in issue between us is, how long after an author's death the state shall recognize a copyright in his representatives and assigns; and it can, i think, hardly be disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear to be most conducive to the general good. thomas babington macaulay: _copyright_, mr. president, the very first question that challenges our attention in the matter of a league of nations is the question of whether a war in europe is a matter of concern to the united states. the ultraopponents of any league of nations assert that european quarrels and european battles are no concern of ours. if that be true, we may well pause before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. is it true? senator p.j. mccumber: _the league of nations_, the best method of finding the issues is to put down in two columns the main contentions of both sides. by eliminating those entries which are least important and those which have least bearing upon the present case the issues may be reduced to those which the debate should cover. any possible attempt to cloud the issues on the part of the opposing side can thus be forestalled. all the speakers on one side should participate in this analysis of the proposition to find and state the issues. the new york _tribune_, by parallel columns, brought out these chief points of difference between the paris plan and senator knox's for the league of nations. the knox plan the paris plan league formed of all, not under article vii it is provided a portion, of the nations of that no state shall be the world. admitted unless it is able to give guaranties of its intention to observe its international obligations and conform to the principles prescribed by the league in regard to it's naval and military forces and armaments. war to be declared an article xvi provides that international crime, and any should any of the high nation engaging in war, except contracting parties break in self-defense when covenants under article xii actually attacked, to be punished (relating to arbitration) it by the world as an shall be deemed to have committed international criminal. an act of war against the league, which undertakes to exercise economic pressure; and it is to be the duty of the executive council to recommend what military or naval force the members of the league shall contribute to be used to protect the covenants of the league. the monroe doctrine to none of these matters is be safeguarded; also our mentioned specifically, but immigration policy and our president wilson has said right to expel aliens. that the league will "extend the monroe doctrine to the whole world" and that domestic and internal questions are not a concern of the league. our right to maintain military article viii says: "the and naval establishments executive council shall also and coaling stations, determine for the consideration and our right to fortify the and action of the several panama canal and our governments what military frontiers to be safeguarded. equipment and armament is fair and reasonable and in proportion to the scale of forces laid down in the program of disarmament, and these limits when adopted shall not be exceeded without the permission of the executive council." an international court to article xiv provides for be empowered by the league the establishment of a "permanent to call upon the signatory court of international powers to enforce its decrees justice," but its powers are against unwilling states by limited to hearing and determining force, economic pressure, or "any matter otherwise. the constitution which the parties recognize of the league to provide, as suitable for submission to however, that decrees against it for arbitration" under an american power shall be article xiii. enforced by the nations of this hemisphere, and decrees against a country of the eastern hemisphere by the powers of that hemisphere. team work. with the plan agreed upon by the speakers, the brief made out, and the material distributed, each speaker can go to work in earnest to prepare his single speech. the best method has been outlined in this book. his notes should be accurate, clear, easily manipulated. his quotations should be exact, authoritative. by no means should he memorize his speech. such stilted delivery would result in a series of formal declamations. with his mind stocked with exactly what his particular speech is to cover, yet familiar enough with the material of his colleagues to use it should he need it, the debater is ready for the contest. manipulating material. the speakers on a side should keep all their material according to some system. if cards are used, arguments to be used in the main debate might be arranged in one place, material for rebuttal in another, quotations and statistics in still another. then if the other side introduces a point not anticipated it should be easy to find the refuting or explaining material at once to counteract its influence in the next speech, if it should be disposed of at once. if slips of paper are used, different colors might indicate different kinds of material. books, papers, reports, to be used should always be within available distance. while a speaker for the other side is advancing arguments the speaker who will follow him should be able to change, if necessary, his entire plan of defense or attack to meet the manoeuver. he should select from the various divisions upon the table the material he needs, and launch at once into a speech which meets squarely all the contentions advanced by his predecessor. this instantaneous commandeering of material is likely to be most usual in rebuttal, but a good debater must be able to resort to it at a second's notice. the first affirmative speaker. the first affirmative speaker must deliver some kind of introduction to the contentions which his side intends to advance. it is his duty to be concise and clear in this. he must not use too much time. if the proposition needs defining and applying he must not fail to do it. he must not give the negative the opportunity to explain and apply to its own purposes the meaning of the proposition. he should state in language which the hearers will remember exactly what the issues are. he can help his own side by outlining exactly what the affirmative intends to prove. he may indicate just what portions will be treated by his colleagues. he should never stop with merely introducing and outlining. every speaker must advance proof, the first as well as the others. if the preliminary statements by the first affirmative speaker are clearly and convincingly delivered, and if he places a few strong, supporting reasons before the judges, he will have started his side very well upon its course of debating. the last sentences of his speech should drive home the points he has proved. the first negative speaker. the first negative speaker either agrees with the definitions and application of the proposition as announced by the first affirmative speaker or he disagrees with them. if the latter, the mere statement of his disagreement is not sufficient. contradiction is not proof. he must refute the definition and application of the proposition by strong reasoning and ample proof. if his side does not admit the issues as already presented he must explain or prove them away and establish in their place the issues his side sees in the discussion. when the two sides disagree concerning the issues there is a second proposition erected for discussion at once and the argument upon this second matter may crowd out the attempted argument upon the main proposition. to obviate such shifting many schools have the sides exchange briefs or statements of issues before the debate so that some agreement will be reached upon essentials. in addition to the matters just enumerated the first negative speaker should outline the plan his side will follow, promising exactly what things will be established by his colleagues. if he feels that the first affirmative speaker has advanced proofs strong enough to require instant refutation he should be able to meet those points at once and dispose of them. if they do not require immediate answering, or if they may safely be left for later refutation in the regular rebuttal, he may content himself with simply announcing that they will be answered. he should not allow the audience to believe that his side cannot meet them. he must not give the impression that he is evading them. if he has to admit their truth, let him frankly say so, showing, if possible, how they do not apply or do not prove all that is claimed for them, or that though they seem strong in support of the affirmative the negative side has still stronger arguments which by comparison refute at least their effect. the first negative speaker should not stop with mere refutation. if the first affirmative has advanced proofs, and the first negative disposes of them, the debate is exactly where it was at the beginning. the negative speaker must add convincing arguments of his own. it is a good thing to start with one of the strongest negative arguments in the material. the second affirmative and second negative speakers. the second affirmative and the second negative speakers have very much the same kind of speech to make. taking the immediate cues from the preceding speaker each may at first pay some attention to the remarks of his opponent. here again there must be quickly decided the question already brought up by the first negative speech--shall arguments be refuted at once or reserved for such treatment in rebuttal? when this decision is made the next duty of each of these second speakers is to advance his side according to the plan laid down by his first colleague. he must make good the advance notice given of his team. each position of a debater has its peculiar tasks. the middle speaker must not allow the interest aroused by the first to lag. if anything, his material and manner must indicate a rise over the opening speech. he must start at the place where the first speaker stopped and carry on the contention to the place at which it has been agreed he will deliver it to the concluding speaker for his side. if this connection among all the speeches of one side is quite plain to the audience an impression of unity and coherence will be made upon them. this will contribute to the effect of cogent reasoning. they will realize that instead of listening to a group of detached utterances they have been following a chain of reasoning every link of which is closely connected with all that precedes and follows. the concluding affirmative speaker. the concluding affirmative speaker must not devote his entire speech to a conclusion by giving an extensive summary or recapitulation. he must present arguments. realizing that this is the last chance for original argument from his side he may be assigned the very strongest argument of all to deliver, for the effect of what he says must last beyond the concluding speech of the negative. it would likewise be a mistake for him to do nothing more than argue in his concluding speech. several persons have intervened since his first colleague outlined their side and announced what they would prove. it is his duty to show that the affirmative has actually done what it set out to do. by amplifying and diminishing he may also show how the negative had not carried out its avowed intention of disproving the affirmative's position and proving conclusively its own. the concluding speech for the affirmative is an excellent test of a debater's ability to adapt himself to conditions which may have been entirely unforeseen when the debate began, of his keenness in analyzing the strength of the affirmative and exposing the weakness of the negative, of his power in impressing the arguments of his colleagues as well as his own upon the audience, and of his skill in bringing to a well-rounded, impressive conclusion his side's part in the debate. the concluding negative speaker. the concluding negative speaker must judge whether his immediate predecessor, the concluding affirmative speaker, has been able to gain the verdict of the judges. if he fears that he has, he must strive to argue that conviction away. he too must advance proof finally to strengthen the negative side. he must make his speech answer to his first colleague's announced scheme, or if some change in the line of development has been necessitated, he must make clear why the first was replaced by the one the debaters have followed. if the arguments of the negative have proved what it was declared they would, the last speaker should emphasize that fact beyond any question in any one's mind. finally he should save time for a fitting conclusion. this brings the debate proper to a close. restrictions in rebuttal. in rebuttal--if it be provided--the main restrictions are two. the speeches are shorter than the earlier ones. no new lines of argument may be introduced. only lines of proof already brought forward may be considered. since the speeches are shorter and the material is restricted there is always the disposition to use rebuttal speeches for refutation only. this is a mistake. refute, but remember always that constructive argument is more likely to win decisions than destructive. dispose of as many points of the opponents as possible, but reiterate the supporting reasons of your own. many speakers waste their rebuttals by trying to cover too many points. they therefore have insufficient time to prove anything, so they fall back upon bare contradiction and assertion. such presentations are mere jumbles of statements. choose a few important phases of the opposing side's contention. refute them. choose the telling aspects of your own case. emphasize them. manner in debating. be as earnest and convincing in your speeches as you can. never yield to the temptation to indulge in personalities. recall that other speakers should never be mentioned by name. they are identified by their order and their side, as "the first speaker on the affirmative" or "the speaker who preceded me," or "my colleague," or "my opponent." avoid using these with tones and phrases of sarcasm and bitterness. be fair and courteous in every way. never indulge in such belittling expressions as "no one understands what he is trying to prove. he reels off a string of figures which mean nothing." never indulge in cheap wit or attempts at satiric humor. prepare so adequately, analyze so keenly, argue so logically, speak so convincingly, that even when your side loses, your opponents will have to admit that you forced them to do better than they had any idea they could. chapter xiii speaking upon special occasions speech-making in the professions. if a student enter a profession in which speech-making is the regular means of gaining his livelihood--as in law, religion, or lecturing--he will find it necessary to secure training in the technical methods applying to the particular kind of speech-making in which he will indulge. this book does not attempt to prepare any one for mastery of such special forms. the student will, however, be helping himself if he examines critically every delivery of a legal argument, sermon, or lecture he hears, for many of the rules illustrated by them and the impressions made by their speakers, can be transferred as models to be imitated or specimens to be avoided in his own more restricted and less important world. speaking upon special occasions. every american may be called upon to speak upon some special occasion. if he does well at his first appearance he may be invited or required by circumstances to speak upon many occasions. the person who can interest audiences by effective delivery of suitable material fittingly adapted to the particular occasion is always in demand. within the narrower confines of educational institutions the opportunities for the student to appear before his schoolmates are as numerous as in real life. some preliminary knowledge coupled with much practice will produce deep satisfaction upon successful achievement and result in rapid steps of self-development. without pretending to provide for all possible circumstances in which students and others may be called upon to speak, this chapter will list some of the special occasions for which speeches should be prepared. speeches of presiding officers. on practically all occasions there is a presiding officer whose chief duty is to introduce to the audience the various speakers. the one great fault of speeches of introduction is that they are too long. the introducer sincerely means not to consume too much time, but in the endeavor to do justice to the occasion or the speaker he becomes involved in his remarks until they wander far from his definite purpose. he wearies the audience before the important speaker begins. an introducer should not become so unconscious of his real task as to fall into this error. in other cases the fault is not so innocent. many a person called upon to introduce a speaker takes advantage of the chance to express his own opinions. he drops into the discourtesy of using for his own ends a condition of passive attention which was not created for him. one large audience which had assembled to hear a lecturer was kept from listening to him while for twenty minutes the introducer aired his own pet theories. of course members of the audience discussed among themselves the inappropriateness of such remarks, but it is doubtful whether any criticism reached the offender. a newspaper recently had the courage to voice the feelings of audiences. it seems that a good deal of the time of the audience at the coliseum the other night was taken by those who introduced the speakers of the evening. we are told in one account of the meeting that the audience was at times impatient of these preliminaries and even howled once or twice for those it had come to hear.... we are informed that all those introducing the speakers said something about not having risen to speak at length, and that one of them protested his inability to speak with any facility. both these professions are characteristic of those introducing speakers of the evening. yet, strangely enough, the same always happens. that is, the preliminaries wear the audience out before the people it came to hear can get at it. in introducing a speaker never be too long-winded. tactfully, gracefully, courteously, put before the audience such facts as the occasion, the reason for the topic of the speech, the fitness and appropriateness of the choice of the speaker, then present the man or woman. be extremely careful of facts and names. a nominating speaker at a great political convention ruined the effect of a speech by confusedly giving several first names to a distinguished man. it is embarrassing to a speaker to have to correct at the very beginning of his remarks a misstatement made by the presiding officer. but a man from one university cannot allow the audience to identify him with another. the author of a book wants its title correctly given. a public official desires to be associated in people's minds with the department he actually controls. the main purpose of a speech of introduction is to do for the succeeding speaker what the chapter on beginning the speech suggested--to render the audience attentive and well-disposed, to introduce the topic, and in addition to present the speaker. choosing a theme. the speaker at a special occasion must choose the theme with due regard to the subject and the occasion. frequently his theme will be suggested to him, so that it will already bear a close relation to the occasion when he begins its preparation. the next matter he must consider with extreme care is the treatment. shall it be serious, informative, argumentative, humorous, scoffing, ironic? to decide this he must weigh carefully the significance of the occasion. selecting the inappropriate manner of treatment means risking the success of the speech. recall how many men and speeches you have heard criticized as being "out of harmony with the meeting," or "not in spirit with the proceedings," and you will realize how necessary to the successful presentation is this delicate adjustment of the speech to the mood of the circumstances. the after-dinner speech. when men and women have met to partake of good food under charming surroundings and have enjoyed legitimate gastronomic delights it is regrettable that a disagreeable element should be added by a series of dull, long-winded, un-appropriate after-dinner speeches. the preceding adjectives suggest the chief faults of those persons who are repeatedly asked to speak upon such occasions. they so often miss the mark. because after-dinner speaking is so informal it is proportionally difficult. when called upon, a person feels that he must acknowledge the compliment by saying something. this, however, is not really enough. he must choose his theme and style of treatment from the occasion. if the toastmaster assign the topic he is safe so far as that is concerned, but he must still be careful of his treatment. a speaker at a dinner of the phi beta kappa society, in which membership is awarded for rank in cultural as contrasted with practical, technical studies, seized upon the chance to deliver a rather long, quite detailed legal explanation of the parole system for convicted offenders against laws. at a dinner given by the pennsylvania society in a state far from their original homes the members were praised to the skies for preserving the love of their native state and marking their identity in a district so distant and different. this was quite appropriate for an introduction but the speaker then turned abruptly to one of his political speeches and berated the foreigner in america for not becoming at once an entirely made-over citizen. the speech contradicted its own sentiments. a wrong emphasis was placed upon its material. a disquieting impression was made upon the pennsylvanians. at the conclusion they felt that they were guilty for having kept the love of their native soil; according to the tone of the speaker they should have accepted their new residence and wiped out all traces of any early ties. an after-dinner speaker should remember that dinners are usually marks of sociability, goodfellowship, congratulation, celebration, commemoration. speeches should answer to such motives. the apt illustration, the clever twist, the really good story or anecdote, the surprise ending, all have their places here, if they are used with grace, good humor, and tact. this does not preclude elements of information and seriousness, but such matters should be introduced skilfully, discussed sparingly, enforced pointedly. the commemorative speech. besides dinners, other gatherings may require commemorative addresses. these speeches are longer, more formal. the success of a debating team, the successful season of an athletic organization, the termination of a civic project, the election of a candidate, the celebration of an historic event, the tribute to a great man, suggest the kinds of occasions in which commemorative addresses should be made. chosen with more care than the after-dinner speaker, the person on such an occasion has larger themes with which to deal, a longer time for their development, and an audience more surely attuned to sympathetic reception. he has more time for preparation also. in minor circumstances, such as the first three or four enumerated in the preceding paragraph, the note is usually congratulation for victory. except in tone and length these speeches are not very different from after-dinner remarks. but when the occasion is more dignified, the circumstances more significant, addresses take on a different aspect. they become more soberly judicial, more temperately laudatory, more feelingly impressive. at such times public speaking approaches most closely to the old-fashioned idea of oratory, now so rapidly passing away, in its attempt to impress upon the audience the greatness of the occasion in which it is participating. the laying of a corner-stone, the completion of a monument or building, a national holiday, the birthday of a great man, the date of an epoch-marking event, bring forth eulogistic tributes like webster's speech at bunker hill, lincoln's gettysburg address, secretary lane's flag day speech. false eloquence. the beginner will not have many opportunities of delivering such remarkable addresses, but in his small sphere he will have chances to do similar things. he must beware of several faults of which the unwary are usually guilty. recognizing the wonderful eloquence of the masterpieces of such kinds of address he may want to reproduce its effects by imitating its apparent methods. nothing could be worse. the style of the great eulogy, born of the occasion and the speaker, becomes only exaggerated bombast and nonsense from the lips of a student. exaggeration, high sounding terms, flowery language, involved constructions, do not produce eloquence in the speaker. they produce discomfort, often smiles of ridicule, in the audience. many a student intending to cover himself with glory by eulogizing the martyred mckinley or the dead roosevelt has succeeded only in covering himself with derision. simplicity, straightforwardness, fair statement, should be the aims of beginning speakers upon such occasions. speeches of presentation and acceptance. standing between the two classes of speeches just discussed are speeches of presentation and acceptance. in practically all circumstances where such remarks are suitable there are present mingled feelings of celebration and commemoration. there is joy over something accomplished, and remembrance of merit or success. so the person making a speech of presentation must mingle the two feelings as he and the audience experience them. taking his cue from the tone of the occasion he must fit his remarks to that mood. he may be as bright and sparkling and as amusing as a refined court jester. he may be as impressive and serious as a judge. the treatment must be determined by the circumstances. the speaker who replies must take his cue from the presenter. while the first has the advantage of carrying out his plan as prepared, the second can only dimly anticipate the theme he will express. at any rate he cannot so surely provide his beginning. that must come spontaneously from the turn given the material by his predecessor, although the recipient may pass by a transition to the remarks he prepared in advance. the observations which obtain in the presentation and acceptance of a material object--as a book, a silver tea set, a medal, an art gallery--apply just as well to the bestowal and acceptance of an honor, such as a degree from a university, an office, an appointment as head of a committee or as foreign representative, or membership in a society. speeches upon such occasions are likely to be more formal than those delivered upon the transfer of a gift. the bestower may cite the reasons for the honor, the fitness of the recipient, the mutual honors and obligations, and conclude with hopes of further attainments or services. the recipient may reply from a personal angle, explaining not only his appreciation, but his sense of obligation to a trust or duty, his methods of fulfilling his responsibilities, his modestly phrased hope or belief in his ultimate success. the inaugural speech. in this last-named respect the speech of the recipient of an honor is closely related to the speech of a person inaugurated to office. this applies to all official positions to which persons are elected or appointed. the examples which will spring into students' minds are the inaugural speeches of presidents of the united states. a study of these will furnish hints for the newly installed incumbent of more humble positions. in material they are likely to be retrospective and anticipatory. they trace past causes up to present effects, then pass on to discuss future plans and methods. every officer in his official capacity has something to do. newspaper articles will give you ideas of what officials should be doing. the office holder at the beginning of his term should make clear to his constituency, his organization, his class, his society, his school, just what he intends to try to do. he must be careful not to antagonize possible supporters by antagonistic remarks or opinions. he should try to show reason and expediency in all he urges. he should temper satisfaction and triumph with seriousness and resolve. facts and arguments will be of more consequence than opinions and promises. the speech should be carefully planned in advance, clearly expressed, plainly delivered. its statements should be weighed, as everyone of them may be used later as reasons for support or attack. to avoid such consequences the careful politician often indulges in glittering generalities which mean nothing. a student in such conditions should face issues squarely, and without stirring up unnecessary antagonism, announce his principles clearly and firmly. if he has changed his opinion upon any subject he may just as well state his position so that no misunderstanding may arise later. in the exercise of his regular activities a person will have many opportunities to deliver this kind of speech. the nominating speech. recommendation of himself by a candidate for office does not fall within the plan of this book. students, however, may indulge in canvassing votes for their favorite candidates, and this in some instances, leads to public speaking in class and mass meetings, assemblies, and the like. of similar import is the nominating speech in which a member of a society, committee, meeting, offers the name of his candidate for the votes of as many as will indorse him. in nominating, it is a usual trick of arrangement to give first all the qualifications of the person whose election is to be urged, advancing all reasons possible for the choice, and uttering his name only in the very last words of the nominating speech. this plan works up to a cumulative effect which should deeply impress the hearers at the mention of the candidate's name. in nominating speeches and in arguments supporting a candidate the deliverer should remember two things. constructive proof is better than destructive attack; assertion of opinion and personal preference is not proof. if it seems necessary at times to show the fitness of one candidate by contrast with another, never descend to personalities, never inject a tone of personal attack, of cheap wit, of ill-natured abuse. if such practices are resorted to by others, answer or disregard them with the courteous attention they deserve, no more. do not allow yourself to be drawn into any discussion remote from the main issue--the qualifications of your own candidate. if you speak frequently upon such a theme--as you may during an extended campaign--notice which of your arguments make the strongest impressions upon the hearers. discard the weaker ones to place more and more emphasis upon the convincing reasons. never fail to study other speakers engaged in similar attempts. american life every day provides you with illustrations to study. the speech in support of a measure. when, instead of a candidate, you are supporting some measure to be adopted, some reform to be instituted, some change to be inaugurated, your task is easier in one respect. there will be less temptation to indulge in personal matters. you will find it easier to adhere to your theme. in such attempts to mold public opinion--whether it be the collective opinion of a small school class, or a million voters--you will find opportunities for the inclusion of everything you know of the particular subject and of all human nature. convinced yourself of the worthiness of your cause, bend every mental and intellectual effort to making others understand as you do, see as you do. if your reasoning is clear and converting, if your manner is direct and sincere, you should be able to induce others to believe as you do. the persuasive speech. in public speaking upon occasions when votes are to be cast, where reforms are to be instituted, where changes are to be inaugurated, you have not finished when you have turned the mental attitude, and done no more. you must arouse the will to act. votes must be cast for the measure you approve. the reform you urge must be financed at once. the change must be registered. to accomplish such a purpose you must do more than merely prove; you must persuade. in the use of his power over people to induce them to noble, high-minded action lies the supreme importance of the public speaker. exercises . choose some recent event which you and your friends might celebrate by a dinner. as toastmaster, deliver the first after-dinner remarks drawing attention to the occasion and introducing some one to speak. . deliver the after-dinner speech just introduced. . introduce some other member of the class, who is not closely connected with the event being celebrated, and who therefore is a guest. . deliver this speech, being careful to make your remarks correspond to the preceding. . a debating team has won a victory. deliver the speech such a victory deserves. . an athletic team has won a victory. as a non-participant, present the trophy. . an athletic team has finished a season without winning the championship. speak upon such a result. . the city or state has finished some great project. speak upon its significance. . address an audience of girls or women upon their right to vote. . speak in approval of some recently elected official in your community. . choose some single event in the history of your immediate locality. speak upon it. . deliver a commemorative address suitable for the next holiday. . bring into prominence some man or woman connected with the past of your community. . an unheralded hero. . "they also serve who only stand and wait." . "peace hath her victories no less renowned than war." . deliver the speech to accompany the presentation of a set of books. . present to your community some needed memorial park, building, or other monument. . accept the gift for the community. . challenge another class to debate. . urge upon some organization support of some civic measure. . as a representative of the students present some request to the authorities. . a meeting has been called to hear you because of your association with some organization or movement. deliver the speech. . some measure or movement is not being supported as it should be. a meeting of people likely to be interested has been called. address the meeting. . appeal to your immediate associates to support some charitable work. . some organization has recently started a new project. speak to it upon its task. . an organization has successfully accomplished a new project. congratulate it. . some early associate of yours has won recognition or success or fame away from home. he is about to return. speak to your companions showing why they should honor him. . choose some person or event worthy of commemoration. arrange a series of detailed topics and distribute them among members of the class. set a day for their presentation. . choose a chairman. on the appointed day have him introduce the topic and the speakers. chapter xiv dramatics difference between public speaking and acting. in practically all the aspects of public speaking you deliver your own thoughts in your own words. in dramatic presentation you deliver the words already written by some one else; and in addition, while you are delivering these remarks you speak as though you were no longer yourself, but a totally different person. this is the chief distinction between speaking in public and acting. while you must memorize the lines you deliver when you try to act like a character other than yourself, speeches in dramatic production are not like usual memorized selections. usually a memorized selection does not express the feelings or opinions of a certain character, but is likely to be descriptive or narrative. both prose and verse passages contain more than the uttered words of a single person. as preparation for exercise in dramatics, whether simple or elaborate, training in memorizing and practice in speaking are extremely valuable. memorizing may make the material grow so familiar that it loses its interest for the speaker. pupils frequently recite committed material so listlessly that they merely bore hearers. such a disposition to monotony should be neutralized by the ability to speak well in public. naturalness and sincerity. when you speak lines from a play inject as much naturalness and sincerity into your delivery as you can command. speak the words as though they really express your own ideas and feelings. if you feel that you must exaggerate slightly because of the impression the remark is intended to make, rely more upon emphasis than upon any other device to secure an effect. never slip into an affected manner of delivering any speech. no matter what kind of acting you have seen upon amateur or professional stage, you must remember that moderation is the first essential of the best acting. recall what shakespeare had hamlet say to the players. nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus: but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as i may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious, periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. character delineation. in taking part in a play you must do more than simply recite words spoken by some one other than yourself. you must really act like that person. this adds to the simple delivery of speeches all those other traits by which persons in real life are different from one another. such complete identification of your personality with that of the person you are trying to represent in a play is termed character delineation, or characterization. you may believe that you cannot represent an indian chief or a british queen, or an egyptian slave, or a secret service agent, but if you will recall your childish pastime of day-dreaming you will see at once that you have quite frequently identified yourself with some one else, and in that other character you have made yourself experience the strangest and most thrilling adventures. when you study a rôle in a scene or play, use your imagination in that same manner. in a short time it will be easy for you to think as that other character would. then you have become identified with him. the first step in your delineation has been taken. visualize in your mind's eye--your imagination--the circumstances in which that character is placed in the play. see yourself looking, moving, acting as he would. then talk as that character would in those circumstances. make him react as he would naturally in the situations in which the dramatist has placed him. let us try to make this more definite. suppose a boy is chosen to act the part of an old man. an old man does not speak as rapidly as a boy does. he will have to change the speed of his speech. but suppose the old man is moved to wrath, would his words come slowly? would he speak distinctly or would he almost choke? the girl who is delineating a foreign woman must picture her accent and hesitation in speaking english. she would give to her face the rather vacant questioning look such a woman would have as the english speech flits about her, too quickly for her to comprehend all of it. the girl who tries to present a british queen in a shakespeare play must not act as a pupil does in the school corridor. yet if that queen is stricken in her feelings as a mother, might not all the royal dignity melt away, and her majesty act like any sorrowing woman? exercises you are sitting at a table or desk. the telephone rings. you pick up the receiver. a person at the other end invites you to dinner. deliver your part of the conversation. . speak in your own character. . speak as a busy, quick-tempered old man in his disordered office. . speak as a tired wife who hasn't had a relief for weeks from the drudgery of house-work. . speak as a young debutante who has been entertained every day for weeks. . speak as the office boy. . speak as an over-polite foreigner. . delineate some other kind of person. improvisations are here given first because such exercises depend upon the pupil's original interpretation of a character. the pupil is required to do so much clear thinking about the character he represents that he really creates it. dialogues. as it is easier to get two people to speak naturally than where more are involved we shall begin conversation with dialogues. each character will find the lines springing spontaneously from the situation. in dramatic composition any speech delivered by a character is called a line, no matter how short or long it is. as you deliver the dialogues suggested by the exercises try to make your speeches sound natural. talk as real people talk. make the remarks conversational, or colloquial, as this style is also termed. what things will make conversation realistic? in actual talk, people anticipate. speakers do not wait for others to finish. they interrupt. they indicate opinions and impressions by facial expression and slight bodily movements. tone changes as feelings change. try to make your remarks convey to the audience the circumstances surrounding the dialogue. let the conversation make some point clear. before you begin, determine in your own mind the characterization you intend to present. situation. a girl buys some fruit from the keeper of a stand at a street corner. what kind of girl? age? manner of speaking? courteous? flippant? well-bred? slangy? working girl? visitor to town? what kind of man? age? american? foreigner? from what country? dialect? disposition? suspicious? sympathetic? weather? season of year? do they talk about that? about themselves? does the heat make her long for her home in the country? does the cold make him think of his native italy or greece? will her remarks change his short, gruff answers to interested questions about her home? will his enthusiasm for his native land change her flippancy to interest in far-off romantic countries? how would the last detail impress the change, if you decide to have one? might he call her back and force her to take a gift? might she deliver an impressive phrase, then dash away as though startled by her exhibition of sympathetic feeling? these are mere suggestions. two pupils might present the scene as indicated by these questions. two others might show it as broadly comic, and end by having the girl--at a safe distance--triumphantly show that she had stolen a second fruit. that might give him the cue to end in a tirade of almost inarticulate abuse, or he might stand in silence, expressing by his face the emotions surging over him. and his feeling need not be entirely anger, either. it might border on admiration for her amazing audacity, or pathetic helplessness, or comic despair, or determination to "get even" next time. before you attempt to present any of the following suggestive exercises you should consider every possibility carefully and decide definitely and consistently all the questions that may arise concerning every detail. exercises . let a boy come into the room and try to induce a girl (the mistress of a house) to have a telephone installed. make the dialogue realistic and interesting. . let a girl demonstrate a vacuum cleaner (or some other appliance) to another girl (mistress of a house). . let a boy apply for a position to a man in an office. . let a boy dictate a letter to a gum-chewing, fidgety, harum-scarum stenographer. . let this stenographer tell the telephone girl about this. . show how a younger sister might talk at a baseball or football game to her slightly older brother who was coerced into bringing her with him. . show a fastidious woman at a dress goods counter, and the tired, but courteous clerk. do not caricature, but try to give an air of reality to this. . show how two young friends who have not seen each other for weeks might talk when they meet again. . deliver the thoughts of a pupil at eleven o'clock at night trying to choose the topic for an english composition due the next morning. have him talk to his mother, or father, or older brother, or sister. . a foreign woman speaking and understanding little english, with a ticket to springfield, has by mistake boarded a through train which does not stop there. the conductor, a man, and woman try to explain to her what she must do. . let three different pairs of pupils represent the girl and the fruit seller cited in the paragraphs preceding these exercises. . a young man takes a girl riding in a new automobile. reproduce parts of the ride. . two graduates of your school meet after many years in a distant place. reproduce their reminiscenses. . a woman in a car or coach has lost or misplaced her transfer or ticket. give the conversation between her and the conductor. . let various pairs of pupils reproduce the conversations of patrons of moving pictures. . suggest other characters in appropriate situations. present them before the class. characters conceived by others. in all the preceding exercises you have been quite unrestricted in your interpretation. you have been able to make up entirely the character you presented. except for a few stated details of sex, age, occupation, nature, no suggestions were given of the person indicated. delineation is fairly easy to construct when you are given such a free choice of all possibilities. the next kind of exercise will involve a restriction to make the acting a little more like the acting of a rôle in a regular play. even here, however, a great deal is left to the pupil's thought and decision. how much chance there may be for such individual thought and decision in a finished play written by a careful dramatist may be illustrated by _fame and the poet_ by lord dunsany. one of the characters is a lieutenant-major who calls upon a poet in london. nothing is said about his costume. in one city an actor asked the british consul. he said officers of the army do not wear their uniforms except when in active service, but on the british stage one great actor had by his example created the convention of wearing the uniform. in another city at exactly the same time the author himself was asked the same question. he said that by no means should the actor wear a uniform. in the next exercises you are to represent characters with whom you have become acquainted in books. you will therefore know something about their dispositions, their appearance, and their actions. your task will be to give life-like portraits which others will recognize as true to their opinions of these same people. for all who have read the books the general outlines will be identical. the added details must not contradict any of the traits depicted by the authors. otherwise they may be as original as you can imagine. in the _odyssey_, the great old greek poem by homer, the wandering hero, odysseus (also called ulysses), is cast up by the sea upon a strange shore. here he meets nausicaa (pronounced nau-si'-ca-a) who offers to show him the way to the palace of her father, the bang. but as she is betrothed she fears that if she is seen in the company of an unknown man some scandalous gossip may be carried to her sweetheart. so she directs that when they near the town odysseus shall tarry behind, allowing her to enter alone. in this naive incident this much is told in detail by the poet. we are not told whether any gossip does reach the lover's ears. he does not appear in the story. we are not told even his name. nor are we told how either she or he behaved when they first met, after she had conducted the stranger to the palace. if you enact this scene of their meeting you will first have to find a name for him. you are free to create all the details of their behavior and conversation. was he angry? was he cool towards her? had he heard a false account? before attempting any of the following exercises decide all the matters of interpretation as already indicated in this chapter. exercises . molly farren tries to get news of godfrey cass from a stable-boy. _silas marner_. . the two miss gunns talk about priscilla lammeter. _silas marner_. . the wedding guest meets one of his companions. _the ancient mariner_. . nausicaa tells her betrothed about odysseus. _odyssey_. . reynaldo in paris tries to get information about laertes. _hamlet_. . fred tells his wife about scrooge and crachit. _a christmas carol_. . jupiter tells a friend of the finding of the treasure. _the gold bug_. . two women who know david copperfield talk about his second marriage. _david copperfield_. memorized conversations. you can approach still more closely to the material of a play if you offer in speech before your class certain suitable portions from books you are reading or have read. these selections may be made from the regular class texts or from supplementary reading assignments. in studying these passages with the intention of offering them before the class you will have to think about two things. first of all, the author has in all probability, somewhere in the book, given a fairly detailed, exact description of the looks and actions of these characters. if such a description does not occur in an extended passage, there is likely to be a series of statements scattered about, from which a reader builds up an idea of what the character is like. the pupil who intends to represent a person from a book or poem must study the author's picture to be able to reproduce a convincing portrait. the audience will pass over mere physical differences. a young girl described in a story as having blue eyes may be acted by a girl with brown, and be accepted. but if the author states that under every kind remark she made there lurked a slight hint of envy, that difficult suggestion to put into a tone must be striven for, or the audience will not receive an adequate impression of the girl's disposition. so, too, in male characters. a boy who plays old scrooge in _a christmas carol_ may not be able to look like him physically, but in the early scenes he must let no touch of sympathy or kindness creep into his voice or manner. it is just this inability or carelessness in plays attempting to reproduce literary works upon the stage that annoys so many intelligent, well-read people who attend theatrical productions of material which they already know. when _vanity fair_ was dramatised and acted as _becky sharp_, the general comment was that the characters did not seem like thackeray's creations. this was even more apparent when _pendennis_ was staged. if you analyze and study characters in a book from this point of view you will find them becoming quite alive to your imagination. you will get to know them personally. as you vizualize them in your imagination they will move about as real people do. thus your reading will take on a new aspect of reality which will fix forever in your mind all you glance over upon the printed page. climax. the second thing to regard in choosing passages from books to present before the class is that the lines shall have some point. conversation in a story is introduced for three different purposes. it illustrates character. it exposes some event of the plot. it merely entertains. such conversation as this last is not good material for dramatic delivery. it is hardly more than space filling. the other two kinds are generally excellent in providing the necessary point to which dramatic structure always rises. you have heard it called a climax. so then you should select from books passages which provide climaxes. one dictionary defines climax: "the highest point of intensity, development, etc.; the culmination; acme; as, he was then at the climax of his fortunes." in a play it is that turning-point towards which all events have been leading, and from which all following events spring. many people believe that all climaxes are points of great excitement and noise. this is not so. countless turning-points in stirring and terrible times have been in moments of silence and calm. around them may have been intense suspense, grave fear, tremendous issues, but the turning-point itself may have been passed in deliberation and quiet. exercises . choose from class reading--present or recent--some passage in conversation. discuss the traits exhibited by the speakers. formulate in a single statement the point made by the remarks. does the interest rise enough to make the passage dramatic? . several members of the class should read certain passages from books, poems, etc. the class should consider and discuss the characterization, interest, point, climax. . read chapters vi and vii of _silas marner_ by george eliot. are the characters well marked? is the conversation interesting in itself? does the interest rise? where does the rise begin? is there any suspense? does the scene conclude properly? if this were acted upon a stage would any additional lines be necessary or desirable? . read the last part of chapter xi of _silas marner_. what is the point? . memorize this dialogue and deliver it before the class. did the point impress the class? . consider, discuss, and test passages from any book which the members of the class know. . present before the class passages from any of the following: dickens _a christmas carol_ _a tale of two cities_ _david copperfield_ george eliot _silas marner_ _the mill on the floss_ scott _ivanhoe_ _kenilworth_ _the lady of the lake_ mark twain _huckleberry finn_ _the prince and the pauper_ o. henry _short stories_ thackeray _vanity fair_ _henry esmond_ _pendennis_ kipling _captains courageous_ _stalkey and co_. hugo _les misérables_ tennyson _idylls of the king_ _the princess_ arnold _sohrab and rustum_ stevenson _treasure island_ gaskell _cranford_ carroll _alice in wonderland_ kingsley _westward ho!_ barrie _sentimental tommy_ characters in plays. in acting regular plays you may find it necessary to follow either of the preceding methods of characterization. the conception of a character may have to be supplied almost entirely by some one outside the play. or the dramatist may be very careful to set down clearly and accurately the traits, disposition, actions of the people in his plays. in this second case the performer must try to carry out every direction, every hint of the dramatist. in the first case, he must search the lines of the play to glean every slightest suggestion which will help him to carry out the dramatist's intention. famous actors of characters in shakespeare's plays can give a reason for everything they show--at least, they should be able to do so--and this foundation should be a compilation of all the details supplied by the play itself, and stage tradition of its productions. in early plays there are practically no descriptions of the characters. questions about certain shakespeare characters will never be solved to the satisfaction of all performers. for instance, how old is hamlet in the tragedy? how close to madness did the dramatist expect actors to portray his actions? during hamlet's fencing match with laertes in the last scene the queen says, "he's fat, and scant of breath." was she describing his size, or meaning that he was out of fencing trim? shakespeare puts into the mouth of julius caesar a detailed description of the appearance and manner of acting of one of the chief characters of the tragedy. let me have men about me that are fat; sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights: yond cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much: such men are dangerous. * * * * * would he were fatter! but i fear him not: yet if my name were liable to fear, i do not know the man i should avoid so soon as that spare cassius. he reads much; he is a great observer, and he looks quite through the deeds of men; he loves no plays, as thou dost, antony; he hears no music; seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort as if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit that could be mov'd to smile at any thing. in _as you like it_ when the two girls are planning to flee to the forest of arden, rosalind tells how she will disguise herself and act as a man. this indicates to the actress both costume and behavior for the remainder of the comedy. were it not better, because that i am more than common tall, that i did suit me all points like a man? a gallant curtle-axe upon my thigh, a boar-spear in my hand; and--in my heart lie there what hidden woman's fear there will-- we'll have a swashing and a martial outside, as many other mannish cowards have that do outface it with their semblances. in many cases shakespeare clearly shows the performer exactly how to carry out his ideas of the nature of a man during part of the action. one of the plainest instances of this kind of instruction is in _macbeth_. the ambitious thane's wife is urging him on to murder his king. her advice gives the directions for the following scenes. o never shall sun that morrow see! your face, my thane, is as a book where men may read strange matters. to beguile the time, look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under't. he that's coming must be provided for: and you shall put this night's great business into my dispatch; which shall to all our nights and days to come give solely sovereign sway and masterdom. modern dramatists are likely to be much more careful in giving advice about characterization. they insert a large number of stage directions covering this matter. speed of delivery, tone and inflection, as well as underlying feeling and emotion are minutely indicated. duchess of berwick mr. hopper, i am very angry with you. you have taken agatha out on the terrace, and she is so delicate. hopper [_at left of center_] awfully sorry, duchess. we went out for a moment and then got chatting together. duchess [_at center_] ah, about dear australia, i suppose? hopper yes. duchess agatha, darling! [_beckons her over._] agatha yes, mamma! duchess [_aside_] _did mr. hopper definitely--_ agatha yes, mamma. duchess and what answer did you give him, dear child? agatha yes, mamma. duchess [_affectionately_] my dear one! you always say the right thing. mr. hopper! james! agatha has told me everything. how cleverly you have both kept your secret. hopper you don't mind my taking agatha off to australia, then, duchess? duchess [_indignantly_] to australia? oh, don't mention that dreadful vulgar place. hopper but she said she'd like to come with me. duchess [_severely_] did you say that, agatha? agatha yes, mamma. duchess agatha, you say the most silly things possible. descriptions of characters. in addition to definite directions at special times during the course of the dialogue, modern writers of plays describe each character quite fully at his first entrance into the action. this gives the delineator of each rôle a working basis for his guidance. such directions carefully followed out assure the tone for the whole cast. they keep a subordinate part always in the proper relation to all others. they make certain the impression of the whole story as a consistent artistic development. they prevent misunderstandings about the author's aim. they provide that every character shall appear to be swayed by natural motives. they remove from the performance all suggestions of unregulated caprice. dramatists vary in the exactness and minuteness of such descriptive character sketches, but even the shortest and most general is necessary to the proper appreciation of every play, even if it is being merely read. when a student is assimilating a rôle for rehearsing or acting, these additions of the author are as important as the lines themselves. exercises analyze the following. discuss the suitability of various members of the class for each part. which details do you think least essential? . he is a tall, thin, gaunt, withered, domineering man of sixty. when excited or angry he drops into dialect, but otherwise his speech, though flat, is fairly accurate. he sits in an arm-chair by the empty hearth working calculations in a small shiny black notebook, which he carries about with him everywhere, in a side pocket. . when the curtain rises a man is seen climbing over the balcony. his hair is close cut; his shirt dirty and blood-stained. he is followed by another man dressed like a sailor with a blue cape, the hood drawn over his head. moonlight. . enter dinah kippen quickly, a dingy and defiant young woman carrying a tablecloth. she is a nervous creature, driven half-mad by the burden of her cares. conceiving life, necessarily, as a path to be traversed at high speed, whenever she sees an obstacle in her way, whether in the physical or in the moral sphere, she rushes at it furiously to remove it or destroy it. . mrs. rhead, a woman of nearly sixty, is sitting on the sofa, crocheting some lace, which is evidently destined to trim petticoats. her hair is dressed in the style of , though her dress is of the period. . the song draws nearer and patricia carleon enters. she is dark and slight, and has a dreamy expression. though she is artistically dressed, her hair is a little wild. she has a broken branch of some flowering tree in her hand. . enter a neat-herd, followed by king alfred, who is miserably clad and shivering from cold; he carries a bow and a few broken arrows. a log fire is burning smokily in a corner of the hut. . enter from the right ito, the cynic philosopher, book in hand. . the rising of the curtain discovers the two miss wetherills--two sweet old ladies who have grown so much alike it would be difficult for a stranger to tell the one from the other. the hair of both is white, they are dressed much alike, both in some soft lavender colored material, mixed with soft lace. . newte is a cheerful person, attractively dressed in clothes suggestive of a successful follower of horse races. he carries a white pot hat and tasselled cane. his gloves are large and bright. he is smoking an enormous cigar. . she is young, slender, graceful; her yellow hair is in disorder, her face the color of ruddy gold, her teeth white as the bones of the cuttle-fish, her eyes humid and sea-green, her neck long and thin, with a necklace of shells about it; in her whole person something inexpressibly fresh and glancing, which makes one think of a creature impregnated with sea-salt dipped in the moving waters, coming out of the hiding-places of the rocks. her petticoat of striped white and blue, torn and discolored, falls only just below the knees, leaving her legs bare; her bluish apron drips and smells of the brine like a filter; and her bare feet in contrast with the brown color that the sun has given her flesh, are singularly pallid, like the roots of aquatic plants. and her voice is limpid and childish; and some of the words that she speaks seem to light up her ingenuous face with a mysterious happiness. studying plays. in nearly every grade of school and college, plays are either read or studied. the usual method of study is to read the lines of the play in rotation about the class, stopping at times for explanations, definitions, impressions, general discussions. such minute analysis may extend to the preparation of outlines and diagrams. the methods used to get pupils to know plays are almost as varied as teachers. after such analytical study has been pursued it is always a stimulating exercise to get another impression of the play--not as mere poetry or literature, but as acted drama. this may be accomplished in a short time by very simple means. pupils should memorize certain portions and then recite them before the class. neither costumes nor scenery will be required. all the members of the class have in their minds the appearances of the surroundings and the persons. what they need is to _hear_ the speeches the dramatist put into the hearts and mouths of his characters. the best presentation would be the delivery of the entire play running through some four or five class periods. if so much time cannot be allotted to this, only certain scenes need be delivered. the teacher might assign the most significant ones to groups of pupils, allowing each group to arrange for rehearsals before appearing before the class. in some classes the pupils may be trusted to arrange the entire distribution of scenes and rôles. when their preliminary planning has been finished, they should hand to the teacher a schedule of scenes and participants. whenever a play is read or studied, pupils will be attracted more by some passages than by others. a teacher may dispense with all assignments. the pupils could be directed merely to arrange their own groups, choose the scenes they want to offer, and to prepare as they decide. in such a voluntary association some members of the class might be uninvited to speak with any group. these then might find their material in prologue, epilogue, chorus, soliloquy, or inserted songs. nearly every play contains long passages requiring for their effect no second speaker. shakespeare's plays contain much such material. all the songs from a play would constitute a delightful offering. nothing in all the acted portion of _henry v_ is any better than the stirring speeches of the chorus. _hamlet_ has three great soliloquies for boys. _macbeth_ contains the sleepwalking scene for girls. milton's _comus_ is made up of beautiful poetic passages. every drama studied or read for school contains enough for every member of a class. some pupils may object that unless an exact preliminary assignment is made, two or more groups may choose the same scene. such a probable happening, far from being a disadvantage to be avoided, is a decided advantage worthy of being purposely attempted. could anything be more stimulating than to see and hear two different casts interpret a dramatic situation? each would try to do better than the other. each would be different in places. from a comparison the audience and performers would have all the more light thrown upon what they considered quite familiar. it would be a mistake to have five quartettes repeat the same scene over and over again. yet if twenty pupils had unconsciously so chosen, three presentations might be offered for discriminating observation. then some other portion could be inserted and later the first scene could be gone through twice. assigning rôles. teacher and pupils should endeavor to secure variety of interest in rôles. at first, assignments are likely to be determined by apparent fitness. the quiet boy is not required to play the part of the braggart. the retiring girl is not expected to impersonate the shrew. in one or two appearances it may be a good thing to keep in mind natural aptitude. then there should be a departure from this system. educational development comes not only from doing what you are best able to do, but from developing the less-marked phases of your disposition and character. the opposite practice should be followed, at least once. let the prominent class member assume a rôle of subdued personality. let the timid take the lead. induce the silent to deliver the majority of the speeches. you will be amazed frequently to behold the best delineations springing from such assignments. such rehearsing of a play already studied should terminate the minute analysis in order to show the material for what it is--actable drama. it will vivify the play again, and make the characters live in your memory as mere reading never will. you will see the moving people, the grouped situations, the developed story, the impressive climax, and the satisfying conclusion. in dealing with scenes from a long play--whether linked or disconnected--pupils will always have a feeling of incompleteness. in a full-length play no situation is complete in itself. it is part of a longer series of events. it may finish one part of the action, but it usually merely carries forward the plot, passing on the complication to subsequent situations. short plays. to deal with finished products should be the next endeavor. there are thousands of short plays suitable for class presentation in an informal manner. most of them do not require intensive study, as does a great greek or english drama, so their preparation may go on entirely outside the classroom. it should be frankly admitted that the exercises of delivering lines "in character" as here described is not acting or producing the play. that will come later. these preliminary exercises--many or few, painstaking or sketchy--are processes of training pupils to speak clearly, interestingly, forcefully, in the imagined character of some other person. the pupil must not wrongly believe that he is acting. though the delivery of a complete short play may seem like a performance, both participants and audience must not think of it so. it is class exercise, subject to criticism, comment, improvement, exactly as all other class recitations are. since the entire class has not had the chance to become familiar with all the short plays to be presented, some one should give an introductory account of the time and place of action. there might be added any necessary comments upon the characters. the cast of characters should be written upon the board. this exercise should be exactly like the preceding, except that it adds the elements of developing the plot of the play, creating suspense, impressing the climax, and satisfactorily rounding off the play. in order to accomplish these important effects the participants will soon discover that they must agree upon certain details to be made most significant. this will lead to discussions about how to make these points stand out. in the concerted attempt to give proper emphasis to some line late in the play it will be found necessary to suppress a possible emphasis of some line early in the action. to reinforce a trait of some person, another character may have to be made more self-assertive. to secure this unified effect which every play should make the persons involved will have to consider carefully every detail in lines and stage directions, fully agree upon what impression they must strive for, then heartily coöperate in attaining it. they must forget themselves to remember always that "the play's the thing." the following list will suggest short plays suitable for informal classroom training in dramatics. most of these are also general enough in their appeal to serve for regular production upon a stage before a miscellaneous audience. aldrich, t.b. _pauline pavlovna_ baring, m. _diminutive dramas_ butler, e.p. _the revolt_ cannan, g. _everybody's husband_ dunsany, lord _tents of the arabs_ the lost silk hat fame and the poet_ fenn and pryce. _'op-o-me-thumb_ gale, z. _neighbors_ gerstenberg, a. _overtones_ gibson, w. w. plays in collected works gregory, lady. _spreading the news the workhouse ward coats,_ etc. houghton, s. _the dear departed_ jones, h. a. _her tongue_ kreymborg, a. _mannikin and minnikin_ moeller, p. _pokey_ quintero, j. and s.a. _a sunny morning_ rice, c. _the immortal lure_ stevens, t.w. _ryland_ sudermann, h. _the far-away princess_ tchekoff, a. _a marriage proposal_ torrence, r. _the rider of dreams_ walker, s. _never-the-less_ yeats, w.b. _cathleen ni houlihan_ producing plays. any class or organization which has followed the various forms of dramatics outlined thus far in this chapter will find it an easy matter to succeed in the production of a play before an audience. the play. the first thing to decide upon is the play itself. this choice should be made as far in advance of performance as is possible. most of the work of producing a play is in adequate preparation. up to this time audiences have been members of the class, or small groups with kindly dispositions and forbearing sympathies. a general audience is more critical. it will be led to like or dislike according to the degree its interest is aroused and held. it will be friendly, but more exacting. the suitability of the play for the audience must be regarded. a comedy by shakespeare which delights and impresses both performers and audience is much more stimulating and educating than a greek tragedy which bores them. the stage. the second determining factor is the stage. what is its size? what is its equipment? some plays require large stages; others fit smaller ones better. a large stage may be made small, but it is impossible to stretch a small one. equipment for a school stage need not be elaborate. artistic ingenuity will do more than reckless expenditure. the simplest devices can be made to produce the best effects. the lighting system should admit of easy modification. for example, it should be possible to place lights in various positions for different effects. it should be possible to get much illumination or little. scenery. no scenery should be built when the stage is first erected. if a regular scene painter furnishes the conventional exterior, interior, and woodland scenery, the stage equipment is almost ruined for all time. it is ridiculous that a lecturer, a musician, a school principal, and a student speaker, should appear before audiences in the same scenery representing a park or an elaborate drawing-room. the first furnishings for a stage should be a set of beautiful draped curtains. these can be used, not only for such undramatic purposes as those just listed, but for a great many plays as well. no scenery should be provided until the first play is to be presented. certain plays can be adequately acted before screens arranged differently and colored differently for changes. when scenery must be built it should be strongly built as professional scenery is. it should also be planned for future possible manipulation. every director of school dramatics knows the delight of utilizing the same material over and over again. here is one instance. an interior set, neutral in tones and with no marked characteristics of style and period, was built to serve in acts i and v of _a midsummer night's dream_. hangings, furniture, costumes gave it the proper appearance. later it was used in _ulysses_. it has also housed molière's _doctor in spite of himself_ (_le medecin malgré lui_) and _the wealthy upstart_ (_le bourgeois gentilhomme_), carrion and aza's _zaragüeta_, sudermann's _the far-away princess_, houghton's _the dear departed_. the wooden frames on the rear side were painted black, the canvas panels tan, to serve in _twelfth night_ for the drinking scene, act ii, scene . with greek shields upon the walls it later pictured the first scene of _the comedy of errors_. with colorful border designs attached and oriental furniture it set a chinese play. a definite series of dimensions should be decided upon, and all scenery should be built in relation to units of these sizes. as a result of this, combinations otherwise impossible can be made. beginners should avoid putting anything permanent upon a stage. the best stage is merely space upon which beautiful pictures may be produced. beware of adopting much lauded "new features" such as cycloramas, horizonts, until you are assured you need them and can actually use them. in most cases it is wise to consult some one with experience. in considering plays for presentation you will have to think of whether your performers and your stage will permit of convincing production. remembering that suggestion is often better than realism, and knowing that beautiful curtains and colored screens are more delightful to gaze upon than cheap-looking canvas and paint, and knowing that action and costume produce telling effects, decide what the stage would have to do for the following scenes. exercises . read scene of _comus_ by milton. should the entire masque be acted out-of-doors? if presented on an indoors stage what should the setting be? inside the palace of comus? how then do the brothers get in? how do sabrina and her nymphs arise? from a pool, a fountain? might the stage show an exterior? would the palace be on one side? the edge of the woods on the other? would the banks of the river be at the rear? would such an arrangement make entrances, exits, acting, effective? explain all your opinions. read one of the following. devise a stage setting for it. describe it fully. if you can, make a sketch in black and white or in color, showing it as it would appear to the audience. or make a working plan, showing every detail. or construct a small model of the set, making the parts so that they will stand. or place them in a box to reproduce the stage. use one-half inch to the foot. . _a midsummer night's dream_, scene . interior? exterior? color? lighting? . _hamlet_, act i, scene . castle battlements? a graveyard? open space in country some distance from castle? . _comus_, scene . . _the tempest_, act i, scene . . _twelfth night_, act ii, scene . . _romeo and juliet_, act i, scene i. . _julius caesar_, act iii, scene . . in a long, high-vaulted room, looking out upon a roman garden where the cypresses rise in narrowing shafts from thickets of oleander and myrtle, is seated a company of men and women, feasting. william sharp: _the lute-player_ . a room, half drawing-room, half study, in lewis davenant's house in rockminister. furniture eighteenth century, pictures, china in glass cases. an april afternoon in . george moore: _elizabeth cooper_ . an island off the west of ireland. cottage kitchen, with nets, oil-skins, spinning wheel, some new boards standing by the wall, etc. j.m. synge: _riders to the sea_ . loud music. after which the scene is discovered, being a laboratory or alchemist's work-house. vulcan looking at the registers, while a cyclope, tending the fire, to the cornets began to sing. ben jonson: _mercury vindicated_ . rather an awesome picture it is with the cold blue river and the great black cliffs and the blacker cypresses that grow along its banks. there are signs of a trodden slope and a ferry, and there's a rough old wooden shelter where passengers can wait; a bell hung on the top with which they call the ferryman. calthrop and barker: _the harlequinade_ long before any play is produced there should be made a sketch or plan showing the stage settings. if it is in color it will suggest the appearance of the actual stage. one important point is to be noted. your sketch or model is merely a miniature of the real thing. if you have a splotch of glaring color only an inch long it will appear in the full-size setting about two feet long. a seemingly flat surface three by five inches in the design will come out six by ten feet behind the footlights. casting the play. when the play is selected, the rôles must be cast. to select the performers, one of many different methods may be followed. the instructor of the class or the director of the production may assign parts to individuals. when this person knows the requirements of the rôles and the abilities of the members, this method always saves time and effort. by placing all the responsibility upon one person it emphasizes care in choosing to secure best results. at times a committee may do the casting. such a method prevents personal prejudice and immature judgments from operating. it splits responsibility and requires more time than the first method. it is an excellent method for seconding the opinions of a director who does not know very well the applicants for parts. the third method is by "try-outs." in this the applicants show their ability. this may be done by speaking or reciting before an audience, a committee, or the director. it may consist of acting some rôle. it may be the delivery of lines from the play to be acted. it may be in a "cast reading" in which persons stand about the stage or room and read the lines of characters in the play. if there are three or four applicants for one part, each is given a chance to act some scene. in this manner all the rôles are filled. there are two drawbacks to this scheme which is the fairest which can be devised. it consumes a great deal of time. some member of the class or organization best fitted to play a rôle may not feel disposed to try for it. manifestly he should be the one selected. but it appears unfair to disregard the three boys who have made the effort while he has done nothing. yet every rôle should be acted in the very best manner. for the play's sake, the best actor should be assigned the part. a pupil may try for a part for which he is not at all suited, while he could fill another rôle better than any one who strives to get it. in a class which has been trained in public speaking or dramatics as this book suggests, it should be no difficult task to cast any play, whether full-length or one act. performers must always be chosen because of the possible development of their latent abilities rather than for assured attainments. these qualities must be sought for in performers of roles--obedience, dependableness, mobility, patience, endurance. rehearsing. a worthy play which is well cast is an assured success before its first rehearsal. the entire group should first study the whole play under the director's comment. it is best to have each actor read his own part. the behavior of a minor character in the second act may depend upon a speech in the first. the person playing that rôle must seize upon that hint for his own interpretation. it might be a good thing to have every person "letter perfect," that is, know all his speeches, at the first rehearsal. practically, this never occurs. reading from the book or the manuscript, a performer "walks through" his part, getting at the same time an idea of where he is to stand, how to move, how to speak, what to do, where to enter, when to cross the stage. all such directions he should jot down upon his part. then memorizing the lines will fix these stage directions in his mind. he will be assimilating at the same time lines and "business." "business" on the stage is everything done by a character except speaking lines. at all rehearsals the director is in absolute charge. his word is final law. this does not mean that members of the cast may not discuss things with him, and suggest details and additions. they must be careful to choose a proper time to do such things. they should never argue, but follow directions. time outside rehearsals may be devoted to clearing up points. of course an actor should never lose his temper. neither should the director. both of these bits of advice are frequently almost beyond observation of living human beings. yet they are the rules. rehearsals should be frequent rather than long. acts should be rehearsed separately. frequently only separate portions should be repeated. combinations should be made so as not to keep during long waits characters with only a few words. early portions will have to be repeated more frequently than later ones to allow the actors to get into their characterizations. tense, romantic, sentimental, comic scenes may have to be rehearsed privately until they are quite good enough to interest other members of the cast. the time for preparation will depend upon general ability of the cast, previous training, the kind of play, the amount of leisure for study and rehearsing. in most schools a full-length play may be crowded into four weeks. six or seven weeks are a better allowance. during first rehearsals changes and corrections should be made when needed. interruptions should be frequent. later there should be no interruptions. comments should be made at the end of a scene and embodied in an immediate repetition to fix the change in the actors' minds. other modifications should be announced before rehearsal, and embodied in the acting that day. the acting should be ready for an audience a week before the date set for the performance. during the last rehearsals, early acts should be recalled and repeated in connection with later ones, so that time and endurance may be counted and estimated. during these days rehearsals must go forward without any attention from the director. he must be giving all his attention to setting, lighting, costumes, properties, furniture, and the thousand and one other details which make play producing the discouraging yet fascinating occupation it is. such repetition without constant direction will develop a sense of independence and coöperation in the actors and assistants which will show in the enthusiasm and ease of the performance. stage hands and all other assistants must be trained to the same degree of reliability as the hero and heroine. nothing can be left to chance. nothing can be unprovided until the last minute. the dress rehearsal must be exactly like a performance, except that the audience is not present, or if present, is a different one. in schools, an audience at the dress rehearsal is usually a help to the amateur performers. results. a performance based on such principles and training as here suggested should be successful from every point of view. the benefits to the participants are many. they include strengthening of the power to memorize, widening of the imagination through interpretation of character, familiarity with a work of art, training in poise, utilization of speaking ability, awakening of self-confidence, and participation in a worthy coöperative effort. in a broader sense such interest in good, acted plays is an intellectual stimulus. as better plays are more and more effectively presented the quality of play production in schools will be improved, and both pupils and communities will know more and more of the world's great dramatic literature. appendices appendix a _additional exercises in exposition_ . the value of public speaking. . how lincoln became a great speaker. . studies in a good school course. . purposes of studying geometry. . explain the reasons for studying some subject. . an ideal school. . foreign language study. . forming habits. . sailing against the wind. . how to play some game. give merely the rules or imagine the game being played. . difference between football in america and in england. . exercise or athletics? . results of military training. . the gambling instinct. . parliamentary practice. . how to increase one's vocabulary. . is the story of _the vicar of wakefield_ too good to be true? . the defects of some book. . reading fiction. . magazines in america. . explain fully what a novel is, or a farce, or an allegory, or a satire. . why slang is sometimes justifiable. . a modern newspaper. . select two foreign magazines. compare and contrast them. . essential features of a good short story. . why evening papers offer so many editions. . how to find a book in a public library. . the difference between public speaking and oratory. . public speaking for the lawyer, the clergyman, the business man. . qualities of a book worth reading. . some queer uses of english. . history in the plays of shakespeare. . how to read a play. . mistakes in books or plays. . defects of translations. . "one touch of nature makes the whole world kin." . "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." . "you never miss the water till the well runs dry." . "penny wise, pound foolish." . select any proverb. explain it. . choose a short quotation from some poem. explain it. . explain some technical operation. . explain some mechanical process. . a range factory. . making electric bulbs. . how moving pictures are made and reproduced. . explain some simple machine. . a new application of electricity. . weather forecasting. . scientific or practical value of polar expeditions. . changes of the tide. . an eclipse. . the principle of some such appliance as the thermometer, the barometer, the microscope, the air-brake, the block signal. . developing a negative. . how the player piano is operated. . how the cash register prevents dishonesty. . how a new fruit is produced--as seedless orange. . mimeographing. . the value of latin for scientific terms. . the value of certain birds, worms, insects. . the life history of some queer animal, or insect, or plant. . how accuracy is secured. . the human eye and the camera. . the fireless cooker. . choose some half dozen terms from any trade or business and explain them. to sell short, margin, bull, bear, lamb. proscenium, apron, flies, baby spot, strike. fold in eggs, bring to a boil, simmer, percolate, to french. file, post, carry forward, remit, credit, receivership. baste, hem, rip, overcast, box pleat, batik, valenciennes. . building a musical program. . commercial art. . catch phrases in advertising. . principles of successful advertising. . the linotype machine. . how i made my first appearance as a public speaker. . real conversation. . mere talk. . the business woman. . a slump in a certain business or industry. . the red cross in war. . the red cross in peace. . compare the principles of two political parties. . a fire alarm. . why automobiles are licensed. . the powers and duties of some city or county official. . the advantages that this locality offers for certain industries or kinds of agriculture. . society fads. . the ideal office holder. . new systems of government. . various forms of socialism. . collecting a debt by law. . explain some legal procedure as suggested by some term, as mandamus, injunction, demurrer, habeas corpus, nolle prosequi. . explain the composition and work of the grand jury. . the efficiency expert. . a new profession. . the advantages of a trolley car with both entrance and exit at the front end. . labor-saving devices. . a supercargo. . scientific shop management. . hiring and discharging employees. . applying for a business position. . causes of some recent labor strike. . a labor union operates as a trust. . efficiency in the kitchen. . speeding up the work. . planning a factory. . making cheap automobiles. . uses of paper. . new methods of furnishing houses. . making the home beautiful. . new building materials. . designing and building a boat. . the lay-out of a shipyard. . rules for planting. . city government. . better methods of city government. . how a trial is conducted. . the juvenile court. . post office savings banks. . geographic advantages of this locality. . results of irrigation. . how the farmer controls world prices. . relation between some distant event and the price of some article in the corner store. . new businesses in america with their reasons for existence. . the latest improvement in this locality. . why certain cities are destined to increase in population. . model homes. . housing the inhabitants of large cities. . the operation of a subway. . automobile trucks instead of freight trains. . how lincoln became president. . why webster did not become president. . the dead-letter office. . the constitution of the united states and the constitution of great britain. . how the united states secured porto rico. . a free trade policy. . commercial reciprocity. . the protective tariff. . explain the application of some tax, as income, single, inheritance. . how the constitutionality of a law is determined. . how laws are made by congress. . the congressional record. . the monroe doctrine. . the attitude of foreign nations toward the monroe doctrine. . differences between the chinese and the japanese. . the failure of the hague tribunal. . the part of the united states in a league of nations. . reasons for the conditions in mexico. . our country's duty toward mexico. . the so-called yellow peril. . trans-oceanic air travel. . evolution of the airship. . the geodetic survey. . the census bureau. appendix b _additional exercises in argumentation_ . find in a magazine or newspaper some article in which conviction is the prime factor. . find in a magazine or newspaper some article in which persuasion is most used. . give examples from recent observation of discussions which were not argument as the term is used in this book. . explain how arguments upon a topic of current interest would differ in material and treatment for three kinds of audiences. . the education of the american negro should be industrial not cultural. . to the cabinet of the united states there should be added a secretary of education with powers to control all public education. . separate high schools for boys and girls should be maintained. . it is better to attend a small college than a large one. . women should be eligible to serve as members of the school board. . pupils should be marked by a numerical average rather than by a group letter. . at least two years of latin should be required for entrance to college. . the honor system should be introduced in all examinations in high schools and colleges. . the study of algebra should be compulsory in high school. . courses in current topics, based upon material in newspapers, should be offered in all high schools. . every high school should require the study of local civics or local industries. . regular gymnastic work is more beneficial than participation in organized athletics. . girls should study domestic science. . the kindergarten should be removed from our educational system. . coeducation in schools and colleges is better than segregation. . secret societies should be prohibited in high schools. . a magazine or newspaper which copies material from one in which it first appears should be required by law to compensate the author. . moving picture exhibitions should be more strictly regulated. . an exposition produces decided advantages for the city in which it is held. . a county fair is a decided benefit to a rural community. . all young men in this country should receive military training for a period of one year. . this city should provide employment for the unemployed. . motor delivery trucks should be substituted for horse-drawn wagons. . labor unions are justified in insisting upon the re-employment of members discharged for a cause which they deem unjust. . farmers should study scientific agriculture. . capital and labor should be required by law to settle their disputes by appeals to a legally constituted court of arbitration whose decisions should be enforced. . in time of peace no member of a labor union should be a member of a regularly organized military force. . overtime work should be paid for at the same rate as regular work. . all work should be paid for according to the amount done rather than by time. . employers are justified in insisting upon the "open shop." . trade unions are justified in limiting the number of persons allowed to enter a trade. . this state should establish a minimum working wage for women. . the street railway company should pave and keep in repair all streets in which its cars are operated. . more definite laws concerning the sale of milk should be passed. . this city should institute government by a commission. . this city should institute and maintain an adequate system of public playgrounds. . this city should provide more free recreations for its citizens. . city government should be conducted by a highly paid municipal expert hired for the purpose of controlling city affairs exactly as he would a large business organization. . a public building for community interests is a better memorial for a city to erect than the usual monument or statue. . voting machines should be used in all cities. . all public utilities should be owned and operated by the city. . judges should not be elected by popular vote. . a representative should vote according to the opinions of his constituency. . this state should provide old-age pensions. . laws should be passed making it impossible to dispose of more than one million dollars by will. . the pure food law should be strictly enforced. . every state should have a state university in which tuition for its inhabitants should be absolutely free. . the governor of a state should not have the pardoning power. . no children below the age of sixteen should be allowed to work in factories. . laws concerning the sale of substitutes for butter should be made more stringent. . sunday closing laws should be repealed. . the railroads of the united states should be allowed to pool their interests. . the present method of amending the constitution of the united states should be changed. . this government should insist upon a strict adherence to the monroe doctrine. . the american indian has been unjustly treated. . railroads should be under private ownership but subject to government control. . an educational test should be required of all persons desiring to enter this country. . the united states should own and control the coal mines of the country. . members of the house of representatives should be chosen to represent industries, workers, and professions, rather than geographical divisions. . woman suffrage carries with it the right to hold office except where expressly forbidden in existing laws and constitutions. . instead of an extension of suffrage to all women there should be a restriction from the previous inclusion of all men. . all raw materials should be admitted to this country free of duty. . all departments of the government should be under the civil service act. . the civil war pension policy was a wise one. . the united states should build and maintain a large navy. . a high protective tariff keeps wages high. . letter postage should be reduced to one cent. . laws governing marriage and divorce should be made uniform by congress. . the present restriction upon chinese immigration should be modified to admit certain classes. . the standing army of the united states should be increased. . this government should establish a system of shipping subsidies. . repeated failure to vote should result in the loss of the right of suffrage. . the united states should not enter into any league of nations. . the defeated central powers of europe should be admitted to full membership in the league of nations. . japan should be prevented from owning or controlling any territory upon the continent which belonged to china. . great britain should establish egypt as an independent country. . ireland should be organized as a dominion similar to canada and australia. . the united states should establish a protectorate over mexico. . this country should demand from germany an indemnity equal to our expenses in the war. . the former kaiser of germany and his state officials responsible for the world war of should be tried by an international court. . all european nations should agree to disarmament. . foreign missions should be discontinued. . the jews of the world should colonize palestine. . commercial reciprocity should be established between the united states and south america. . this country has no need to fear any aggression from any asiatic race. . the government system of great britain is more truly representative than that of the united states. . a railroad should pay ten thousand dollars to the family of any employee who meets death by accident while on duty. . there is no such thing possible as "christian warfare." . vivisection should be prohibited. . the dead should be cremated. . cigarettes should not be sold to boys under eighteen. . children under fourteen should not be allowed to appear upon the stage. . socialism is the best possible solution of all labor problems. . the soviet system of government has details applicable to certain conditions in america. . no person should be forced to undergo vaccination. . labor interests can be served best by the formation of a separate political party. index abbott, lyman, abolition movement, the, acceptance, speech of, acquired ability, acting, after-dinner speech, allen, john, amplified definition, amplifying and diminishing, analogy, analogy, incorrect, analysis, anglo-saxon, anticipatory conclusion, , antony, mark, antonyms, _a posteriori_ argument, appealing to prejudice or passions, appropriate diction, _a priori_ argument, argumentation, _argumentum ad hominem_, _argumentum ad populum_, aristotle, arrangement, , assigning rôles, attacking speaker's character, attributes of speaker, audience in debate, authorities, , bacon, beecher, henry ward, , , begging the question, birrell, augustine, brief, , brief, making a, brief, speaking from the, briefing, selections for, bright, john, burden of proof, burke, edmund, , , , , , , , , business, calhoun, john c., , , capital punishment, brief, cards, - casting a play, causal relation, cause to effect, , channing, william ellery, character delineation, characters, description of, characters in plays, chatham, lord, cheyney, edward p., choate, rufus, choosing a theme, cicero, circumstantial evidence, classification, clay, henry, climax, coherence, commemorative speech, comparison, complex sentence, composition of the english language, compound sentence, conclusion, length, consonants, constructive argument, contradiction, contrast, conversations, memorized, conviction, crabbe, _english synonyms_, cross references, curtis, george william, , , , , daniel, john w., debaters, debating, decision in debate, deductive reasoning, definition, delineation of character, delivery, delivery of introductions, demosthenes, description of characters, dewey, m., dialogue, _differentia_, diminishing, amplifying and, direct evidence, discarding material, division, dramatics, drawbacks, dress rehearsal, dunsany, lord, effect to cause, , elimination, eloquence, false, elson, h.w., emphasis, , enthymeme, enunciation, evarts, william m., everett, edward, evidence, examples, , exclamatory sentence, explaining, explanation, exposition, experience, fallacies, false eloquence, fernald, _english synonyms, antonyms, and prepositions_, finding the issues, ford, simeon, fox, charles james, fox, john, franklin, benjamin, general terms, genus, gestures, getting material, gettysburg address, gratiano, hale, edward everett, hamlet's advice to players, hasty generalization, hayne, henry, patrick, , , , homer, howell, clark, huxley, thomas h., ideas and words, ignoring the question, importance, importance of speech, improvisation, inaugural speech, incidents of government trading, incorrect analogy, increasing the vocabulary, index, inductive reasoning, interrogative sentence, interview, introduction, length, introduction, purpose, introduction and audience, invention and speech, issues, jefferson, joseph, jefferson, thomas, judges, _julius caesar_, kinds of propositions, knox, philander, language, , league of nations, legal brief, length of speech, library, library classification, lincoln, abraham, , , , , , , , , , , list of short plays, long sentences, lodge, henry cabot, , logical definition, lowell, abbott lawrence, macaulay, thomas babington, , , , , , , making a brief, manner in debate, margins, material of speeches, mccumber, p.j., memorized conversations, memorizing, , methods of explaining, military leadership, naturalness, nominating speech, notes, observation, organs of speech, organ pipe, otis, james, outline, , panama canal, particulars of general statement, partition, penn, william, periodicals, peroration, persuading, persuasion, persuasive speech, phillips, wendell, phrasing, pitch, place, plan, plays, characters in, plays, producing, plays, short, plays, studying, poise, pose, _power plant engineering_, prefixes, preparation for debate, preparing introductions, preparing the conclusion, presentation and acceptance, speeches of, presiding officer, presiding officers, producing plays, pronunciation, proof, proposition, , propositions of fact, propositions of policy, proving, reading, reading the speech, rebuttal, restrictions, rebuttal speeches, recapitulation, reducing to absurdity, _reductio ad absurdum_, refuting, , rehearsing, residues, results of training, retrospective conclusion, , roget's _thesaurus_, rôles, assigning, romance, roosevelt, theodore, , , , , , sanitation, scenery, scholastic debating, selecting material, selections for briefing, self-criticism, sentences, shakespeare, short plays, short sentences, sidney, sir phillip, simple sentence, sincerity, singing, speakers in debate, speaking from the brief, speaking from the floor, special occasions, speaking upon, specific terms, specimen brief, capital punishment, speech in modern life, speed, stage, statistics, studying plays, suffixes, summary, sumner, charles, , , support of a measure, syllogism, symbols, synonyms, table of contents, tabulations, talk, taking notes, team work, theme, choosing a, thesaurus, thinking, thought, time limit in debates, time order, time order reversed, tone, , tradition, transitions, trite expressions, twain, mark, understanding, , unity, van dyke, henry, vocabularies, voice, vowels, washington, booker t., washington, george, , , webster, daniel, , , , , , , , , , , wilson, woodrow, , , , , wording the proposition, speeches & letters of abraham lincoln - edited by merwin roe london: published by j. m. dent & sons ltd and in new york by e.p. dutton & co first issue of this edition ; reprinted , , mr. bryce's introduction to 'lincoln's speeches' is printed from plates made and type set by the university press, cambridge, mass., u.s.a. taken by permission from 'the complete works of abraham lincoln,' century company, [illustration: when he sent his great voice forth out of his breast, & his words fell like the winter snows, nor then would any mortal contend with ulysses--homer. iliad.] introduction no man since washington has become to americans so familiar or so beloved a figure as abraham lincoln. he is to them the representative and typical american, the man who best embodies the political ideals of the nation. he is typical in the fact that he sprang from the masses of the people, that he remained through his whole career a man of the people, that his chief desire was to be in accord with the beliefs and wishes of the people, that he never failed to trust in the people and to rely on their support. every native american knows his life and his speeches. his anecdotes and witticisms have passed into the thought and the conversation of the whole nation as those of no other statesman have done. he belongs, however, not only to the united states, but to the whole of civilized mankind. it is no exaggeration to say that he has, within the last thirty years, grown to be a conspicuous figure in the history of the modern world. without him, the course of events not only in the western hemisphere but in europe also would have been different, for he was called to guide at the greatest crisis of its fate a state already mighty, and now far more mighty than in his days, and the guidance he gave has affected the march of events ever since. a life and a character such as his ought to be known to and comprehended by europeans as well as by americans. among europeans, it is especially englishmen who ought to appreciate him and understand the significance of his life, for he came of an english stock, he spoke the english tongue, his action told upon the progress of events and the shaping of opinion in all british communities everywhere more than it has done upon any other nation outside america itself. this collection of lincoln's speeches seeks to make him known by his words as readers of history know him by his deeds. in popularly-governed countries the great statesman is almost of necessity an orator, though his eminence as a speaker may be no true measure either of his momentary power or of his permanent fame, for wisdom, courage and tact bear little direct relation to the gift for speech. but whether that gift be present in greater or in lesser degree, the character and ideas of a statesman are best studied through his own words. this is particularly true of lincoln, because he was not what may be called a professional orator. there have been famous orators whose speeches we may read for the beauty of their language or for the wealth of ideas they contain, with comparatively little regard to the circumstances of time and place that led to their being delivered. lincoln is not one of these. his speeches need to be studied in close relation to the occasions which called them forth. they are not philosophical lucubrations or brilliant displays of rhetoric. they are a part of his life. they are the expression of his convictions, and derive no small part of their weight and dignity from the fact that they deal with grave and urgent questions, and express the spirit in which he approached those questions. few great characters stand out so clearly revealed by their words, whether spoken or written, as he does. accordingly lincoln's discourses are not like those of nearly all the men whose eloquence has won them fame. when we think of such men as pericles, demosthenes, Æschines, cicero, hortensius, burke, sheridan, erskine, canning, webster, gladstone, bright, massillon, vergniaud, castelar, we think of exuberance of ideas or of phrases, of a command of appropriate similes or metaphors, of the gifts of invention and of exposition, of imaginative flights, or outbursts of passion fit to stir and rouse an audience to like passion. we think of the orator as gifted with a powerful or finely-modulated voice, an imposing presence, a graceful delivery. or if--remembering that lincoln was by profession a lawyer and practised until he became president of the united states--we think of the special gifts which mark the forensic orator, we should expect to find a man full of ingenuity and subtlety, one dexterous in handling his case in such wise as to please and capture the judge or the jury whom he addresses, one skilled in those rhetorical devices and strokes of art which can be used, when need be, to engage the listener's feelings and distract his mind from the real merits of the issue. of all this kind of talent there was in lincoln but little. he was not an artful pleader; indeed, it was said of him that he could argue well only those cases in the justice of which he personally believed, and was unable to make the worse appear the better reason. for most of the qualities which the world admires in cicero or in burke we should look in vain in lincoln's speeches. they are not fine pieces of exquisite diction, fit to be declaimed as school exercises or set before students as models of composition. what, then, are their merits? and why do they deserve to be valued and remembered? how comes it that a man of first-rate powers was deficient in qualities appertaining to his own profession which men less remarkable have possessed? to answer this question, let us first ask what were the preparation and training abraham lincoln had for oratory, whether political or forensic. born in rude and abject poverty, he had never any education, except what he gave himself, till he was approaching manhood. not even books wherewith to inform and train his mind were within his reach. no school, no university, no legal faculty had any part in training his powers. when he became a lawyer and a politician, the years most favourable to continuous study had already passed, and the opportunities he found for reading were very scanty. he knew but few authors in general literature, though he knew those few thoroughly. he taught himself a little mathematics, but he could read no language save his own, and can have had only the faintest acquaintance with european history or with any branch of philosophy. the want of regular education was not made up for by the persons among whom his lot was cast. till he was a grown man, he never moved in any society from which he could learn those things with which the mind of an orator or a statesman ought to be stored. even after he had gained some legal practice, there was for many years no one for him to mix with except the petty practitioners of a petty town, men nearly all of whom knew little more than he did himself. schools gave him nothing, and society gave him nothing. but he had a powerful intellect and a resolute will. isolation fostered not only self-reliance but the habit of reflection, and, indeed, of prolonged and intense reflection. he made all that he knew a part of himself. he thought everything out for himself. his convictions were his own--clear and coherent. he was not positive or opinionated, and he did not deny that at certain moments he pondered and hesitated long before he decided on his course. but though he could keep a policy in suspense, waiting for events to guide him, he did not waver. he paused and reconsidered, but it was never his way either to go back upon a decision once made, or to waste time in vain regrets that all he expected had not been attained. he took advice readily, and left many things to his ministers; but he did not lean upon his advisers. without vanity or ostentation, he was always independent, self-contained, prepared to take full responsibility for his acts. that he was keenly observant of all that passed under his eyes, that his mind played freely round everything it touched, we know from the accounts of his talk, which first made him famous in the town and neighbourhood where he lived. his humour, and his memory for anecdotes which he could bring out to good purpose, at the right moment, are qualities which europe deems distinctively american, but no great man of action in the nineteenth century, even in america, possessed them in the same measure. seldom has so acute a power of observation been found united to so abundant a power of sympathy. these remarks may seem to belong to a study of his character rather than of his speeches, yet they are not irrelevant, because the interest of his speeches lies in their revelation of his character. let us, however, return to the speeches and to the letters, some of which, given in this volume, are scarcely less noteworthy than are the speeches. what are the distinctive merits of these speeches and letters? there is less humour in them than his reputation as a humorist would have led us to expect. they are serious, grave, practical. we feel that the man does not care to play over the surface of the subject, or to use it as a way of displaying his cleverness. he is trying to get right down to the very foundation of the matter and tell us what his real thoughts about it are. in this respect he sometimes reminds us of bismarck's speeches, which, in their rude, broken, forth-darting way, always go straight to their destined aim; always hit the nail on the head. so too, in their effort to grapple with fundamental facts, lincoln's bear a sort of likeness to cromwell's speeches, though cromwell has far less power of utterance, and always seems to be wrestling with the difficulty of finding language to convey to others what is plain, true and weighty to himself. this difficulty makes the great protector, though we can usually see what he is driving at, frequently confused and obscure. lincoln, however, is always clear. simplicity, directness and breadth are the notes of his thought. aptness, clearness, and again, simplicity, are the notes of his diction. the american speakers of his generation, like most of those of the preceding generation, but unlike those of that earlier generation to which alexander hamilton, john adams, marshall and madison belonged, were generally infected by a floridity which made them a by-word in europe. even men of brilliant talent, such as edward everett, were by no means free from this straining after effect by highly-coloured phrases and theatrical effects. such faults have to-day virtually vanished from the united states, largely from a change in public taste, to which perhaps the example set by lincoln himself may have contributed. in the forties and fifties florid rhetoric was rampant, especially in the west and south, where taste was less polished than in the older states. that lincoln escaped it is a striking mark of his independence as well as of his greatness. there is no superfluous ornament in his orations, nothing tawdry, nothing otiose. for the most part, he addresses the reason of his hearers, and credits them with desiring to have none but solid arguments laid before them. when he does appeal to emotion, he does it quietly, perhaps even solemnly. the note struck is always a high note. the impressiveness of the appeal comes not from fervid vehemence of language, but from the sincerity of his own convictions. sometimes one can see that through its whole course the argument is suffused by the speaker's feeling, and when the time comes for the feeling to be directly expressed, it glows not with fitful flashes, but with the steady heat of an intense and strenuous soul. the impression which most of the speeches leave on the reader is that their matter has been carefully thought over even when the words have not been learnt by heart. but there is an anecdote that on one occasion, early in his career, lincoln went to a public meeting not in the least intending to speak, but presently being called for by the audience, rose in obedience to the call, and delivered a long address so ardent and thrilling that the reporters dropped their pencils and, absorbed in watching him, forgot to take down what he said. it has also been stated, on good authority, that on his way in the railroad cars, to the dedication of the monument on the field of gettysburg, he turned to a pennsylvanian gentleman who was sitting beside him and remarked, "i suppose i shall be expected to say something this afternoon; lend me a pencil and a bit of paper," and that he thereupon jotted down the notes of a speech which has become the best known and best remembered of all his utterances, so that some of its words and sentences have passed into the minds of all educated men everywhere. that famous gettysburg speech is the best example one could desire of the characteristic quality of lincoln's eloquence. it is a short speech. it is wonderfully terse in expression. it is quiet, so quiet that at the moment it did not make upon the audience, an audience wrought up by a long and highly-decorated harangue from one of the prominent orators of the day, an impression at all commensurate to that which it began to make as soon as it was read over america and europe. there is in it not a touch of what we call rhetoric, or of any striving after effect. alike in thought and in language it is simple, plain, direct. but it states certain truths and principles in phrases so aptly chosen and so forcible, that one feels as if those truths could have been conveyed in no other words, and as if this deliverance of them were made for all time. words so simple and so strong could have come only from one who had meditated so long upon the primal facts of american history and popular government that the truths those facts taught him had become like the truths of mathematics in their clearness, their breadth, and their precision. the speeches on slavery read strange to us now, when slavery as a living system has been dead for forty years, dead and buried hell deep under the detestation of mankind. it is hard for those whose memory does not go back to to realize that down till then it was not only a terrible fact, but was defended--defended by many otherwise good men, defended not only by pseudo-scientific anthropologists as being in the order of nature, but by ministers of the gospel, out of the sacred scriptures, as part of the ordinances of god. lincoln's position, the position of one who had to induce slave-owning fellow-citizens to listen to him and admit persuasion into their heated and prejudiced minds, did not allow him to denounce it with horror, as we can all so easily do to-day. but though his language is calm and restrained, he never condescends to palter with slavery. he shows its innate evils and dangers with unanswerable force. the speech on the dred scott decision is a lucid, close and cogent piece of reasoning which, in its wide view of constitutional issues, sometimes reminds one of webster, sometimes even of burke, though it does not equal the former in weight nor the latter in splendour of diction. among the letters, perhaps the most impressive is that written to mrs. bixley, the mother of five sons who had died fighting for the union in the armies of the north. it is short, and it deals with a theme on which hundreds of letters are written daily. but i do not know where the nobility of self-sacrifice for a great cause, and of the consolation which the thought of a sacrifice so made should bring, is set forth with such simple and pathetic beauty. deep must be the fountains from which there issues so pure a stream. the career of lincoln is often held up to ambitious young americans as an example to show what a man may achieve by his native strength, with no advantages of birth or environment or education. in this there is nothing improper, nothing fanciful. the moral is one which may well be drawn, and in which those on whose early life fortune has not smiled may find encouragement. but the example is, after all, no great encouragement to ordinary men, for lincoln was an extraordinary man. he triumphed over the adverse conditions of his early years because nature had bestowed on him high and rare powers. superficial observers who saw his homely aspect and plain manners, and noted that his fellow-townsmen, when asked why they so trusted him, answered that it was for his common-sense, failed to see that his common-sense was a part of his genius. what is common-sense but the power of seeing the fundamentals of any practical question, and of disengaging them from the accidental and transient features that may overlie these fundamentals--the power, to use a familiar expression, of getting down to bed rock? one part of this power is the faculty for perceiving what the average man will think and can be induced to do. this is what keeps the superior mind in touch with the ordinary mind, and this is perhaps why the name of "common-sense" is used, because the superior mind seems in its power of comprehending others to be itself a part of the general sense of the community. all men of high practical capacity have this power. it is the first condition of success. but in men who have received a philosophical or literary education there is a tendency to embellish, for purposes of persuasion, or perhaps for their own gratification, the language in which they recommend their conclusions, or to state those conclusions in the light of large general principles, a tendency which may, unless carefully watched, carry them too high above the heads of the crowd. lincoln, never having had such an education, spoke to the people as one of themselves. he seemed to be saying not only what each felt, but expressing the feeling just as each would have expressed it. in reality, he was quite as much above his neighbours in insight as was the polished orator or writer, but the plain directness of his language seemed to keep him on their level. his strength lay less in the form and vesture of the thought than in the thought itself, in the large, simple, practical view which he took of the position. and thus, to repeat what has been said already, the sterling merit of these speeches of his, that which made them effective when they were delivered and makes them worth reading to-day, is to be found in the justness of his conclusions and their fitness to the circumstances of the time. when he rose into higher air, when his words were clothed with stateliness and solemnity, it was the force of his conviction and the emotion that thrilled through his utterance, that printed the words deep upon the minds and drove them home to the hearts of the people. what is a great man? common speech, which after all must be our guide to the sense of the terms which the world uses, gives this name to many sorts of men. how far greatness lies in the power and range of the intellect, how far in the strength of the will, how far in elevation of view and aim and purpose,--this is a question too large to be debated here. but of abraham lincoln it may be truly said that in his greatness all three elements were present. he had not the brilliance, either in thought or word or act, that dazzles, nor the restless activity that occasionally pushes to the front even persons with gifts not of the first order. he was a patient, thoughtful, melancholy man, whose intelligence, working sometimes slowly but always steadily and surely, was capacious enough to embrace and vigorous enough to master the incomparably difficult facts and problems he was called to deal with. his executive talent showed itself not in sudden and startling strokes, but in the calm serenity with which he formed his judgments and laid his plans, in the undismayed firmness with which he adhered to them in the face of popular clamour, of conflicting counsels from his advisers, sometimes, even, of what others deemed all but hopeless failure. these were the qualities needed in one who had to pilot the republic through the heaviest storm that had ever broken upon it. but the mainspring of his power, and the truest evidence of his greatness, lay in the nobility of his aims, in the fervour of his conviction, in the stainless rectitude which guided his action and won for him the confidence of the people. without these things neither the vigour of his intellect nor the firmness of his will would have availed. there is a vulgar saying that all great men are unscrupulous. of him it may rather be said that the note of greatness we feel in his thinking and his speech and his conduct had its source in the loftiness and purity of his character. lincoln's is one of the careers that refute this imputation on human nature. james bryce the following is a list of lincoln's published works: selections.--letters on questions of national policy, etc., ; dedicatory speech of president lincoln, etc., at the consecration of gettysburg cemetery, nov. th, , ; the last address of president lincoln to the american people, ; the martyr's monument, ; in memoriam, ; gems from a. lincoln, ; the president's words, ; emancipation proclamation--second inaugural address--gettysburg speech, ; two inaugural addresses and gettysburg speech, ; the gettysburg speech and other papers, with an essay on lincoln by j.r. lowell (riverside literature series, ), ; the table talk of abraham lincoln, ed. w.o. stoddard, ; political debates between abraham lincoln and stephen a. douglas in the celebrated campaign of in illinois, etc. also the two great speeches of abraham lincoln at ohio in , ; political speeches and debates of abraham lincoln and s.a. douglas, - , edited by a.t. jones, ; lincoln, passages from his speeches and letters, with introduction by r.w. gilder, . complete editions of works, letters, and speeches.--h.j. raymond, history of the administration of abraham lincoln (speeches, letters, etc.), ; abraham lincoln, pen and voice, being a complete compilation of his letters, public addresses, messages to congress, ed. g.m. van buren, etc., ; complete works, ed. j.g. nicolay and j. hay, vols., ; enlarged edition, with introduction by r.w. gilder, etc., , etc.; a. lincoln's speeches, compiled by l.e. chittenden, ; the writings of a. lincoln, ed. a.b. lapsley, with an introduction by theodore roosevelt, and a life by noah brooks, etc. (federal edition), ; etc. life.--h.j. raymond; the life and public services of a.l., etc., with anecdotes and personal reminiscences, by f.b. carpenter, ; j.h. barrett, ; j.g. holland, ; w.h. lamon, ; w.o. stoddard, ; i.n. arnold, ; j.g. nicolay and j. hay, ; condensed edition, ; recollections of president lincoln and his administration, ; c.c. coffin, ; j.t. morse, ; j. hay (the presidents of the united states), ; c.a. dana, lincoln and his cabinet, etc., ; j.h. choate, ; address delivered before the edinburgh philosophical institution, nov. , ; i.m. tarbell, ; w.e. curtis, the true abraham lincoln, ; j.h. barrett, a. lincoln and his presidency, ; j. baldwin, . a. rothschild, lincoln, master of men, ; f.t. hill, lincoln the lawyer, . among those who have written short lives are: mrs. h. beecher stowe, d.w. bartlett, c.g. leland, j.c. power, etc. contents lincoln's first public speech--from an address to the people of sangamon county, march , letter to col. robert allen, june , from a letter published in the sangamon "journal," june , from his address before the young men's lyceum of springfield, jan. , letter to mrs. o.h. browning, springfield, april , from a political debate, springfield, dec, letter to w.g. anderson, lawrenceville, ill., oct. , extract from a letter to john t. stuart, springfield, ill., jan. , from his address before the springfield washingtonian temperance society, feb. , from a circular of the whig committee, march , from a letter to martin m. morris, springfield, ill., march , from a letter to joshua f. speed, springfield, ill., oct. , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, jan. , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, june , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, july , letter to john d. johnston, jan. , letter to john d. johnston, shelbyville, nov. , note for law lecture--written about july , a fragment--written about july , a fragment on slavery, july from his reply to senator douglas, peoria, oct. , from a letter to the hon. geo. robertson, lexington, ky.; springfield, ill., aug. , from a letter to joshua f. speed, aug. , lincoln's "lost speech," may , speech on the dred scott case, springfield, ill., june , the "divided house" speech, springfield, ill., june , from his speech at chicago in reply to the speech of judge douglas, july , from a speech at springfield, ill., july , from lincoln's reply to douglas in the first joint debate, ottawa, ill., aug. , from lincoln's rejoinder to judge douglas at freeport, ill., aug. , from lincoln's reply to douglas at jonesboro', sept. , from lincoln's reply to douglas at charleston, ill., sept. , from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at galesburg, ill., oct. , notes for speeches--written about oct. , from lincoln's reply to douglas in the seventh and last joint debate, at alton, ill., oct. , from speech at columbus, ohio, sept. , from speech at cincinnati, ohio, sept. , from a letter to j.w. fell, dec. , from the address at cooper institute, n.y., feb. , lincoln's farewell to the citizens of springfield, ill., feb. , letter to hon. geo. ashmun, accepting the nomination for presidency, may , letter to miss grace bedell, springfield, ill., oct. , from his address to the legislature at indianapolis, feb. , from his address to the legislature at columbus, ohio, feb. , from his remarks at pittsburgh, pa., feb. , from his address at trenton, n.j., feb. , address in independence hall, philadelphia, feb. , his reply to the mayor of washington, d.c., feb. , first inaugural address, march , address at utica, n.y., feb. , from his first message to congress, at the special session, july , from his message to congress at its regular session, dec. , letter to gen. g.b. mcclellan, washington, feb. , proclamation revoking gen. hunter's order setting the slaves free, may , appeal to the border states in behalf of compensated emancipation, july , from letter to cuthbert bullitt, july , letter to august belmont, july , letter to horace greeley, aug. , from his reply to the chicago committee of united religious denominations, sept. , from the annual message to congress, dec. , emancipation proclamation, jan. , letter to general grant, july , letter to ---- moulton, washington, july , letter to mrs. lincoln, washington, aug. , letter to james h. hackett, washington, aug. , note to secretary stanton, washington, nov. , letter to james c. conkling, aug. , his proclamation for a day of thanksgiving, oct. , remarks at the dedication of the national cemetery at gettysburg, nov. , from his annual message to congress, dec. , letter to secretary stanton, washington, march , letter to governor michael hahn, washington, march , address at a sanitary fair, march , letter to a.g. hodges, april , address at a sanitary fair at baltimore, april , letter to general grant, april , from address to the th ohio regiment, aug. , reply to a serenade, nov. , letter to mrs. bixley, nov. , letter to general grant, washington, jan. , second inaugural address, march , letter to thurlow weed, march , from an address to an indiana regiment, march , his last public address, april , appendix anecdotes publishers' note for permission to use extracts from "the complete works of abraham lincoln," edited by john g. nicolay and john hay, the publishers wish to thank the century company. they also wish to thank mr. william h. lambert, the owner of the copyright, and mrs. sarah a. whitney for their courtesy in allowing them to publish "lincoln's lost speech." lincoln's speeches and letters _lincoln's first public speech. from an address to the people of sangamon county. march , _ upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, i can only say that i view it as the most important subject which we, as a people, can be engaged in. that every man may receive at least a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to read the scriptures and other works, both of a religious and moral nature, for themselves. for my part, i desire to see the time when education--and by its means morality, sobriety, enterprise, and industry--shall become much more general than at present; and should be gratified to have it in my power to contribute something to the advancement of any measure which might have a tendency to accelerate that happy period. with regard to existing laws, some alterations are thought to be necessary. many respectable men have suggested that our estray laws--the law respecting the issuing of executions, the road law, and some others--are deficient in their present form, and require alterations. but considering the great probability that the framers of those laws were wiser than myself, i should prefer not meddling with them, unless they were first attacked by others, in which case i should feel it both a privilege and a duty to take that stand which, in my view, might tend to the advancement of justice. but, fellow-citizens, i shall conclude. considering the great degree of modesty which should always attend youth, it is probable i have already been more presuming than becomes me. however, upon the subjects of which i have treated, i have spoken as i have thought. i may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but, holding it a sound maxim that it is better only to be sometimes right than at all times wrong, so soon as i discover my opinions to be erroneous i shall be ready to renounce them. every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. whether it be true or not, i can say, for one, that i have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow-men by rendering myself worthy of their esteem. how far i shall succeed in gratifying this ambition is yet to be developed. i am young and unknown to many of you; i was born and have ever remained in the most humble walks of life. i have no wealthy or popular relations or friends to recommend me. my case is thrown exclusively upon the independent voters of the county, and if elected, they will have conferred a favour upon me for which i shall be unremitting in my labours to compensate. but if the good people in their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, i have been too familiar with disappointments to be very much chagrined. your friend and fellow-citizen, a. lincoln. _letter to colonel robert allen. june , _ dear colonel, i am told that during my absence last week you passed through this place, and stated publicly that you were in possession of a fact or facts which, if known to the public, would entirely destroy the prospects of n.w. edwards and myself at the ensuing election; but that, through favour to us, you should forbear to divulge them. no one has needed favours more than i, and, generally, few have been less unwilling to accept them; but in this case favour to me would be injustice to the public, and therefore i must beg your pardon for declining it. that i once had the confidence of the people of sangamon, is sufficiently evident; and if i have since done anything, either by design or misadventure, which if known would subject me to a forfeiture of that confidence, he that knows of that thing, and conceals it, is a traitor to his country's interest. i find myself wholly unable to form any conjecture of what fact or facts, real or supposed, you spoke; but my opinion of your veracity will not permit me for a moment to doubt that you at least believed what you said. i am flattered with the personal regard you manifested for me; but i do hope that, on more mature reflection, you will view the public interest as a paramount consideration, and therefore determine to let the worst come. i here assure you that the candid statement of facts on your part, however low it may sink me, shall never break the tie of personal friendship between us. i wish an answer to this, and you are at liberty to publish both, if you choose. _lincoln's opinion on universal suffrage. from a letter published in the sangamon "journal." june , _ i go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist in bearing its burdens: consequently i go for admitting all whites to the right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms [by no means excluding females]. _from an address before the young men's lyceum of springfield, illinois. january , _ as a subject for the remarks of the evening "the perpetuation of our political institutions" is selected. in the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the american people, find our account running under the date of the nineteenth century of the christian era. we find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. we find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. we, when remounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. we toiled not in the acquirement or the establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed to us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to rear upon its hills and valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these,--the former unprofaned by the foot of the invader; the latter undecayed by lapse of time. this, our duty to ourselves and to our posterity, and love for our species in general, imperatively require us to perform. how, then, shall we perform it? at what point shall we expect the approach of danger? by what means shall we fortify against it? shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? never. all the armies of europe, asia and africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the ohio, or make a track on the blue ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. at what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? i answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. it cannot come from abroad. if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. there is even now something of ill omen among us. i mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. this disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. * * * * * i know the american people are _much_ attached to their government. i know they would suffer _much_ for its sake. i know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affection for the government is the natural consequence, and to that sooner or later it must come. here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. the question recurs, how shall we fortify against it? the answer is simple. let every american, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. as the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the declaration of independence, so to the support of the constitution and the laws let every american pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. let reverence for the laws be breathed by every american mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs. let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. and, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation. when i so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. i mean to say no such thing. but i do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. so also in unprovided cases. if such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with. there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. in any case that may arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true--that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens, or it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.... they (histories of the revolution) were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. passion has helped us, but can do so no more. it will in future be our enemy. reason--cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws; and that we improved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we revered his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting-place, shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our washington. upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair. but such belong not to the family of the lion or the brood of the eagle. what? think you these places would satisfy an alexander, a cæsar, or a napoleon? never! towering genius disdains a beaten path. it seeks regions hitherto unexplored. it sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. it denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. it scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. it thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men. is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some men, possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? and when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his design. distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet that opportunity being passed, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would sit down boldly to the task of pulling down. here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not well have existed heretofore. * * * * * all honour to our revolutionary ancestors, to whom we are indebted for these institutions. they will not be forgotten. in history we hope they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read. but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest. at the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. the consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son, or a brother, a living history was to be found in every family,--a history bearing the indubitable testimonies to its own authenticity in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received in the midst of the very scenes related; a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned. but those histories are gone. they can be read no more for ever. they were a fortress of strength; but what the invading foemen could never do, the silent artillery of time has done,--the levelling of its walls. they are gone. they were a forest of giant oaks; but the resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs a few more ruder storms, and then to sink and be no more. humorous account of his experiences with a lady he was requested to marry _a letter to mrs. o.h. browning. springfield, illinois. april , _ dear madam, without apologising for being egotistical, i shall make the history of so much of my life as has elapsed since i saw you the subject of this letter. and, by the way, i now discover that in order to give a full and intelligible account of the things i have done and suffered since i saw you, i shall necessarily have to relate some that happened before. it was, then, in the autumn of that a married lady of my acquaintance, and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing in kentucky, proposed to me that on her return she would bring a sister of hers with her on condition that i would engage to become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispatch. i, of course, accepted the proposal, for you know i could not have done otherwise had i really been averse to it; but privately, between you and me, i was most confoundedly well pleased with the project. i had seen the said sister some three years before, thought her intelligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to plodding life through hand-in-hand with her. time passed on, the lady took her journey, and in due time returned, sister in company, sure enough. this astonished me a little, for it appeared to me that her coming so readily showed that she was a trifle too willing, but on reflection it occurred to me that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to come, without anything concerning me having been mentioned to her, and so i concluded that if no other objection presented itself, i would consent to waive this. all this occurred to me on hearing of her arrival in the neighbourhood--for, be it remembered, i had not yet seen her, except about three years previous, as above mentioned. in a few days we had an interview, and, although i had seen her before, she did not look as my imagination had pictured her. i knew she was over-size, but she now appeared a fair match for falstaff. i knew she was called an "old maid," and i felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appellation, but now, when i beheld her, i could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features,--for her skin was too full of fat to permit of its contracting into wrinkles--but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head that nothing could have commenced at the size of infancy and reached her present bulk in less than thirty-five or forty years; and, in short, i was not at all pleased with her. but what could i do? i had told her sister that i would take her for better or for worse, and i made a point of honour and conscience in all things to stick to my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it, which in this case i had no doubt they had, for i was now fairly convinced that no other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to my bargain. "well," thought i, "i have said it, and, be the consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault if i fail to do it." at once i determined to consider her my wife, and this done, all my powers of discovery were put to work in search of perfections in her which might be fairly set off against her defects. i tried to imagine her handsome, which, but for her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. exclusive of this, no woman that i have ever seen has a finer face. i also tried to convince myself that the mind was much more to be valued than the person, and in this she was not inferior, as i could discover, to any with whom i had been acquainted. shortly after this, without attempting to come to any positive understanding with her, i set out for vandalia, when and where you first saw me. during my stay there i had letters from her which did not change my opinion of either her intellect or intention, but, on the contrary, confirmed it in both. all this while, although i was fixed "firm as the surge-repelling rock" in my resolution, i found i was continually repenting the rashness which had led me to make it. through life i have been in no bondage, either real or imaginary, from the thraldom of which i so much desired to be free. after my return home i saw nothing to change my opinion of her in any particular. she was the same, and so was i. i now spent my time in planning how i might get along in life after my contemplated change of circumstances should have taken place, and how i might procrastinate the evil day for a time, which i really dreaded as much, perhaps more, than an irishman does the halter. after all my sufferings upon this deeply interesting subject, here i am, wholly, unexpectedly, completely out of the "scrape," and i now want to know if you can guess how i got out of it--out, clear, in every sense of the term--no violation of word, honour, or conscience. i don't believe you can guess, and so i might as well tell you at once. as the lawyer says, it was done in the manner following, to wit: after i had delayed the matter as long as i thought i could in honour do (which, by the way, had brought me round into the last fall), i concluded i might as well bring it to a consummation without further delay, and so i mustered my resolution and made the proposal to her direct; but, shocking to relate, she answered, no. at first i supposed she did it through an affectation of modesty, which i thought but ill became her under the peculiar circumstances of the case, but on my renewal of the charge i found she repelled it with greater firmness than before. i tried it again and again, but with the same success, or rather with the same want of success. i finally was forced to give it up, at which i very unexpectedly found myself mortified almost beyond endurance. i was mortified, it seemed to me, in a hundred different ways. my vanity was deeply wounded by the reflection that i had so long been too stupid to discover her intentions, and at the same time never doubting that i understood them perfectly; and also that she, whom i had taught myself to believe nobody else would have, had actually rejected me with all my fancied greatness. and, to cap the whole, i then for the first time began to suspect that i was really a little in love with her. but let it all go! i'll try and outlive it. others have been made fools of by the girls, but this can never in truth be said of me. i most emphatically, in this instance, made a fool of myself. i have now come to the conclusion never again to think of marrying, and for this reason--i can never be satisfied with any one who would be blockhead enough to have me. when you receive this, write me a long yarn about something to amuse me. give my respects to mr. browning. _from a debate between lincoln, e.d. baker, and others against douglas, lamborn, and others. springfield. december _ * * * * * ... mr. lamborn insists that the difference between the van buren party and the whigs is, that although the former sometimes err in practice, they are always correct in principle, whereas the latter are wrong in principle; and the better to impress this proposition, he uses a figurative expression in these words: "the democrats are vulnerable in the heel, but they are sound in the heart and in the head." the first branch of the figure--that is, that the democrats are vulnerable in the heel--i admit is not merely figuratively but literally true. who that looks but for a moment at their swartwouts, their prices, their harringtons, and their hundreds of others, scampering away with the public money to texas, to europe, and to every spot of the earth where a villain may hope to find refuge from justice, can at all doubt that they are most distressingly affected in their heels with a species of running fever? it seems that this malady of their heels operates on the sound-headed and honest-hearted creatures very much like the cork leg in the song did on its owner, which, when he had once got started on it, the more he tried to stop it, the more it would run away. at the hazard of wearing this point threadbare, i will relate an anecdote which seems to be too strikingly in point to be omitted. a witty irish soldier who was always boasting of his bravery when no danger was near, but who invariably retreated without orders at the first charge of the engagement, being asked by his captain why he did so, replied, "captain, i have as brave a heart as julius cæsar ever had; but somehow or other, whenever danger approaches, my cowardly legs will run away with it." so it is with mr. lamborn's party. they take the public money into their hands for the most laudable purpose that wise heads and honest hearts can dictate, but before they can possibly get it out again, their rascally vulnerable heels will run away with them.... _letter to w.g. anderson. lawrenceville, illinois. october , _ dear sir, your note of yesterday is received. in the difficulty between us of which you speak, you say you think i was the aggressor. i do not think i was. you say my "words imported insult." i meant them as a fair set-off to your own statements, and not otherwise; and in that light alone i now wish you to understand them. you ask for my present "feelings on the subject." i entertain no unkind feelings to you, and none of any sort upon the subject, except a sincere regret that i permitted myself to get into such an altercation. _extract from a letter to john t. stuart. springfield illinois. january , _ for not giving you a general summary of news, you must pardon me; it is not in my power to do so. i am now the most miserable man living. if what i feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be one cheerful face on earth. whether i shall ever be better, i cannot tell; i awfully forebode i shall not. to remain as i am is impossible; i must die or be better, it appears to me. the matter you speak of on my account you may attend to as you say, unless you shall hear of my condition forbidding it. i say this because i fear i shall be unable to attend to any business here, and a change of scene might help me. if i could be myself, i would rather remain at home with judge logan. i can write no more. _from an address before the washingtonian temperance society. springfield, illinois. february , _ although the temperance cause has been in progress for nearly twenty years, it is apparent to all that it is just now being crowned with a degree of success hitherto unparalleled. the list of its friends is daily swelled by the additions of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands. the cause itself seems suddenly transformed from a cold abstract theory to a living, breathing, active and powerful chieftain, going forth conquering and to conquer. the citadels of his great adversary are daily being stormed and dismantled; his temples and his altars, where the rites of his idolatrous worship have long been performed, and where human sacrifices have long been wont to be made, are daily desecrated and deserted. the trump of the conqueror's fame is sounding from hill to hill, from sea to sea, and from land to land, and calling millions to his standard at a blast. * * * * * "but," say some, "we are no drunkards, and we shall not acknowledge ourselves such by joining a reform drunkard's society, whatever our influence might be." surely no christian will adhere to this objection. if they believe, as they profess, that omnipotence condescended to take on himself the form of sinful man, and, as such, to die an ignominious death for their sakes, surely they will not refuse submission to the infinitely lesser condescension for the temporal and perhaps eternal salvation of a large, erring, and unfortunate class of their fellow-creatures; nor is the condescension very great. in my judgment, such of us as have never fallen victims have been spared more from the absence of appetite, than from any mental or moral superiority over those who have. indeed i believe, if we take habitual drunkards as a class, their heads and their hearts will bear an advantageous comparison with those of any other class. there seems ever to have been a proneness in the brilliant and warm-blooded to fall into this vice. the demon of intemperance ever seems to have delighted in sucking the blood of genius and generosity. what one of us but can call to mind some relative more promising in youth than all his fellows, who has fallen a sacrifice to his rapacity? he ever seems to have gone forth like the egyptian angel of death, commissioned to slay, if not the first, the fairest born of every family. shall he now be arrested in his desolating career? in that arrest all can give aid that will; and who shall be excused that can and will not? far around as human breath has ever blown, he keeps our fathers, our brothers, our sons, and our friends prostrate in the chains of moral death.... when the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. it is an old and a true maxim "that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." so with men. if you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. on the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than herculean force and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw. such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interests.... another error, as it seems to me, into which the old reformers fell, was the position that all habitual drunkards were utterly incorrigible, and therefore must be turned adrift and damned without remedy in order that the grace of temperance might abound, to the temperate then, and to all mankind some hundreds of years thereafter. there is in this something so repugnant to humanity, so uncharitable, so cold-blooded and feelingless, that it never did, nor never can enlist the enthusiasm of a popular cause. we could not love the man who taught it--we could not hear him with patience. the heart could not throw open its portals to it, the generous man could not adopt it--it could not mix with his blood. it looked so fiendishly selfish, so like throwing fathers and brothers overboard to lighten the boat for our security, that the noble-minded shrank from the manifest meanness of the thing. and besides this, the benefits of a reformation to be effected by such a system were too remote in point of time to warmly engage many in its behalf. few can be induced to labour exclusively for posterity; and none will do it enthusiastically. posterity has done nothing for us; and theorize on it as we may, practically we shall do very little for it, unless we are made to think we are at the same time doing something for ourselves. what an ignorance of human nature does it exhibit, to ask or expect a whole community to rise up and labour for the temporal happiness of others, after themselves shall be consigned to the dust, a majority of which community take no pains whatever to secure their own eternal welfare at no more distant day! great distance in either time or space has wonderful power to lull and render quiescent the human mind. pleasures to be enjoyed, or pains to be endured, after we shall be dead and gone, are but little regarded even in our own cases, and much less in the cases of others. still, in addition to this there is something so ludicrous in promises of good or threats of evil a great way off as to render the whole subject with which they are connected easily turned into ridicule. "better lay down that spade you are stealing, paddy; if you don't you'll pay for it at the day of judgment." "be the powers, if ye'll credit me so long i'll take another jist." _from the circular of the whig committee. an address to the people of illinois. march , _ ... the system of loans is but temporary in its nature, and must soon explode. it is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute. as an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next, no one left to borrow from, so must it be with a government. we repeat, then, that a tariff sufficient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to; and, indeed, we believe this alternative is now denied by no one. but which system shall be adopted? some of our opponents in theory admit the propriety of a tariff sufficient for revenue, but even they will not in practice vote for such a tariff; while others boldly advocate direct taxation. inasmuch, therefore, as some of them boldly advocate direct taxation, and all the rest--or so nearly all as to make exceptions needless--refuse to adopt the tariff, we think it is doing them no injustice to class them all as advocates of direct taxation. indeed, we believe they are only delaying an open avowal of the system till they can assure themselves that the people will tolerate it. let us, then, briefly compare the two systems. the tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels, at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing. and, again, by the tariff system the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods, and those chiefly the luxuries and not the necessaries of life. by this system, the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country pays nothing at all. and surely that country is extensive enough, and its products abundant and varied enough, to answer all the real wants of its people. in short, by this system the burden of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and labouring many, who live at home and upon home products, go entirely free. by the direct tax system, none can escape. however strictly the citizen may exclude from his premises all foreign luxuries, fine cloths, fine silks, rich wines, golden chains, and diamond rings,--still, for the possession of his house, his barn, and his homespun he is to be perpetually haunted and harassed by the tax-gatherer. with these views, we leave it to be determined whether we or our opponents are more truly democratic on the subject. _from a letter to martin m. morris. springfield, illinois. march , _ it is truly gratifying to me to learn that while the people of sangamon have cast me off, my old friends of menard, who have known me longest and best, stick to me. it would astonish, if not amuse, the older citizens to learn that i (a stranger, friendless, uneducated, penniless boy, working on a flatboat at ten dollars per month) have been put down here as the candidate of pride, wealth, and aristocratic family distinction. yet so, chiefly, it was. there was, too, the strangest combination of church influence against me. baker is a campbellite; and therefore, as i suppose, with few exceptions, got all that church. my wife has some relations in the presbyterian churches, and some with the episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, i was set down as either the one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no christian ought to go for me, because i belonged to no church, was suspected of being a deist, and had talked about fighting a duel. with all these things, baker, of course, had nothing to do. nor do i complain of them. as to his own church going for him, i think that was right enough, and as to the influences i have spoken of in the other, though they were very strong, it would be grossly untrue and unjust to charge that they acted upon them in a body, or were very near so. i only mean that those influences levied a tax of a considerable per cent. upon my strength throughout the religious controversy. but enough of this. _from a letter to joshua f. speed. springfield. october , _ we have another boy, born the th of march. he is very much such a child as bob was at his age, rather of a longer order. bob is "short and low," and i expect always will be. he talks very plainly--almost as plainly as anybody. he is quite smart enough. i sometimes fear that he is one of the little rare-ripe sort that are smarter at about five than ever after. he has a great deal of that sort of mischief that is the offspring of such animal spirits. since i began this letter, a messenger came to tell me bob was lost; but by the time i reached the house his mother had found him and had him whipped, and by now, very likely, he is run away again. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington. january , _ dear william, your letter of december th was received a day or two ago. i am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken, and promise to take in my little business there. as to speech-making, by way of getting the hang of the house, i made a little speech two or three days ago on a post-office question of no general interest. i find speaking here and elsewhere about the same thing. i was about as badly scared, and no worse, as i am when i speak in court. i expect to make one within a week or two, in which i hope to succeed well enough to wish you to see it. it is very pleasant to learn from you that there are some who desire that i should be re-elected. i most heartily thank them for their partiality; and i can say, as mr. clay said of the annexation of texas, that "personally i would not object" to a re-election, although i thought at the time, and still think, it would be quite as well for me to return to the law at the end of a single term. i made the declaration that i would not be a candidate again, more from a wish to deal fairly with others, to keep peace among our friends, and to keep the district from going to the enemy, than for any cause personal to myself; so that, if it should so happen that nobody else wishes to be elected, i could refuse the people the right of sending me again. but to enter myself as a competitor of others, or to authorize any one so to enter me, is what my word and honour forbid. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington. june , _ as to the young men. you must not wait to be brought forward by the older men. for instance, do you suppose that i should ever have got into notice if i had waited to be hunted up and pushed forward by older men? you young men get together and form a "rough and ready club," and have regular meetings and speeches. take in everybody you can get. harrison grimsley, l.a. enos, lee kimball and c.w. matheny will do to begin the thing; but as you go along gather up all the shrewd, wild boys about town, whether just of age or a little under age--chris. logan, reddick ridgley, lewis zwizler, and hundreds such. let every one play the part he can play best,--some speak, some sing, and all "holler." your meetings will be of evenings; the older men, and the women, will go to hear you; so that it will not only contribute to the election of "old zach," but will be an interesting pastime, and improving to the intellectual faculties of all engaged. don't fail to do this. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington, july , _ the way for a young man to rise is to improve himself every way he can, never suspecting that anybody wishes to hinder him. allow me to assure you that suspicion and jealousy never did help any man in any situation. there may sometimes be ungenerous attempts to keep a young man down; and they will succeed, too, if he allows his mind to be diverted from its true channel to brood over the attempted injury. cast about, and see if this feeling has not injured every person you have ever known to fall into it. _letter to john d. johnston. january , _ dear johnston, your request for eighty dollars i do not think it best to comply with now. at the various times when i have helped you a little you have said to me, "we can get along very well now"; but in a very short time i find you in the same difficulty again. now, this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. what that defect is, i think i know. you are not lazy, and still you are an idler. i doubt whether, since i saw you, you have done a good whole day's work in any one day. you do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. this habit of uselessly wasting time is the whole difficulty; it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break the habit. it is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it, easier than they can get out after they are in. you are now in need of some money; and what i propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. let father and your boys take charge of your things at home, prepare for a crop, and make the crop, and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get; and, to secure you a fair reward for your labour, i now promise you, that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of may, get for your own labour, either in money or as your own indebtedness, i will then give you one other dollar. by this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. in this i do not mean you shall go off to st. louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines in california, but i mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home in coles county. now, if you will do this, you will be soon out of debt, and, what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. but, if i should now clear you out of debt, next year you would be just as deep in as ever. you say you would almost give your place in heaven for seventy or eighty dollars. then you value your place in heaven very cheap, for i am sure you can, with the offer i make, get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. you say if i will furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and, if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession. nonsense! if you can't now live with the land, how will you then live without it? you have always been kind to me, and i do not mean to be unkind to you. on the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eighty times eighty dollars to you. _letter to john d. johnston. shelbyville. november , _ dear brother, when i came into charleston day before yesterday, i learned that you are anxious to sell the land where you live and move to missouri. i have been thinking of this ever since, and cannot but think such a notion is utterly foolish. what can you do in missouri better than here? is the land any richer? can you there, any more than here, raise corn and wheat and oats without work? will anybody there, any more than here, do your work for you? if you intend to go to work, there is no better place than right where you are; if you do not intend to go to work, you cannot get along anywhere. squirming and crawling about from place to place can do no good. you have raised no crop this year; and what you really want is to sell the land, get the money, and spend it. part with the land you have, and, my life upon it, you will never after own a spot big enough to bury you in. half you will get for the land you will spend in moving to missouri, and the other half you will eat, drink, and wear out, and no foot of land will be bought. now, i feel it my duty to have no hand in such a piece of foolery. i feel that it is so even on your own account, and particularly on mother's account. the eastern forty acres i intend to keep for mother while she lives; if you will not cultivate it, it will rent for enough to support her--at least, it will rent for something. her dower in the other two forties she can let you have, and no thanks to me. now, do not misunderstand this letter; i do not write it in any unkindness. i write it in order, if possible, to get you to face the truth, which truth is, you are destitute because you have idled away all your time. your thousand pretences for not getting along better are all nonsense; they deceive nobody but yourself. go to work is the only cure for your case. a word to mother. chapman tells me he wants you to go and live with him. if i were you i would try it awhile. if you get tired of it (as i think you will not), you can return to your own home. chapman feels very kindly to you, and i have no doubt he will make your situation very pleasant. _note for law lecture. written about july , _ i am not an accomplished lawyer. i find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein i have failed, as in those wherein i have been moderately successful. the leading rule for a lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. never let your correspondence fall behind. whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labour pertaining to it which can then be done. when you bring a common law-suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. if a law point be involved, examine the books, and note the authority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. the same of defences and pleas. in business not likely to be litigated,--ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like,--make all examinations of titles, and note them and even draft orders and decrees in advance. the course has a triple advantage; it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labour when once done, performs the labour out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not. extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. it is the lawyer's avenue to the public. however able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. and yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speech-making. if any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance. discourage litigation. persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, expenses, and waste of time. as a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. there will still be business enough. never stir up litigation. a worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? a moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it. the matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. an exorbitant fee should never be claimed. as a general rule, never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. when fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. and when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. never sell a fee-note--at least not before the consideration service is performed. it leads to negligence and dishonesty--negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail. there is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. i say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honours are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. yet the impression is common, almost universal. let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief. resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave. _a fragment. written about july , _ equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the british aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. we know southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired labourers amongst us. how little they know whereof they speak! there is no permanent class of hired labourers amongst us. twenty-five years ago i was a hired labourer. the hired labourer of yesterday labours on his own account to-day, and will hire others to labour for him to-morrow. advancement--improvement in condition--is the order of things in a society of equals. as labour is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden on to the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of god upon his creatures. free labour has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. the power of hope upon human exertion and happiness is wonderful. the slave-master himself has a conception of it, and hence the system of tasks among slaves. the slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. you have substituted hope for the rod. and yet perhaps it does not occur to you that, to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system and adopted the free system of labour. _a fragment on slavery. july _ if a can prove, however conclusively, that he may of right enslave b, why may not b snatch the same argument and prove equally that he may enslave a? you say a is white and b is black. it is colour, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? take care. by this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own. you do not mean colour exactly? you mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? take care again. by this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own. but, say you, it is a question of interest, and if you make it your interest you have the right to enslave another. very well. and if he can make it his interest he has the right to enslave you. _lincoln's reply to senator douglas at peoria, illinois. the origin of the wilmot proviso. october , _ ... our war with mexico broke out in . when congress was about adjourning that session, president polk asked them to place two millions of dollars under his control, to be used by him in the recess, if found practicable and expedient, in negotiating a treaty of peace with mexico, and acquiring some part of her territory. a bill was duly gotten up for the purpose, and was progressing swimmingly in the house of representatives, when a democratic member from pennsylvania by the name of david wilmot moved as an amendment, "provided, that in any territory thus acquired there shall never be slavery." _this is the origin of the far-famed wilmot proviso._ it created a great flutter; but it stuck like wax, was voted into the bill, and the bill passed with it through the house. the senate, however, adjourned without final action on it, and so both the appropriation and the proviso were lost for the time. ... this declared indifference, but, as i must think, real, covert zeal, for the spread of slavery, i cannot but hate. i hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. i hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world, enables the enemies of free institutions with plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites, causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, criticizing the declaration of independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest. before proceeding let me say that i think i have no prejudice against the southern people. they are just what we would be in their situation. if slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. if it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. this i believe of the masses north and south. doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew if it were out of existence. we know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north and become tip-top abolitionists, while some northern ones go south and become most cruel slave-masters. when southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, i acknowledge the fact. when it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, i can understand and appreciate the saying. i surely will not blame them for not doing what i should not know how to do myself. if all earthly power were given me, i should not know what to do as to the existing institution. my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to liberia, to their own native land. but a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as i think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. if they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. what then? free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? is it quite certain that this betters their condition? i think i would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. what next? free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? my own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. a universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. we cannot then make them equals. it does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted, but for their tardiness in this i will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south. equal justice to the south, it is said, requires us to consent to the extension of slavery to new countries. that is to say, that inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to nebraska, therefore i must not object to your taking your slave. now, i admit that this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and slaves. but while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the negro, i wish to ask whether you of the south, yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? it is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. that percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. the great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. these sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people manifest in many ways their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the negro. if they deny this let me address them a few plain questions. in you joined the north almost unanimously in declaring the african slave-trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. why did you do this? if you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? the practice was no more than bringing wild negroes from africa to such as would buy them. but you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes, or wild bears. again, you have among you a sneaking individual of the class of native tyrants known as the _slave-dealer_. he watches your necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave at a speculating price. if you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. you despise him utterly; you do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. your children must not play with his; they may rollick freely with the little negroes, but not with the slave-dealer's children. if you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the job without so much as touching him. it is common with you to join hands with the men you meet; but with the slave-dealer you avoid the ceremony,--instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact. if he grows rich and retires from business, you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of non-intercourse upon him and his family. now, why is this? you do not so treat the man who deals in cotton, corn, or tobacco. and yet again. there are in the united states and territories, including the district of columbia, over four hundred and thirty thousand free blacks. at five hundred dollars per head, they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. how comes this vast amount of property to be running about without owners? we do not see free horses or free cattle running at large. how is this? all these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves; and they would be slaves now but for something that has operated on their white owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifice to liberate them. what is that something? is there any mistaking it? in all these cases it is your sense of justice and human sympathy continually telling you that the poor negro has some natural right to himself,--that those who deny it and make mere merchandise of him deserve kickings, contempt, and death. and now why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave, and estimate him as only the equal of the hog? why ask us to do what you will not do yourselves? why ask us to do for nothing what two hundred millions of dollars could not induce you to do? but one great argument in support of the repeal of the missouri compromise is still to come. that argument is "the sacred right of self-government." ... some poet has said,-- "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." at the hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, i meet that argument,--i rush in,--i take that bull by the horns.... my faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. i extend the principle to communities of men as well as to individuals. i so extend it because it is politically wise as well as naturally just,--politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. here, or at washington, i would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of virginia, or the cranberry laws of indiana. the doctrine of self-government is right,--absolutely and internally right; but it has no just application as here attempted. or perhaps i should rather say that whether it has any application here depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. if he is not a man, in that case he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just what he pleases with him. but if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he, too, shall not govern himself? when the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government,--that is despotism. if the negro is a man, then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another. judge douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying: "the white people of nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes!" well, i doubt not that the people of nebraska are and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. i do not say the contrary. what i do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. i say this is the leading principle,--the sheet-anchor of american republicanism. slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature,--opposition to it in his love of justice. these principles are in eternal antagonism, and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. repeal the missouri compromise; repeal all compromises; repeal the declaration of independence; repeal all past history,--you still cannot repeal human nature. it still will be the abundance of man's heart that slavery extension is wrong, and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak.... the missouri compromise ought to be restored. slavery may or may not be established in nebraska. but whether it be or not, we shall have repudiated--discarded from the councils of the nation--the spirit of compromise; for who, after this, will ever trust in a national compromise? the spirit of mutual concession--that spirit which first gave us the constitution, and has thrice saved the union--we shall have strangled and cast from us for ever. and what shall we have in lieu of it? the south flushed with triumph and tempted to excess; the north betrayed, as they believed, brooding on wrong and burning for revenge. one side will provoke, the other resent. the one will taunt, the other defy; one aggresses, the other retaliates. already a few in the north defy all constitutional restraints, resist the execution of the fugitive slave law, and even menace the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. already a few in the south claim the constitutional right to take and hold slaves in the free states, demand the revival of the slave-trade, and demand a treaty with great britain by which fugitive slaves may be reclaimed from canada. as yet they are but few on either side. it is a grave question for lovers of the union, whether the final destruction of the missouri compromise, and with it the spirit of all compromise, will or will not embolden and embitter each of these, and fatally increase the number of both. ... some men, mostly whigs, who condemn the repeal of the missouri compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration, lest they be thrown in company with the abolitionists. will they allow me, as an old whig, to tell them good-humouredly that i think this is very silly? stand with anybody that stands right. stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. stand with the abolitionist in restoring the missouri compromise, and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the fugitive slave law. in the latter case you stand with the southern disunionist. what of that? you are still right. in both cases you are right in both cases you expose the dangerous extremes. in both you stand on the middle ground and hold the ship level and steady. in both you are national, and nothing less than national. this is the good old whig ground. to desert such ground because of any company is to be less than a whig, less than a man, less than an american. i particularly object to the new position which the avowed principle of this nebraska law gives to slavery in the body politic. i object to it because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another. i object to it as a dangerous dalliance for free people--a sad evidence that, feeling over-prosperity, we forget right; that liberty as a principle we have ceased to revere. i object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed and rejected it. the argument of "necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favour of slavery, and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. they found the institution existing among us, which they could not help, and they cast the blame on the british king for having permitted its introduction. thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of their age towards slavery was hostility to the principle, and toleration only by necessity. but now it is to be transformed into a _sacred right_.... henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation,--the very figure-head of the ship of state. little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a sacred right of self-government. these principles cannot stand together. they are as opposite as god and mammon; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other.... our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. let us purify it. let us turn and wash it white in the spirit if not the blood of the revolution. let us turn slavery from its claims of moral right, back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments of necessity. let us return it to the position our fathers gave it, and there let it rest in peace. let us re-adopt the declaration of independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize with it. let north and south, let all americans, let all lovers of liberty everywhere, join in the great and good work. if we do this, we shall not only have saved the union, but we shall have so saved it as to make and to keep it for ever worthy of the saving. _from letter to the hon. geo. robertson, lexington, kentucky. springfield, illinois. august , _ my dear sir, ... you are not a friend of slavery in the abstract. in that speech you spoke of "the peaceful extinction of slavery" and used other expressions indicating your belief that the thing was, at some time, to have an end. since then we have had thirty-six years of experience; and this experience has demonstrated, i think, that there is no peaceful extinction of slavery in prospect for us. the signal failure of henry clay and other good and great men, in , to effect anything in favour of gradual emancipation in kentucky, together with a thousand other signs, extinguishes that hope utterly. on the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. when we were the political slaves of king george, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self-evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be _masters_ that we call the same maxim "a self-evident lie." the fourth of july has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day for burning fire-crackers! that spirit which desired the peaceful extinction of slavery has itself become extinct with the _occasion_ and the _men_ of the revolution. under the impulse of that occasion, nearly half the states adopted systems of emancipation at once; and it is a significant fact that not a single state has done the like since. so far as peaceful, voluntary emancipation is concerned, the condition of the negro slave in america, scarcely less terrible to the contemplation of the free mind, is now as fixed and hopeless of change for the better as that of the lost souls of the finally impenitent. the autocrat of all the russias will resign his crown and proclaim his subjects free republicans, sooner than will our american masters voluntarily give up their slaves. our political problem now is, "can we as a nation continue together _permanently--for ever_--half slave, and half free?" the problem is too mighty for me. may god in his mercy superintend the solution. your much obliged friend, and humble servant, a. lincoln. _extracts from letter to joshua f. speed. august , _ you suggest that in political action now, you and i would differ. i suppose we would; not quite so much, however, as you may think. you know i dislike slavery, and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. so far there is no cause of difference. but you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave, especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the union dissolved. i am not aware that any one is bidding you yield that right; very certainly i am not. i leave that matter entirely to yourself. i also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under the constitution in regard to your slaves. i confess i hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught and carried back to their stripes and unrequited toil; but i bite my lips and keep quiet. in , you and i had together a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat, from louisville to st. louis. you may remember, as i well do, that from louisville to the mouth of the ohio, there were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together with irons. that sight was a continued torment to me, and i see something like it every time i touch the ohio or any other slave border. it is not fair for you to assume that i have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. you ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the northern people do crucify their feelings in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the union. i do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feeling so prompt me, and i am under no obligations to the contrary. if for this you and i must differ, differ we must. you say if you were president, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the missouri outrages upon the kansas elections; still, if kansas fairly votes herself a slave state she must be admitted, or the union must be dissolved. but how if she votes herself a slave state unfairly; that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? must she still be admitted, or the union dissolved? that will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. in your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in kansas, i plainly see that you and i would differ about the nebraska law. i look upon that enactment, not as a law, but as a violence from the beginning. it was conceived in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. i say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the missouri compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. it was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of their constituents. it is maintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal, and the demand is openly disregarded. you say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing the law; i say that the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. it is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first, else why does no nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? poor reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that anything like fairness was ever intended, and he has been bravely undeceived. that kansas will form a slave constitution, and with it ask to be admitted into the union, i take to be already a settled question, and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. by every principle of law ever held by any court north or south, every negro taken to kansas _is_ free; yet in utter disregard of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. this is the subject and real object of the law. if, like haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, i shall not be among the mourners for their fate. in my humble sphere, i shall advocate the restoration of the missouri compromise so long as kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the union as a slave state, i shall oppose it. i am very loath in any case to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired or located in good faith; but i do not admit that good faith in taking a negro to kansas to be held in slavery is a probability with any man. any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of the whole nebraska business. but i digress. in my opposition to the admission of kansas, i shall have some company, but we may be beaten. if we are, i shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the union. i think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day, as you could on the open proposition to establish a monarchy. get hold of some man in the north whose position and ability are such that he can make the support of your measure, whatever it may be, a democratic-party necessity, and the thing is done. apropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. douglas introduced the nebraska bill in january. in february afterward, there was a called session of the illinois legislature. of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. these latter held a caucus, in which the nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. it was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favour of the measure. in a day or two douglas's orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities! the truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. the masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even nearer unanimous against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it became apparent, the way the democrats began to see the wisdom and justice of it was perfectly astonishing. you say that if kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will rejoice at it. all decent slaveholders talk that way, and i do not doubt their candour; but they never vote that way. although in a private letter or conversation you will express your preference that kansas should be free, you would vote for no man for congress who would say the same thing publicly. no such man could be elected from any district in a slave state. you think stringfellow and company ought to be hung.... the slave-breeders and slave-traders are a small, odious, and detested class among you; and yet in politics they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters as you are the master of your own negroes. you inquire where i now stand. that is a disputed point. i think i am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that i am an abolitionist. when i was at washington, i voted for the wilmot proviso as good as forty times; and i never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. i now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. i am not a know-nothing; that is certain. how could i be? how can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favour of degrading classes of white people? our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. as a nation, we began by declaring that _all men are created equal_. we now practically read it, _all men are created equal except negroes_. when the know-nothings get control, it will read, _all men are created equal except negroes_ and foreigners and catholics. when it comes to this, i shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.... my kindest regards to mrs. speed. on the leading subject of this letter i have more of her sympathy than i have of yours; and yet let me say i am your friend for ever. a. lincoln. _mr. lincoln's speech. may , _ mr. chairman and gentlemen, i was over at [cries of "platform!" "take the platform!"]--i say, that while i was at danville court, some of our friends of anti-nebraska got together in springfield and elected me as one delegate to represent old sangamon with them in this convention, and i am here certainly as a sympathizer in this movement and by virtue of that meeting and selection. but we can hardly be called delegates strictly, inasmuch as, properly speaking, we represent nobody but ourselves. i think it altogether fair to say that we have no anti-nebraska party in sangamon, although there is a good deal of anti-nebraska feeling there; but i say for myself, and i think i may speak also for my colleagues, that we who are here fully approve of the platform and of all that has been done [a voice: "yes!"]; and even if we are not regularly delegates, it will be right for me to answer your call to speak. i suppose we truly stand for the public sentiment of sangamon on the great question of the repeal, although we do not yet represent many numbers who have taken a distinct position on the question. we are in a trying time--it ranges above mere party--and this movement to call a halt and turn our steps backward needs all the help and good counsels it can get; for unless popular opinion makes itself very strongly felt, and a change is made in our present course, _blood will flow on account of nebraska, and brother's hand will be raised against brother_! [the last sentence was uttered in such an earnest, impressive, if not, indeed, tragic, manner, as to make a cold chill creep over me. others gave a similar experience.] i have listened with great interest to the earnest appeal made to illinois men by the gentleman from lawrence [james s. emery] who has just addressed us so eloquently and forcibly. i was deeply moved by his statement of the wrongs done to free-state men out there. i think it just to say that all true men north should sympathize with them, and ought to be willing to do any possible and needful thing to right their wrongs. but we must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot; we must be calm and moderate, and consider the whole difficulty, and determine what is possible and just. we must not be led by excitement and passion to do that which our sober judgments would not approve in our cooler moments. we have higher aims; we will have more serious business than to dally with temporary measures. we are here to stand firmly for a principle--to stand firmly for a right. we know that great political and moral wrongs are done, and outrages committed, and we denounce those wrongs and outrages, although we cannot, at present, do much more. but we desire to reach out beyond those personal outrages and establish a rule that will apply to all, and so prevent any future outrages. we have seen to-day that every shade of popular opinion is represented here, with _freedom_ or rather _free-soil_ as the basis. we have come together as in some sort representatives of popular opinion against the extension of slavery into territory now free in fact as well as by law, and the pledged word of the statesmen of the nation who are now no more. we come--we are here assembled together--to protest as well as we can against a great wrong, and to take measures, as well as we now can, to make that wrong right; to place the nation, as far as it may be possible now, as it was before the repeal of the missouri compromise; and the plain way to do this is to restore the compromise, and to demand and determine that _kansas shall be free!_ [immense applause.] while we affirm, and reaffirm, if necessary, our devotion to the principles of the declaration of independence, let our practical work here be limited to the above. we know that there is not a perfect agreement of sentiment here on the public questions which might be rightfully considered in this convention, and that the indignation which we all must feel cannot be helped; but all of us must give up something for the good of the cause. there is one desire which is uppermost in the mind, one wish common to us all--to which no dissent will be made; and i counsel you earnestly to bury all resentment, to sink all personal feeling, make all things work to a common purpose in which we are united and agreed about, and which all present will agree is absolutely necessary--which _must_ be done by any rightful mode if there be such: _slavery must be kept out of kansas_! [applause.] the test--the pinch--is right there. if we lose kansas to freedom, an example will be set which will prove fatal to freedom in the end. we, therefore, in the language of the _bible_, must "lay the axe to the root of the tree." temporizing will not do longer; now is the time for decision--for firm, persistent, resolute action. [applause.] the nebraska bill, or rather nebraska law, is not one of wholesome legislation, but was and is an act of legislative usurpation, whose result, if not indeed intention, is to make slavery national; and unless headed off in some effective way, we are in a fair way to see this land of boasted freedom converted into a land of slavery in fact. [sensation.] just open your two eyes, and see if this be not so. i need do no more than state, to command universal approval, that almost the entire north, as well as a large following in the border states, is radically opposed to the planting of slavery in free territory. probably in a popular vote throughout the nation nine-tenths of the voters in the free states, and at least one-half in the border states, if they could express their sentiments freely, would vote no on such an issue; and it is safe to say that two-thirds of the votes of the entire nation would be opposed to it. and yet, in spite of this overbalancing of sentiment in this free country, we are in a fair way to see kansas present itself for admission as a slave state. indeed, it is a felony, by the local law of kansas, to deny that slavery exists there even now. by every principle of law, a negro in kansas is free; yet the _bogus_ legislature makes it an infamous crime to tell him that he is free! the party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty; for it is a singular fact, but none the less a fact, and well known by the most common experience, that men will do things under the terror of the party lash that they would not on any account or for any consideration do otherwise; while men who will march up to the mouth of a loaded cannon without shrinking, will run from the terrible name of "abolitionist," even when pronounced by a worthless creature whom they, with good reason, despise. for instance--to press this point a little--judge douglas introduced his anti-nebraska bill in january; and we had an extra session of our legislature in the succeeding february, in which were seventy-five democrats; and at a party caucus, fully attended, there were just three votes out of the whole seventy-five, for the measure. but in a few days orders came on from washington, commanding them to approve the measure; the party lash was applied, and it was brought up again in caucus, and passed by a large majority. the masses were against it, but party necessity carried it; and it was passed through the lower house of congress against the will of the people, for the same reason. here is where the greatest danger lies--that, while we profess to be a government of law and reason, law will give way to violence on demand of this awful and crushing power. like the great juggernaut--i think that is the name--the great idol, it crushes everything that comes in its way, and makes a--or as i read once, in a black-letter law book, "a slave is a human being who is legally not a _person_, but a _thing_." and if the safeguards to liberty are broken down, as is now attempted, when they have made _things_ of all the free negroes, how long, think you, before they will begin to make _things_ of poor white men? [applause.] be not deceived. revolutions do not go backward. the founder of the democratic party declared that _all_ men were created equal. his successor in the leadership has written the word "white" before men, making it read "all _white_ men are created equal." pray, will or may not the know-nothings, if they should get in power, add the word "protestant," making it read "_all protestant white men_"? meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful subject of reprisals in other quarters. john pettit, whom tom benton paid his respects to, you will recollect, calls the immortal declaration "a self-evident lie;" while at the birth-place of freedom--in the shadow of bunker hill and of the "cradle of liberty," at the home of the adamses and warren and otis--choate, from our side of the house, dares to fritter away the birthday promise of liberty by proclaiming the declaration to be "a string of glittering generalities;" and the southern whigs, working hand in hand with pro-slavery democrats, are making choate's theories practical. thomas jefferson, a slaveholder, mindful of the moral element in slavery, solemnly declared that he "trembled for his country when he remembered that god is just;" while judge douglas, with an insignificant wave of the hand, "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down." now, if slavery is right, or even negative, he has a right to treat it in this trifling manner. but if it is a moral and political wrong, as all christendom considers it to be, how can he answer to god for this attempt to spread and fortify it? [applause.] but no man, and judge douglas no more than any other, can maintain a negative, or merely neutral, position on this question; and, accordingly, he avows that the union was made _by_ white men and _for_ white men and their descendants. as matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically true; the government was made by white men, and they were and are the superior race. this i admit. but the corner-stone of the government, so to speak, was the declaration that "_all_ men are created equal," and all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [applause.] and not only so, but the framers of the constitution were particular to keep out of that instrument the word "slave," the reason being that slavery would ultimately come to an end, and they did not wish to have any reminder that in this free country human beings were ever prostituted to slavery. [applause.] nor is it any argument that we are superior and the negro inferior--that he has but one talent while we have ten. let the negro possess the little he has in independence; if he has but one talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has. [applause.] but slavery will endure no test of reason or logic; and yet its advocates, like douglas, use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption, it might better be termed, like the above, in order to prepare the mind for the gradual, but none the less certain, encroachments of the moloch of slavery upon, the fair domain of freedom. but however much you may argue upon it, or smother it in soft phrases, slavery can only be maintained by force--by violence. the repeal of the missouri compromise was by violence. it was a violation of both law and the sacred obligations of honour, to overthrow and trample underfoot a solemn compromise, obtained by the fearful loss to freedom of one of the fairest of our western domains. congress violated the will and confidence of its constituents in voting for the bill; and while public sentiment, as shown by the elections of , demanded the restoration of this compromise, congress violated its trust by refusing, simply because it had the force of numbers to hold on to it. and murderous violence is being used now, in order to force slavery on to kansas; for it cannot be done in any other way. [sensation.] the necessary result was to establish the rule of violence--force, instead of the rule of law and reason; to perpetuate and spread slavery, and, in time, to make it general. we see it at both ends of the line. in washington, on the very spot where the outrage was started, the fearless sumner is beaten to insensibility, and is now slowly dying; while senators who claim to be gentlemen and christians stood by, countenancing the act, and even applauding it afterward in their places in the senate. even douglas, our man, saw it all and was within helping distance, yet let the murderous blows fall unopposed. then, at the other end of the line, at the very time sumner was being murdered, lawrence was being destroyed for the crime of freedom. it was the most prominent stronghold of liberty in kansas, and must give way to the all-dominating power of slavery. only two days ago, judge trumbull found it necessary to propose a bill in the senate to prevent a general civil war and to restore peace in kansas. we live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds the future; we expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read. are we in a healthful political state? are not the tendencies plain? do not the signs of the times point plainly the way in which we are going? [sensation.] in the early days of the constitution slavery was recognized, by south and north alike, as an evil, and the division of sentiment about it was not controlled by geographical lines or considerations of climate, but by moral and philanthropic views. petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented to the very first congress by virginia and massachusetts alike. to show the harmony which prevailed, i will state that a fugitive slave law was passed in , with no dissenting voice in the senate, and but seven dissenting votes in the house. it was, however, a wise law, moderate, and, under the constitution, a just one. twenty-five years later, a more stringent law was proposed and defeated; and thirty-five years after that, the present law, drafted by mason of virginia, was passed by northern votes. i am not, just now, complaining of this law, but i am trying to show how the current sets; for the proposed law of was far less offensive than the present one. in the continental congress pledged itself, without a dissenting vote, to wholly discontinue the slave trade, and to neither purchase nor import any slave: and less than three months before the passage of the declaration of independence, the same congress which adopted that declaration unanimously resolved "that _no slave be imported into any of the thirteen united colonies_." [great applause.] on the second day of july, , the draft of a declaration of independence was reported to congress by the committee, and in it the slave trade was characterized as "an execrable commerce," as "a piratical warfare," as the "opprobrium of infidel powers," and as "a cruel war against human nature." [applause.] all agreed on this except south carolina and georgia, and in order to preserve harmony, and from the necessity of the case, these expressions were omitted. indeed, abolition societies existed as far south as virginia; and it is a well-known fact that washington, jefferson, madison, lee, henry, mason, and pendleton were qualified abolitionists, and much more radical on that subject than we of the whig and democratic parties claim to be to-day. on march , , virginia ceded to the confederation all its lands lying northwest of the ohio river. jefferson, chase of maryland, and howell of rhode island, as a committee on that and territory thereafter _to be ceded_, reported that no slavery should exist after the year . had this report been adopted, not only the northwest, but kentucky, tennessee, alabama, and mississippi also would have been free; but it required the assent of nine states to ratify it. north carolina was divided, and thus its vote was lost; and delaware, georgia, and new jersey refused to vote. in point of fact, as it was, it was assented to by six states. three years later, on a square vote to exclude slavery from the northwest, only one vote, and that from new york, was against it. and yet, thirty-seven years later, five thousand citizens of illinois out of a voting mass of less than twelve thousand, deliberately, after a long and heated contest, voted to introduce slavery in illinois; and, to-day, a large party in the free state of illinois are willing to vote to fasten the shackles of slavery on the fair domain of kansas, notwithstanding it received the dowry of freedom long before its birth as a political community. i repeat, therefore, the question, is it not plain in what direction we are tending? [sensation.] in the colonial time, mason, pendleton, and jefferson were as hostile to slavery in virginia as otis, ames, and the adamses were in massachusetts; and virginia made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as old massachusetts did. but circumstances were against them and they failed; but not that the good-will of its leading men was lacking. yet within less than fifty years virginia changed its tune, and made negro-breeding for the cotton and sugar states one of its leading industries. [laughter and applause.] in the constitutional convention, george mason of virginia made a more violent abolition speech than my friends lovejoy or codding would desire to make here to-day--a speech which could not be safely repeated anywhere on southern soil in this enlightened year. but while there were some differences of opinion on this subject even then, discussion was allowed; but as you see by the kansas slave code, which, as you know, is the missouri slave code, merely ferried across the river, it is a felony to even express an opinion hostile to that foul blot in the land of washington and the declaration of independence. [sensation.] in kentucky--my state--in , on a test vote, the mighty influence of henry clay and many other good men there could not get a symptom of expression in favour of gradual emancipation on a plain issue of marching toward the light of civilization with ohio and illinois; but the state of boone and hardin and henry clay, with a _nigger_ under each arm, took the black trail toward the deadly swamps of barbarism. is there--can there be--any doubt about this thing? and is there any doubt that we must all lay aside our prejudices and march, shoulder to shoulder, in the great army of freedom? [applause.] every fourth of july our young orators all proclaim this to be "the land of the _free_ and the home of the brave!" well, now, when you orators get that off next year, and, may be, this very year, how would you like some old grizzled farmer to get up in the grove and deny it? [laughter.] how would you like that? but suppose kansas comes in as a slave state, and all the "border ruffians" have barbecues about it, and free-state men come trailing back to the dishonoured north, like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs, it is--ain't it?--evident that this is no more the "land of the free;" and if we let it go so, we won't dare to say "home of the brave" out loud. [sensation and confusion.] can any man doubt that, even in spite of the people's will, slavery will triumph through violence, unless that will be made manifest and enforced? even governor reeder claimed at the outset that the contest in kansas was to be fair, but he got his eyes open at last; and i believe that, as a result of this moral and physical violence, kansas will soon apply for admission as a slave state. and yet we can't mistake that the people don't want it so, and that it is a land which is free both by natural and political law. _no law is free law!_ such is the understanding of all christendom. in the somerset case, decided nearly a century ago, the great lord mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that it must take its rise in _positive_ (as distinguished from _natural_) law; and that in no country or age could it be traced back to any other source. will some one please tell me where is the _positive_ law that establishes slavery in kansas? [a voice: "the _bogus_ laws."] aye, the _bogus_ laws! and, on the same principle, a gang of missouri horse-thieves could come into illinois and declare horse-stealing to be legal [laughter], and it would be just as legal as slavery is in kansas. but by express statute, in the land of washington and jefferson, we may soon be brought face to face with the discreditable fact of showing to the world by our acts that we prefer slavery to freedom--darkness to light! [sensation.] it is, i believe, a principle in law that when one party to a contract violates it so grossly as to chiefly destroy the object for which it is made, the other party may rescind it. i will ask browning if that ain't good law. [voices: "yes!"] well, now if that be right, i go for rescinding the whole, entire missouri compromise and thus turning missouri into a free state; and i should like to know the difference--should like for any one to point out the difference--between _our_ making a free state of missouri and _their_ making a slave state of kansas. [great applause.] there ain't one bit of difference, except that our way would be a great mercy to humanity. but i have never said--and the whig party has never said--and those who oppose the nebraska bill do not as a body say, that they have any intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states. our platform says just the contrary. we allow slavery to exist in the slave states--not because slavery is right or good, but from the necessities of our union. we grant a fugitive slave law because it is so "nominated in the bond;" because our fathers so stipulated--had to--and we are bound to carry out this agreement. but they did not agree to introduce slavery in regions where it did not previously exist. on the contrary, they said by their example and teachings that they did not deem it expedient--did not consider it right--to do so; and it is wise and right to do just as they did about it [voices: "good!"], and that is what we propose--not to interfere with slavery where it exists (we have never tried to do it), and to give them a reasonable and efficient fugitive slave law. [a voice: "no!"] i say yes! [applause.] it was part of the bargain, and i'm for living up to it; but i go no further; i'm not bound to do more, and i won't agree any further. [great applause.] we, here in illinois, should feel especially proud of the provision of the missouri compromise excluding slavery from what is now kansas; for an illinois man, jesse b. thomas, was its father. henry clay, who is credited with the authorship of the compromise in general terms, did not even vote for that provision, but only advocated the ultimate admission by a second compromise; and, thomas was, beyond all controversy, the real author of the "slavery restriction" branch of the compromise. to show the generosity of the northern members toward the southern side; on a test vote to exclude slavery from missouri, ninety voted not to exclude, and eighty-seven to exclude, every vote from the slave states being ranged with the former and fourteen votes from the free states, of whom seven were from new england alone; while on a vote to exclude slavery from what is now kansas, the vote was one hundred and thirty-four _for_ to forty-two _against_. the scheme, as a whole, was, of course, a southern triumph. it is idle to contend otherwise, as is now being done by the nebraskaites; it was so shown by the votes and quite as emphatically by the expressions of representative men. mr. lowndes of south carolina was never known to commit a political mistake; his was the great judgment of that section; and he declared that this measure "would restore tranquillity to the country--a result demanded by every consideration of discretion, of moderation, of wisdom, and of virtue." when the measure came before president monroe for his approval, he put to each member of his cabinet this question: "has congress the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in a territory?" and john c. calhoun and william h. crawford from the south, equally with john quincy adams, benjamin rush, and smith thompson from the north, alike answered, "_yes!_" without qualification or equivocation; and this measure, of so great consequence to the south, was passed; and missouri was, by means of it, finally enabled to knock at the door of the republic for an open passage to its brood of slaves. and, in spite of this, freedom's share is about to be taken by violence--by the force of misrepresentative votes, not called for by the popular will. what name can i, in common decency, give to this wicked transaction? [sensation.] but even then the contest was not over; for when the missouri constitution came before congress for its approval, it forbade any free negro or mulatto from entering the state. in short, our illinois "black laws" were hidden away in their constitution [laughter], and the controversy was thus revived. then it was that mr. clay's talents shone out conspicuously, and the controversy that shook the union to its foundation was finally settled to the satisfaction of the conservative parties on both sides of the line, though not to the extremists on either, and missouri was admitted by the small majority of six in the lower house. how great a majority, do you think, would have been given had kansas also been secured for slavery? [a voice: "a majority the other way."] "a majority the other way," is answered. do you think it would have been safe for a northern man to have confronted his constituents after having voted to consign both missouri and kansas to hopeless slavery? and yet this man douglas, who misrepresents his constituents, and who has exerted his highest talents in that direction, will be carried in triumph through the state, and hailed with honour while applauding that act. [three groans for "_dug_!"] and this shows whither we are tending. this thing of slavery is more powerful than its supporters--even than the high priests that minister at its altar. it debauches even our greatest men. it gathers strength, like a rolling snow-ball, by its own infamy. monstrous crimes are committed in its name by persons collectively which they would not dare to commit as individuals. its aggressions and encroachments almost surpass belief. in a despotism, one might not wonder to see slavery advance steadily and remorselessly into new dominions; but is it not wonderful, is it not even alarming, to see its steady advance in a land dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"? [sensation.] it yields nothing itself; it keeps all it has, and gets all it can besides. it really came dangerously near securing illinois in ; it did get missouri in . the first proposition was to admit what is now arkansas _and_ missouri as one slave state. but the territory was divided, and arkansas came in, without serious question, as a slave state; and afterward missouri, not as a sort of equality, _free_, but also as a slave state. then we had florida and texas; and now kansas is about to be forced into the dismal procession. [sensation.] and so it is wherever you look. we have not forgotten--it is but six years since--how dangerously near california came to being a slave state. texas is a slave state, and four other slave states may be carved from its vast domain. and yet, in the year , slavery was abolished throughout that vast region by a royal decree of the then sovereign of mexico. will you please tell me by what _right_ slavery exists in texas to-day? by the same right as, and no higher or greater than, slavery is seeking dominion in kansas: by political force--peaceful, if that will suffice; by the torch (as in kansas) and the bludgeon (as in the senate chamber), if required. and so history repeats itself; and even as slavery has kept its course by craft, intimidation, and violence in the past, so it will persist, in my judgment, until met and dominated by the will of a people bent on its restriction. we have, this very afternoon, heard bitter denunciations of brooks in washington, and titus, stringfellow, atchison, jones, and shannon in kansas--the battle-ground of slavery. i certainly am not going to advocate or shield them; but they and their acts are but the necessary outcome of the nebraska law. we should reserve our highest censure for the authors of the mischief, and not for the catspaws which they use. i believe it was shakespeare who said, "where the offence lies, there let the axe fall;" and, in my opinion, this man douglas and the northern men in congress who advocate "nebraska" are more guilty than a thousand joneses and stringfellows, with all their murderous practices, can be. [applause.] we have made a good beginning here to-day. as our methodist friends would say, "i feel it is good to be here." while extremists may find some fault with the moderation of our platform, they should recollect that "the battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift." in grave emergencies, moderation is generally safer than radicalism: and as this struggle is likely to be long and earnest, we must not, by our action, repel any who are in sympathy with us in the main, but rather win all that we can to our standard. we must not belittle nor overlook the facts of our condition--that we are new and comparatively weak, while our enemies are entrenched and relatively strong. they have the administration and the political power; and, right or wrong, at present they have the numbers. our friends who urge an appeal to arms with so much force and eloquence, should recollect that the government is arrayed against us, and that the numbers are now arrayed against us as well; or, to state it nearer to the truth, they are not yet expressly and affirmatively for us; and we should repel friends rather than gain them by anything savouring of revolutionary methods. as it now stands, we must appeal to the sober sense and patriotism of the people. we will make converts day by day; we will grow strong by calmness and moderation; we will grow strong by the violence and injustice of our adversaries. and, unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow lie, we will be in the majority after a while, and then the revolution which we will accomplish will be none the less radical from being the result of pacific measures. the battle of freedom is to be fought out on principle. slavery is a violation of the eternal right. we have temporized with it from the necessities of our condition; but _as sure as god reigns and school children read_, that black foul lie can never be consecrated into god's hallowed truth! [immense applause lasting some time.] one of our greatest difficulties is, that men who _know_ that slavery is a detestable crime and ruinous to the nation, are compelled, by our peculiar condition and other circumstances, to advocate it concretely, though damning it in the raw. henry clay was a brilliant example of this tendency; others of our purest statesmen are compelled to do so; and thus slavery secures actual support from those who detest it at heart. yet henry clay perfected and forced through the compromise which secured to slavery a great state as well as a political advantage. not that he hated slavery less, but that he loved the whole union more. as long as slavery profited by his great compromise, the hosts of pro-slavery could not sufficiently cover him with praise; but now that this compromise stands in their way-- "...they never mention him, his name is never heard: their lips are now forbid to speak that once familiar word." they have slaughtered one of his most cherished measures, and his ghost would arise to rebuke them. [great applause.] now, let us harmonize, my friends, and appeal to the moderation and patriotism of the people: to the sober second thought; to the awakened public conscience. the repeal of the sacred missouri compromise has installed the weapons of violence: the bludgeon, the incendiary torch, the death-dealing rifle, the bristling cannon--the weapons of kingcraft, of the inquisition, of ignorance, of barbarism, of oppression. we see its fruits in the dying bed of the heroic sumner; in the ruins of the "free state" hotel; in the smoking embers of the _herald of freedom_; in the free-state governor of kansas chained to a stake on freedom's soil like a horse-thief, for the crime of freedom. [applause.] we see it in christian statesmen, and christian newspapers, and christian pulpits, applauding _the cowardly act of a low bully_, who crawled upon his victim behind his back and dealt the deadly blow. [sensation and applause.] we note our political demoralization in the catch-words that are coming into such common use; on the one hand, "freedom-shriekers," and sometimes "freedom-screechers" [laughter]; and, on the other hand, "border ruffians," and that fully deserved. and the significance of catch-words cannot pass unheeded, for they constitute a sign of the times. everything in this world "jibes" in with everything else, and all the fruits of this nebraska bill are like the poisoned source from which they come. i will not say that we may not sooner or later be compelled to meet force by force; but the time has not yet come, and if we are true to ourselves, may never come. do not mistake that the ballot is stronger than the bullet. therefore let the legions of slavery use bullets; but let us wait patiently till november, and fire ballots at them in return; and by that peaceful policy, i believe we shall ultimately win. [applause.] it was by that policy that here in illinois the early fathers fought the good fight and gained the victory. in the free men of our state, led by governor coles (who was a native of maryland and president madison's private secretary), determined that those beautiful groves should never re-echo the dirge of one who has no title to himself. by their resolute determination, the winds that sweep across our broad prairies shall never cool the parched brow, nor shall the unfettered streams that bring joy and gladness to our free soil water the tired feet, of a _slave_; but so long as those heavenly breezes and sparkling streams bless the land, or the groves and their fragrance or their memory remain, the humanity to which they minister shall be for ever free! [great applause.] palmer, yates, williams, browning, and some more in this convention came from kentucky to illinois (instead of going to missouri), not only to better their conditions, but also to get away from slavery. they have said so to me, and it is understood among us kentuckians that we don't like it one bit. now, can we, mindful of the blessings of liberty which the early men of illinois left to us, refuse a like privilege to the free men who seek to plant freedom's banner on our western outposts? ["no! no!"] should we not stand by our neighbours who seek to better their conditions in kansas and nebraska? ["yes! yes!"] can we as christian men, and strong and free ourselves, wield the sledge or hold the iron which is to manacle anew an already oppressed race? ["no! no!"] "woe unto them," it is written, "that decree unrighteous decrees and that write grievousness which they have prescribed." can we afford to sin any more deeply against human liberty? ["no! no!"] one great trouble in the matter is, that slavery is an insidious and crafty power, and gains equally by open violence of the brutal as well as by sly management of the peaceful. even after the ordinance of , the settlers in indiana and illinois (it was all one government then) tried to get congress to allow slavery temporarily, and petitions to that end were sent from kaskaskia, and general harrison, the governor, urged it from vincennes the capital. if that had succeeded, good-bye to liberty here. but john randolph of virginia made a vigorous report against it; and although they persevered so well as to get three favourable reports for it, yet the united states senate, with the aid of some slave states, finally _squelched_ it for good. [applause.] and that is why this hall is to-day a temple for free men instead of a negro livery stable. [great applause and laughter.] once let slavery get planted in a locality, by ever so weak or doubtful a title, and in ever so small numbers, and it is like the canada thistle or bermuda grass--you can't root it out. you yourself may detest slavery; but your neighbour has five or six slaves, and he is an excellent neighbour, or your son has married his daughter, and they beg you to help save their property, and you vote against your interest and principles to accommodate a neighbour, hoping that your vote will be on the losing side. and others do the same; and in those ways slavery gets a sure foothold. and when that is done the whole mighty union--the force of the nation--is committed to its support. and that very process is working in kansas to-day. and you must recollect that the slave property is worth a billion of dollars ($ , , , ); while free-state men must work for sentiment alone. then there are "blue lodges"--as they call them--everywhere doing their secret and deadly work. it is a very strange thing, and not solvable by any moral law that i know of, that if a man loses his horse, the whole country will turn out to help hang the thief; but if a man but a shade or two darker than i am is himself stolen, the same crowd will hang one who aids in restoring him to liberty. such are the inconsistencies of slavery, where a horse is more sacred than a man; and the essence of _squatter_ or popular sovereignty--i don't care how you call it--is that if one man chooses to make a slave of another, no third man shall be allowed to object. and if you can do this in free kansas, and it is allowed to stand, the next thing you will see is ship-loads of negroes from africa at the wharf at charleston; for one thing is as truly lawful as the other; and these are the bastard notions we have got to stamp out, else they will stamp us out. [sensation and applause.] two years ago, at springfield, judge douglas avowed that illinois came into the union as a slave state, and that slavery was weeded out by the operation of his great, patent, everlasting principle of "popular sovereignty." [laughter.] well, now, that argument must be answered, for it has a little grain of truth at the bottom. i do not mean that it is true in essence, as he would have us believe. it could not be essentially true if the ordinance of ' was valid. but, in point of fact, there were some degraded beings called slaves in kaskaskia and the other french settlements when our first state constitution was adopted; that is a fact, and i don't deny it. slaves were brought here as early as , and were kept here in spite of the ordinance of against it. but slavery did not thrive here. on the contrary, under the influence of the ordinance, the number _decreased_ fifty-one from to ; while under the influence of _squatter_ sovereignty, right across the river in missouri, they _increased_ seven thousand two hundred and eleven in the same time; and slavery finally faded out in illinois, under the influence of the law of freedom, while it grew stronger and stronger in missouri, under the law or practice of "popular sovereignty." in point of fact there were but one hundred and seventeen slaves in illinois one year after its admission, or one to every four hundred and seventy of its population; or, to state it in another way, if illinois was a slave state in , so were new york and new jersey much greater slave states from having had greater numbers, slavery having been established there in very early times. but there is this vital difference between all these states and the judge's kansas experiment: that they sought to disestablish slavery which had been already established, while the judge seeks, so far as he can, to disestablish freedom, which had been established there by the missouri compromise. [voices: "good!"] the union is undergoing a fearful strain; but it is a stout old ship, and has weathered many a hard blow, and "the stars in their courses," aye, an invisible power, greater than the puny efforts of men, will fight for us. but we ourselves must not decline the burden of responsibility, nor take counsel of unworthy passions. whatever duty urges us to do or to omit, must be done or omitted; and the recklessness with which our adversaries break the laws, or counsel their violation, should afford no example for us. therefore, let us revere the declaration of independence; let us continue to obey the constitution and the laws; let us keep step to the music of the union. let us draw a cordon, so to speak, around the slave states, and the hateful institution, like a reptile poisoning itself, will perish by its own infamy. [applause.] but we cannot be free men if this is, by our national choice, to be a land of slavery. those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just god, cannot long retain it. [loud applause.] did you ever, my friends, seriously reflect upon the speed with which we are tending downward? within the memory of men now present the leading statesmen of virginia could make genuine, red-hot abolitionist speeches in old virginia; and, as i have said, now even in "free kansas" it is a crime to declare that it is "free kansas." the very sentiments that i and others have just uttered would entitle us, and each of us, to the ignominy and seclusion of a dungeon; and yet i suppose that, like paul, we were "free born." but if this thing is allowed to continue, it will be but one step further to impress the same rule in illinois. [sensation.] the conclusion of all is, that we must restore the missouri compromise. we must highly resolve that _kansas must be free_! [great applause.] we must reinstate the birthday promise of the republic; we must reaffirm the declaration of independence; we must make good in essence as well as in form madison's vowal that "the word _slave_ ought not to appear in the constitution;" and we must even go further, and decree that only local law, and not that time-honoured instrument, shall shelter a slave-holder. we must make this a land of liberty in fact, as it is in name. but in seeking to attain these results--so indispensable if the liberty which is our pride and boast shall endure--we will be loyal to the constitution and to the "flag of our union," and no matter what our grievance--even though kansas shall come in as a slave state; and no matter what theirs--even if we shall restore the compromise--we will say to the southern disunionists, we won't go out of the union, and you shan't!!! [this was the climax; the audience rose to its feet _en masse_, applauded, stamped, waved handkerchiefs, threw hats in the air, and ran riot for several minutes. the arch-enchanter who wrought this transformation looked, meanwhile, like the personification of political justice.] but let us, meanwhile, appeal to the sense and patriotism of the people, and not to their prejudices; let us spread the floods of enthusiasm here aroused all over these vast prairies, so suggestive of freedom. let us commence by electing the gallant soldier governor (colonel) bissell who stood for the honour of our state alike on the plains and amidst the chaparral of mexico and on the floor of congress, while he defied the southern hotspur; and that will have a greater moral effect than all the border ruffians can accomplish in all their raids on kansas. there is both a power and a magic in popular opinion. to that let us now appeal; and while, in all probability, no resort to force will be needed, our moderation and forbearance will stand us in good stead when, if ever, we must make an appeal to battle and to the god of hosts!! [immense applause and a rush for the orator.] this speech has been called lincoln's "lost speech," because all the reporters present were so carried away by his eloquence that they one and all forgot to take any notes. if it had not been for a young lawyer, a mr. h.c. whitney, who kept his head sufficiently to take notes, we would have no record of it. mr. whitney wrote out the speech for mcclure's magazine in . it was submitted to several people who were present at the bloomington convention, and they said it was remarkably accurate considering that it was not taken down stenographically. _from his speech on the dred scott decision. springfield, illinois. june , _ ... and now as to the dred scott decision. that decision declares two propositions,--first, that a negro cannot sue in the united states courts; and secondly, that congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories. it was made by a divided court,--dividing differently on the different points. judge douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect i shall follow his example, believing i could no more improve on mclean and curtis than he could on taney. he denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. but who resists it? who has, in spite of the decision, declared dred scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? judicial decisions have two uses: first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. for the latter use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities." we believe as much as judge douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to and respect for the judicial department of government. we think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the constitution, as provided in that instrument itself. more than this would be revolution. but we think the dred scott decision is erroneous. we know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. we offer no resistance to it. judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. that this should be so, accords both with common-sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession. if this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts, which are not really true; or if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years,--it then might be, perhaps would be factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. but when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. i have said in substance, that the dred scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and i ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this, i therefore give an instance or two, which i think fully sustain me. chief justice taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the declaration of independence, or the constitution of the united states. on the contrary, judge curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states--to wit, new hampshire, massachusetts, new york, new jersey, and north carolina--free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the constitution that the white people had. he shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: "the constitution was ordained and established by the people of the united states, through the action, in each state, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the state. in some of the states, as we have seen, coloured persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. these coloured persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of the united states' by whom the constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption." again, chief justice taney says: "it is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion, in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the declaration of independence, and when the constitution of the united states was framed and adopted." and again, after quoting from the declaration, he says: "the general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood." in these the chief justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favourable now than it was in the days of the revolution. this assumption is a mistake. in some trifling particulars the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. in two of the five states--new jersey and north carolina--that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third--new york--it has been greatly abridged: while it has not been extended, so far as i know, to a single additional state, though the number of the states has more than doubled. in those days, as i understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. in those days legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective states; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for state constitutions to withhold that power from the legislatures. in those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited; but now congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the supreme court decides that it could not if it would. in those days our declaration of independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. all the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. mammon is after him; ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining in the cry. they have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. one after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of escape more complete than it is. it is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the negro is more favourable now than it was at the origin of the government. ... there is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and judge douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. if he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. he therefore clings to this hope as a drowning man to the last plank. he makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the dred scott decision. he finds the republicans insisting that the declaration of independence includes _all_ men, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! he will have it that they cannot be consistent else. now i protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that because i do not want a black woman for a slave, i must necessarily want her for a wife. i need not have her for either. i can just leave her alone. in some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. chief justice taney, in his opinion in the dred scott case, admits that the language of the declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family; but he and judge douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, nor ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equality with one another. and this is the staple argument of both the chief justice and the senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the declaration. i think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include _all_ men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal _in all respects_. they did not mean to say that all were equal in colour, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. they defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal,--equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." this they said, and this they meant. they did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. in fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. they meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. they meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all,--constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colours everywhere. the assertion that "all men are created equal," was of no practical use in effecting our separation from great britain; and it was placed in the declaration, not for that, but for future use. its authors meant it to be as, thank god, it is now proving itself, a stumbling-block to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. they knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, that they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. i have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the declaration of independence which declares that all men are created equal. now let us hear judge douglas's view of the same subject, as i find it in the printed report of his late speech. here it is: "no man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the declaration of independence except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the african, when they declared all men to have been created equal; that they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother-country." my good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck and mangled ruin judge douglas makes of our once glorious declaration. he says "they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain!" why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of great britain and america were not spoken of in that instrument. the english, irish, and scotch, along with white americans, were included, to be sure; but the french, germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races! i had thought that the declaration promised something better than the condition of british subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. according to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of great britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own. i had thought the declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men, everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother-country." why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the declaration is of no practical use now--mere rubbish--old wadding, left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. i understand you are preparing to celebrate the "fourth," to-morrow week. what for? the doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. but i suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the declaration. suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with judge douglas's version. it will then run thus: "we told these truths to be self-evident, that all british subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all british subjects born and then residing in great britain!" ... the very dred scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favours amalgamation, the republicans or the dear union-saving democracy. dred scott, his wife and two daughters, were all involved in the suit. we desired the court to have held that they were citizens, so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then also, that they were in fact and in law really free. could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. but judge douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves,--the very state of the case that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes, all the mixing of the blood of the nation. _"a house divided against itself cannot stand." on lincoln's nomination to the united states senate. springfield, illinois. june , _ if we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. in my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "a house divided against itself cannot stand." i believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved,--i do not expect the house to fall; but i do expect it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing, or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. have we no tendency to the latter condition? let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination--piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the nebraska doctrine and the dred scott decision. let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning. the new year of found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. this opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. but so far, congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more. this necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of _squatter sovereignty_, otherwise called _sacred right of self-government_, which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it, as to amount to just this: that if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. that argument was incorporated into the nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." then opened the roar of loose declamation in favour of _squatter sovereignty_ and _sacred right of self-government_. "but," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "not we," said the friends of the measure, and down they voted the amendment. while the nebraska bill was passing through congress, a _law case_, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the united states circuit court for the district of missouri; and both nebraska bill and law-suit were brought to a decision, in the same month of may, . the negro's name was "dred scott," which name now designates the decision finally rendered in the case. before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued, in the supreme court of the united states; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. still, before the election, senator trumbull, on the floor of the senate, requested the leading advocate of the nebraska bill to state _his opinion_ whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits, and the latter answers: "that is a question for the supreme court." the election came. mr. buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. that was the second point gained. the indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. the outgoing president, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. the supreme court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. the presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming president in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. then, in a few days, came the decision. the reputed author of the nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol, indorsing the dred scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. the new president, too, seizes the early occasion of the silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained! at length a squabble springs up between the president and the author of the nebraska bill, on the mere question of _fact_ whether the lecompton constitution was, or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of kansas; and in that quarrel, the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted _down_ or _voted up_. i do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind,--the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. and well may he cling to that principle. if he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. that principle is the only shred left of his original nebraska doctrine. under the dred scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mould at the foundry, it served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand,--helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. his late joint struggle with the republicans against the lecompton constitution, involves nothing of the original nebraska doctrine. that struggle was made on a point--the right of the people to make their own constitution--upon which he and the republicans have never differed. the several points of the dred scott decision in connection with senator douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. this was the third point gained. the working points of that machinery are: _first._ that no negro slave, imported as such from africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term as used in the constitution of the united states. this point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the united states constitution which declares that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." _secondly._ that "subject to the constitution of the united states," neither congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any united states territory. this point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. _thirdly._ that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free as against the holder, the united states courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. this point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what dred scott's master might lawfully do with dred scott in the free state of illinois, every other master may lawfully do, with any other one, or one thousand slaves in illinois, or in any other free state. auxiliary to all this, and working hand-in-hand with it, the nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. this shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. it will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. the people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." what the constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. plainly enough now: it was an exactly fitted niche for the dred scott decision to afterwards come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the dred scott decision. why was the court decision held up? why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. why the outgoing president's felicitation on the indorsement? why the delay of a reargument? why the incoming president's advance exhortation in favour of the decision? these things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. and why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the president and others? we cannot absolutely know that all these adaptations are the result of preconcert. but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen--stephen, franklin, roger, and james, for instance (douglas, pierce, taney, buchanan),--and when we see those timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding--or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in,--in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that stephen and franklin and roger and james all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft, drawn up before the first blow was struck. it should not be overlooked that by the nebraska bill the people of a state as well as territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." why mention a state? they were legislating for territories, and not for or about states. certainly the people of a state are and ought to be subject to the constitution of the united states; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? while the opinion of the court by chief justice taney, in the dred scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the constitution of the united states neither permits congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any united states territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same constitution permits a state or the people of a state to exclude it. _possibly_ this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure if mclean or curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits,--just as chase and mace sought to get such declaration in behalf of the people of a territory, into the nebraska bill,--i ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? the nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery is made by judge nelson. he approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the nebraska act. on one occasion his exact language is "except in cases where the power is restrained by the constitution of the united states, the law of the state is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." in what cases the power of the state is so restrained by the united states constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories, was left open in the nebraska act. put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another supreme court decision, declaring that the constitution of the united states does not permit _a state_ to exclude slavery from its limits. and this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. we shall lie down, pleasantly dreaming that the people of missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the supreme court has made illinois a slave state. to meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. that is what we have to do. how can we best do it? there are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper to us softly that senator douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. they wish us to _infer_ all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of that dynasty, and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. they remind us that he is a great man and that the largest of us are very small ones. let this be granted. but "a living dog is better than a dead lion." judge douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at least a caged and toothless one. how can he oppose the advances of slavery? he don't care anything about it. his avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to _care nothing about it_. a leading douglas democratic newspaper thinks douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the african slave-trade. does douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? he has not said so. does he really think so? but if it is, how can he resist it? for years he has laboured to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. can he possibly show that it is a less sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? and unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in africa than in virginia. he has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property: and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade?--how can he refuse that trade in that property shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to home production? and as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. senator douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday--that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. but can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? now, as ever, i wish not to misrepresent judge douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, i hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. but, clearly, he is not now with us--he does not pretend to be--he does not promise ever to be. our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. two years ago the republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. we did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. did we brave all then to falter now?--now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? the result is not doubtful. we shall not fail. if we stand firm, we shall not fail. wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it; but sooner or later the victory is sure to come. _lincoln's reply to judge douglas at chicago on popular sovereignty, the nebraska bill, etc. july , _ ... popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sovereignty! let us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. what is popular sovereignty? we recollect that at an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the same thing,--_squatter sovereignty_. it was not exactly popular sovereignty, but squatter sovereignty. what do these terms mean? what do those terms mean when used now? and vast credit is taken by our friend, the judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. what is it? why, it is the sovereignty of the people! what was squatter sovereignty? i suppose, if it had any signification at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs, while they were squatted down in a country not their own,--while they had squatted on a territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a state belongs to the people who inhabit it,--when it belonged to the nation; such right to govern themselves was called "squatter sovereignty." now, i wish you to mark, what has become of that squatter sovereignty? what has become of it? can you get anybody to tell you now that the people of a territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a state constitution? no such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given to the people of a territory the right to govern themselves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. to-day it has been decided--no more than a year ago it was decided by the supreme court of the united states, and is insisted upon to-day--that the people of a territory have no right to exclude slavery from a territory; that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. this being so, and this decision being made, one of the points that the judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down,--_put_ me down i should not say, for i have never been up! he says he is in favour of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may take slaves into a territory, and all the other men in the territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the constitution they cannot prohibit it. when that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of squatter sovereignty, i should like to know? when we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a constitution. kansas was settled, for example, in . it was a territory yet, without having formed a constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. all this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the supreme court, which the judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out; but when they come to make a constitution they may say they will not have slavery. but it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it in some way, and all experience shows it will be so,--for they will not take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. all experience shows this to be so. all that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the territory until there is a sufficiency of people to make a state constitution,--all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. the seal is absolutely put down upon it by the court decision, and judge douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a state constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery,--if that is anything new i confess i don't know it. has there ever been a time when anybody said that any other than the people of a territory itself should form a constitution? what is now in it that judge douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life for? can judge douglas find anybody on earth that said that anybody else should form a constitution for a people?... it is enough for my purpose to ask, whenever a republican said anything against it? they never said anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the republican ranks opposed to that popular sovereignty which judge douglas thinks he has invented. i suppose that judge douglas will claim in a little while that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. we do not remember that in that old declaration of independence it is said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." there is the origin of popular sovereignty. who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented it? the lecompton constitution connects itself with this question, for it is in this matter of the lecompton constitution that our friend judge douglas claims such vast credit. i agree that in opposing the lecompton constitution, so far as i can perceive, he was right. i do not deny that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why i could not deny it, even if i wanted to. but i do not wish to, for all the republicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much without judge douglas's aid as with it. they had all taken ground against it long before he did. why, the reason that he urges against that constitution i urged against him a year before. i have the printed speech in my hand. the argument that he makes why that constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, i pointed out in a speech a year ago, which i hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to the people. ... a little more now as to this matter of popular sovereignty and the lecompton constitution. the lecompton constitution, as the judge tells us, was defeated. the defeat of it was a good thing, or it was not. he thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do i; and we agree in that. who defeated it? [a voice: "judge douglas."] yes, he furnished himself; and if you suppose he controlled the other democrats that went with him, he furnished three votes, while the republicans furnished twenty. that is what he did to defeat it. in the house of representatives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the republicans furnished ninety odd. now, who was it that did the work? [a voice: "douglas."] why, yes, douglas did it? to be sure he did! let us, however, put that proposition another way. the republicans could not have done it without judge douglas. could he have done it without them? which could have come the nearest to doing it without the other? ground was taken against it by the republicans long before douglas did it. the proposition of opposition to that measure is about five to one. [a voice: "why don't they come out on it?"] you don't know what you are talking about, my friend; i am quite willing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelligent question. now, who in all this country has ever found any of our friends of judge douglas's way of thinking, and who have acted upon this main question, that have ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of judge trumbull? i defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a democratic meeting. i take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution, large or small, of a democratic meeting in favour of judge trumbull, or any of the five to one republicans who beat that bill. everything must be for the democrats! they did everything, and the five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. gentlemen, i fear that i shall become tedious. i leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. i take up that part of judge douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me. judge douglas made two points upon my recent speech at springfield. he says they are to be the issues of this campaign. the first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which i delivered at springfield, which i believe i can quote correctly from memory. i said that "we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. i believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'a house divided against itself cannot stand.' i believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved,"--i am quoting from my speech,--"i do not expect the house to fall, but i do expect it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new; north as well as south." that is the paragraph! in this paragraph which i have quoted in your hearing, and to which i ask the attention of all, judge douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. i want your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. he says i am in favour of making all the states of this union uniform in all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concerns i am in favour of making them entirely uniform. he draws this inference from the language i have quoted to you. he says that i am in favour of making war by the north upon the south for the extinction of slavery; that i am also in favour of inviting (as he expresses it) the south to a war upon the north for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that i did not say that i was in favour of anything in it. i only said what i expected would take place. i made a prediction only,--it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. i did not even say that i desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. i do say so now, however; so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. it may be written down in the great speech. gentlemen, judge douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefully prepared. i admit that it was. i am not master of language; i have not a fine education; i am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as i believe you call it; but i do not believe the language i employed bears any such construction as judge douglas puts upon it. but i don't care about a quibble in regard to words. i know what i meant, and i will not leave this crowd in doubt, if i can explain it to them, what i really meant in the use of that paragraph. i am not, in the first place, unaware that this government has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. i know that. i am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and i know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. i believe--and that is what i meant to allude to there--i believe it has endured, because, during all that time, until the introduction of the nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. that was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years; at least, so i believe. i have always hated slavery, i think, as much as any abolitionist,--i have been an old-line whig,--i have always hated it, but i have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the nebraska bill began. i always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.... they had reason so to believe. the adoption of the constitution and its attendant history led the people to believe so, and that such was the belief of the framers of the constitution itself. why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the constitution, decree that slavery should not go into the new territory where it had not already gone? why declare that within twenty years the african slave-trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by congress? why were all these acts? i might enumerate more of these acts; but enough. what were they but a clear indication that the framers of the constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution? and now when i say,--as i said in my speech that judge douglas has quoted from,--when i say that i think the opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, i only mean to say that they will place it where the founders of this government originally placed it. i have said a hundred times, and i have now no inclination to take it back, that i believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free states, to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all. i have said that always; judge douglas has heard me say it. and when it is said that i am in favour of interfering with slavery where it exists, i know it is unwarranted by anything i have ever intended, and, as i believe, by anything i have ever said. if by any means i have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, i believe i never have), i now correct it. so much, then, for the inference that judge douglas draws, that i am in favour of setting the sections at war with one another. i know that i never meant any such thing, and i believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from anything i have said. now, in relation to his inference that i am in favour of a general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various states.... i have said very many times in judge douglas's hearing that no man believed more than i in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government from beginning to end. i have denied that his use of that term applies properly. but for the thing itself i deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. i think that i have said it in your hearing, that i believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labour, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights; that each community, as a state, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that state that interfere with the right of no other state; and that the general government upon principle has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. i have said that at all times; i have said as illustrations that i do not believe in the right of illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of indiana, the oyster laws of virginia, or the liquor laws of maine. how is it, then, that judge douglas infers, because i hope to see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, that i am in favour of illinois going over and interfering with the cranberry laws of indiana? what can authorize him to draw any such inference? i suppose there might be one thing that at least enabled him to draw such an inference, that would not be true with me or many others; that is, because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly little thing,--this matter of keeping one-sixth of the population of the whole nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequalled in the world. he looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, only equal to the question of the cranberry laws of indiana; as something having no moral question in it; as something on a par with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with cattle or plant it with tobacco; so little and so small a thing that he concludes, if i could desire that anything should be done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that little thing, i must be in favour of bringing about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the union. now, it so happens--and there, i presume, is the foundation of this mistake--that the judge thinks thus; and it so happens that there is a vast portion of the american people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. they look upon it as a vast moral evil; they can prove it as such by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to the states where it is situated; and while we agree that by the constitution we assented to, in the states where it exists we have no right to interfere with it, because it is in the constitution, we are both by duty and inclination to stick by that constitution in all its letter and spirit from beginning to end. so much, then, as to my disposition, my wish, to have all the state legislatures blotted out and to have one consolidated government and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the states; by which i suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those things which grow north grow in the south. all this i suppose he understands i am in favour of doing. now, so much for all this nonsense--for i must call it so. the judge can have no issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the states. a little now on the other point,--the dred scott decision. another of the issues, he says, that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the dred scott decision and my opposition to it. i have expressed heretofore, and i now repeat, my opposition to the dred scott decision; but i should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and i ask your indulgence while i do so. what is fairly implied by the term judge douglas has used, "resistance to the decision"? i do not resist it. if i wanted to take dred scott from his master i would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that judge douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. but i am doing no such thing as that; all that i am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. if i were in congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of the dred scott decision, i would vote that it should. that is what i would do. judge douglas said last night that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. just so! we let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. we will try to put it where judge douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made; and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. what are the uses of decisions of courts? they have two uses. first, they decide upon the question before the court. they decide in this case that dred scott is a slave. nobody resists that. not only that, but they say to everybody else that persons standing just as dred scott stands are as he is. that is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person it will be so decided again, unless the court decides another way, unless the court overrules its decision. well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. that is one thing we mean to try to do. the sacredness that judge douglas throws around this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. i have never heard of such a thing. why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. it is the first of its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history; it is a new wonder of the world; it is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts,--allegations of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances,--and no decision made on any question--the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavourable circumstances--thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law; but judge douglas will have it that all hands must take this extraordinary decision made under these extraordinary circumstances and give their vote in congress in accordance with it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. circumstances alter cases. do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same supreme court some twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a national bank was constitutional? i ask if somebody does not remember that a national bank was declared to be constitutional? such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. the bank charter ran out, and a re-charter was granted by congress. that re-charter was laid before general jackson. it was urged upon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the bank, that the supreme court had decided that it was constitutional; and general jackson then said that the supreme court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a coordinate branch of the government, the members of which had sworn to support the constitution,--that each member had sworn to support the constitution as he understood it. i will venture here to say that i have heard judge douglas say that he approved of general jackson for that act. what has now become of all his tirade against "resistance to the supreme court"? my fellow-citizens, getting back a little,--for i pass from these points,--when judge douglas makes his threat of annihilation upon the "alliance," he is cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fall upon the leaders of the republican party. almost every word he utters and every distinction he makes has its significance. he means for the republicans who do not count themselves as leaders to be his friends; he makes no fuss over them, it is the leaders that he is making war upon. he wants it understood that the mass of the republican party are really his friends. it is only the leaders that are doing something, that are intolerant, and require extermination at his hands. as this is clearly and unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, i want to ask your attention, addressing myself to republicans here, that i may ask you some questions as to where you, as the republican party, would be placed if you sustained judge douglas in his present position by a re-election? i do not claim, gentlemen, to be unselfish; i do not pretend that i would not like to go to the united states senate,--i make no such hypocritical pretence; but i do say to you, that in this mighty issue it is nothing to you, nothing to the mass of the people of the nation, whether or not judge douglas or myself shall ever be heard of after this night. it may be a trifle to either of us; but in connection with this mighty question, upon which hang the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing. but where will you be placed if you reindorse judge douglas? don't you know how apt he is, how exceedingly anxious he is, at all times to seize upon anything and everything to persuade you that something he has done you did yourselves? why, he tried to persuade you last night that our illinois legislature instructed him to introduce the nebraska bill. there was nobody in that legislature ever thought of it; but still he fights furiously for the proposition; and that he did it because there was a standing instruction to our senators to be always introducing nebraska bills. he tells you he is for the cincinnati platform; he tells you he is for the dred scott decision; he tells you--not in his speech last night, but substantially in a former speech--that he cares not if slavery is voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on lecompton is past,--it may come up again or not, and if it does, he stands where he stood when, in spite of him and his opposition, you built up the republican party. if you indorse him, you tell him you do not care whether slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, or try to close, your mouths with his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and the year. i think, in the position in which judge douglas stood in opposing the lecompton constitution, he was right; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we may know where to find him; and if it does not, we may know where to look for him, and that is on the cincinnati platform. now, i could ask the republican party, after all the hard names judge douglas has called them by, ... all his declarations of black republicanism--(by the way, we are improving, the black has got rubbed off), but with all that, if he be indorsed by republican votes, where do you stand? plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to the slavery-extension camp of the nation,--just ready to be driven over, tied together in a lot,--to be driven over, every man with a rope around his neck, that halter being held by judge douglas. that is the question. if republican men have been in earnest in what they have done, i think they had better not do it; but i think the republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. if they believe it is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent, and keeping them from the settlement of free white labourers, who want the land to bring up their families upon; if they are in earnest,--although they may make a mistake, they will grow restless, and the time will come when they will come back again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon the same principles as their party now has. it is better, then, to save the work while it is begun. you have done the labour; maintain it, keep it. if men choose to serve you, go with them; but as you have made up your organization upon principle, stand by it; for, as surely as god reigns over you, and has inspired your minds and given you a sense of propriety and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, and you will at last come back again after your wanderings, merely to do your work over again. we were often,--more than once, at least,--in the course of judge douglas's speech last night, reminded that this government was made for white men,--that he believed it was made for white men. well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. i protest, now and for ever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that, because i do not want a negro woman for a slave, i do necessarily want her for a wife. my understanding is, that i need not have her for either; but, as god made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. there are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women; and in god's name let them be so married. the judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. why, judge, if we do not let them get together in the territories, they won't mix there. i should say at least that that was a self-evident truth. now, it happens that we meet together once every year, somewhere about the th of july, for some reason or other. these th of july gatherings, i suppose, have their uses. if you will indulge me, i will state what i suppose to be some of them. we are now a mighty nation: we are thirty, or about thirty, millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. we run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years, and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men. we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. we find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for, and we understand that by what they then did, it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. we hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time,--of how it was done, and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humour with ourselves,--we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. in every way we are better men, in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations. but after we have done all this, we have not yet reached the whole. there is something else connected with it. we have, besides these men--descended by blood from our ancestors--among us, perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come from europe,--german, irish, french, and scandinavian,--men that have come from europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equal in all things. if they look back through this history, to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none: they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us; but when they look through that old declaration of independence, they find that those old men say that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that declaration; and so they are. that is the electric cord in that declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together; that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down"; for sustaining the dred scott decision; for holding that the declaration of independence did not mean anything at all,--we have judge douglas giving his exposition of what the declaration of independence means, and we have him saying that the people of america are equal to the people of england. according to his construction, you germans are not connected with it. now, i ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this government into a government of some other form? those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow,--what are these arguments? they are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. you will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people,--not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. that is their argument; and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent, that says, "you work, and i eat; you toil, and i will enjoy the fruits of it." turn in whatever way you will,--whether it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race,--it is all the same old serpent; and i hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. i should like to know--taking this old declaration of independence, which declares that all men are equal, upon principle, and making exceptions to it--where will it stop? if one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? if that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it, and tear it out! who is so bold as to do it? if it is not true, let us tear it out. [cries of "no! no!"] let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then. it may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. i think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. we had slaves among us; we could not get our constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery; we could not secure the good we did secure, if we grasped for more; but, having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. let that charter stand as our standard. my friend has said to me that i am a poor hand to quote scripture. i will try it again, however. it is said in one of the admonitions of our lord, "be ye [therefore] perfect even as your father which is in heaven is perfect." the saviour, i suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the father in heaven; but he said: "as your father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." he set that up as a standard, and he who did most toward reaching that standard attained the highest degree of moral perfection. so i say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. if we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. let us, then, turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the constitution originally placed it. let us stand firmly by each other. if we do not do so, we are tending in the contrary direction, that our friend judge douglas proposes,--not intentionally,--working in the traces that tend to make this one universal slave nation. he is one that runs in that direction, and as such i resist him. my friends, i have detained you about as long as i desired to do, and i have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. my friends, i could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. i thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. i leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. _from a speech at springfield, illinois. july , _ ... there is still another disadvantage under which we labour, and to which i will ask your attention. it arises out of the relative positions of the two persons who stand before the state as candidates for the senate. senator douglas is of world-wide renown. all the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the president of the united states. they have seen, in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, chargéships and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. and as they have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope. but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions, beyond what, even in the days of his highest prosperity, they could have brought about in his favour. on the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be president. in my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cabbages were sprouting out. these are disadvantages, all taken together, that the republicans labour under. we have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. i am in a certain sense made the standard-bearer in behalf of the republicans. i was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed,--i being in no wise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the republican ranks. then i say, i wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind, that we have to fight this battle without many--perhaps without any--of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. so i hope those with whom i am surrounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can fairly be done to bring about the right result. as appears by two speeches i have heard him deliver since his arrival in illinois, he gave special attention to the speech of mine delivered on the sixteenth of june. he says that he carefully read that speech. he told us that at chicago a week ago last night, and he repeated it at bloomington last night.... he says it was evidently prepared with great care. i freely admit it was prepared with care.... but i was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. if i had made any mistake i was willing to be corrected; if i had drawn any inference in regard to judge douglas or any one else, which was not warranted, i was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. i planted myself upon the truth and the truth only, so far as i knew it, or could be brought to know it. having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward judge douglas, as manifested therein, i was gratified when i found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to complain.... he seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of the campaign. he then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. i will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. his attempt at quoting is from a passage which i believe i can quote accurately from memory. i shall make the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as i have already said, in order that the judge shall be left entirely without excuse for misrepresenting me. i do so now, as i hope, for the last time. i do this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation, it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. if, after all, he still persists, i shall be compelled to reconstruct the course i have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as i have for a new course, better suited to the real exigencies of the case. i set out in this campaign with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. the latter i shall never be, but that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman i hope i understand, and am not less inclined to practise than others. it was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up. he charges, in substance, that i invite a war of sections; that i propose all local institutions of the different states shall become consolidated and uniform. what is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construction? i have again and again said that i would not enter into any one of the states to disturb the institution of slavery. judge douglas said at bloomington that i used language most able and ingenious for concealing what i really meant; and that while i had protested against entering into the slave states, i nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the ohio and throw missiles into kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions. ... i have said that i do not understand the declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. the negroes are not our equals in colour; but i suppose it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." certainly the negro is not our equal in colour, perhaps not in many other respects. still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. in pointing out that more has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. all i ask for the negro is, that if you do not like him, let him alone. if god gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. ... one more point on this springfield speech, which judge douglas says he has read so carefully. i expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. i did not profess to know it, nor do i now. i showed the part judge douglas had played in the string of facts, constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. i showed the parts played by others. i charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last presidential election, by the impression that the people of the territories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known in advance by the conspirators that the court was to decide that neither congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. these charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. judge douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. he has not, so far as i know, contradicted those charges. in the two speeches which i heard he certainly did not. on his own tacit admission i renew that charge. i charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception, for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. _from lincoln's reply to douglas in the first joint debate at ottawa, illinois. august , _ when a man bears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him--at least, i find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.... [after stating the charge of an arrangement between himself and judge trumbull.] now, all i have to say upon that subject is, that i think no man--not even judge douglas--can prove it, because it is not true. i have no doubt he is "conscientious" in saying it. as to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the republican party in , i say i never had anything to do with them, and i think trumbull never had. judge douglas cannot show that either of us ever had anything to do with them.... now, about this story that judge douglas tells of trumbull bargaining to sell out the old democratic party, and lincoln agreeing to sell out the old whig party, i have the means of knowing about that; judge douglas cannot have; and i know there is no substance to it whatever.... a man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. i certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but i have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. i always have a right to claim this; and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be "conscientious" on the subject. ... anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. i will say here, while upon this subject, that i have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so. i have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. there is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, i, as well as judge douglas, am in favour of the race to which i belong having the superior position. i have never said anything to the contrary; but i hold, that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the declaration of independence,--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. i agree with judge douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in colour, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of judge douglas, and the equal of any living man. ... as i have not used up so much of my time as i had supposed, i will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the judge has spoken. he has read from my speech at springfield, in which i say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." does the judge say it can stand? i don't know whether he does or not. the judge does not seem to be attending to me just now, but i would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand? if he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. now, my friends, i ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of saying something seriously, i know that the judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the saviour is true, but he may allege that i misapply it; and the judge has a right to urge that in my application i do misapply it, and then i have a right to show that i do not misapply it. when he undertakes to say that because i think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, i am in favour of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various states, in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. the great variety of local institutions in the states, springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of union. they do not make "a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. if they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. but can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country? i leave it for you to say, whether in the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. i ask you to consider whether so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise with the same moral and intellectual development we have--whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division? if so, then i have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the union is a house divided against itself; and when the judge reminds me that i have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some states, and yet it does not exist in some others, i agree to the fact, and i account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it,--restricting it from the new territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. but lately, i think,--and in this i charge nothing on the judge's motives,--lately, i think that he and those acting with him have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. and while it is placed on this new basis, i say, and i have said, that i believe we shall not have peace upon the question, until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. now, i believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where washington and jefferson and madison placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. the crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years--if it should live so long--in the states where it exists, yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. [a voice: "then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?"] well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty. what is popular sovereignty? is it the right of the people to have slavery or not to have it, as they see fit, in the territories? i will state--and i have an able man to watch me--my understanding is that popular sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. i do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in a territory of the united states, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one; but i do say that, as i understand the dred scott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them. when i made my speech at springfield, of which the judge complains, and from which he quotes, i really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at all. i had no thought in the world that i was doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave states. i had no thought in the world that i was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. it never occurred to me that i was doing anything or favouring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various states. but i must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks i am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that i did not mean it. it is just as fatal to the country, if i have any influence in producing it, whether i intend it or not. but can it be true that placing this institution upon the original basis--the basis upon which our fathers placed it--can have any tendency to set the northern and the southern states at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency to make the people of vermont raise sugar-cane, because they raise it in louisiana, or that it can compel the people of illinois to cut pine logs on the grand prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in maine, where they do grow? the judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. does the judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of the government? i think he says in some of his speeches--indeed, i have one here now--that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and, therefore, he set about studying the subject upon original principles, and upon original principles he got up the nebraska bill! i am fighting it upon these "original principles"--fighting it in the jeffersonian, washingtonian, madisonian fashion.... if i have brought forward anything not a fact, if he (judge douglas) will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. but if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a comparison of the evidence that i have reasoned falsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman" a liar? i want to ask your attention to a portion of the nebraska bill which judge douglas has quoted: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." thereupon judge douglas and others began to argue in favour of "popular sovereignty,"--the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "but," said, in substance, a senator from ohio (mr. chase, i believe), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which i propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." i believe i have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. and now i state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that judge douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down. i now think that those who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. they know what that reason was. it looks to us, since we have seen the dred scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the constitution" the people cannot exclude slavery--i say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that dred scott decision in, a niche that would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. and now i say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the judge much more to calmly and good-humouredly point out to these people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down, than swelling himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. again, there is in that same quotation from the nebraska bill this clause: "it being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any territory or state." i have always been puzzled to know what business the word "state" had in that connection. judge douglas knows--he put it there. he knows what he put it there for. we outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. the law they were passing was not about states, and was not making provision for states. what was it placed there for? after seeing the dred scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a territory, if another dred scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a state, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in view of something that was to come in due time; we shall see that it was the other half of something. i now say again, if there was any different reason for putting it there, judge douglas, in a good-humoured way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was.... now, my friends, ... i ask the attention of the people here assembled, and elsewhere, to the course that judge douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and the day before, and makes constantly, all over the country, i ask your attention to them. in the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national? not war: there is no danger that the people of kentucky will shoulder their muskets and ... march into illinois to force the blacks upon us. there is no danger of our going over there, and making war upon them. then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery? it is simply the next dred scott decision. it is merely for the supreme court to decide that no state under the constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under the constitution neither congress nor the territorial legislature can do it. when that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. this being true and this being the way, as i think, that slavery is to be made national, let us consider what judge douglas is doing every day to that end. in the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. in this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. with public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. he makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. this must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that judge douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything when they once find out that judge douglas professes to believe it. consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party,--a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. this man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a territory to exclude slavery, and he does so not because he says it is right in itself,--he does not give any opinion on that,--but because it has been decided by the court, and, being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law,--not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a "thus saith the lord." he places it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision, commits himself just as firmly to the next one as to this. he did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a "thus saith the lord." the next decision as much as this will be a "thus saith the lord." there is nothing that can divert or turn him away from this decision. it is nothing that i point out to him that his great prototype, general jackson, did not believe in the binding force of decisions. it is nothing to him that jefferson did not so believe. i have said that i have often heard him approve of jackson's course in disregarding the decision of the supreme court pronouncing a national bank constitutional. he says i did not hear him say so. he denies the accuracy of my recollection. i say he ought to know better than i, but i will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that i heard him say it twenty times. i will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the cincinnati platform, which affirms that congress cannot charter a national bank in the teeth of that old standing decision that congress can charter a bank. and i remind him of another piece of illinois history on the question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of illinois history belonging to a time when a large party to which judge douglas belonged, were displeased with a decision of the supreme court of illinois, because they had decided that a governor could not remove a secretary of state, and i know that judge douglas will not deny that he was then in favour of over-slaughing that decision, by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. not only so, but it ended in the judge's sitting down on the very bench as one of the five new judges to break down the four old ones. it was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. now, when the judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to sit as members of a court will have to be catechized beforehand upon some subject, i say, "you know, judge; you have tried it!" when he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, i say, "you know best, judge; you have been through the mill." but i cannot shake judge douglas's teeth loose from the dred scott decision. like some obstinate animal (i mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed--you may cut off a leg, or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. and so i may point out to the judge, and say that he is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions,--i may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench from him a single dictum of the court, yet i cannot divert him from it. he hangs to the last to the dred scott decision.... henry clay, my beau ideal of a statesman, ... once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! to my thinking, judge douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this community when he says that the negro has nothing in the declaration of independence. henry clay plainly understood the contrary. judge douglas is going back to the era of our revolution, and, to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. when he invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. when he says he "cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up,"--that it is a sacred right of self-government,--he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this american people. and now i will only say, that when, by all these means and appliances, judge douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views; when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments; when they shall come to repeat his views and avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions,--then it needs only the formality of a second dred scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. _lincoln's reply to judge douglas in the second joint debate. freeport, illinois. august , _ ... the plain truth is this. at the introduction of the nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the republic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. but in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. the people in the north end of the state were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the southern and central portions of the state, but we were all opposed to the nebraska doctrine. we had that one feeling and one sentiment in common. you at the north end met in your conventions, and passed your resolutions. we in the middle of the state and further south did not hold such conventions and pass the same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. so that these meetings which the judge has alluded to, and the resolutions he has read from, were local, and did not spread over the whole state. we at last met together in , from all parts of the state, and we agreed upon a common platform. you who held more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, or if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the measures which the opposite party were pushing forward at that time. we met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical purposes. we agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire state of illinois, and now we are all bound as a party to that platform. and i say here to you, if any one expects of me in the case of my election, that i will do anything not signified by our republican platform and my answers here to-day, i tell you very frankly, that person will be deceived. i do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that i have secret purposes or pledges that i dare not speak out.... if i should never be elected to any office, i trust i may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions judge douglas chooses to entertain of me. _from lincoln's reply at jonesboro'. september , _ ladies and gentlemen, there is very much in the principles that judge douglas has here enunciated that i most cordially approve, and over which i shall have no controversy with him. in so far as he insisted that all the states have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic relations, including that of slavery, i agree entirely with him. he places me wrong in spite of all i tell him, though i repeat it again and again, insisting that i have made no difference with him upon this subject. i have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him to find anything that i have ever put in print contrary to what i now say on the subject. i hold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in all the states, without interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they please, and i deny that i have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. i can only say again that i am placed improperly--altogether improperly, in spite of all that i can say--when it is insisted that i entertain any other view or purpose in regard to that matter. while i am upon this subject, i will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that judge douglas has put. he says, "why can't this union endure permanently half slave and half free?" i have said that i supposed it could not, and i will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. another form of his question is, "why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" that is the exact difficulty between us. i say that judge douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. i say in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction. i say when this government was first established, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new territories of the united states where it had not existed. but judge douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. all i have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. i have no doubt that it would become extinct for all time to come, if we had but readopted the policy of the fathers by restricting it to the limits it has already covered--restricting it from the new territories. i do not wish to dwell on this branch of the subject at great length at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that i have stated before. brooks, the man who assaulted senator sumner on the floor of the senate, and who was complimented with dinners and silver pitchers and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat, in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. that was but the opinion of one man, but it is such an opinion as we can never get from judge douglas or anybody in favour of slavery in the north at all. you can sometimes get it from a southern man. he said at the same time that the framers of our government did not have the knowledge that experience has taught us--that experience and the invention of the cotton gin have taught us that the perpetuation of slavery is a necessity. he insisted therefore upon its being changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the government left it to the basis of perpetuation and nationalization. i insist that this is the difference between judge douglas and myself--that judge douglas is helping the change along. i insist upon this government being placed where our fathers originally placed it. ... when he asks me why we cannot get along with it [slavery] in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis; that he has himself been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. any one who will read his speech of the twenty-second of march last, will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an altogether different set of principles.... now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract between myself and judge trumbull, and myself and all that long portion of judge douglas's speech on this subject. i wish simply to say, what i have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and i do know that there is not a word of truth in it. and i have told him so before. i don't want any harsh language indulged in, but i do not know how to deal with this persistent insisting on a story that i know to be utterly without truth. it used to be the fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, it was dropped. i don't know how to meet this kind of an argument. i don't want to have a fight with judge douglas, and i have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. all i can do is good-humouredly to say, that from the beginning to the end of all that story about a bargain between judge trumbull and myself, there is not a word of truth in it.... when that compromise [of ] was made, it did not repeal the old missouri compromise. it left a region of united states territory half as large as the present territory of the united states, north of the line of ° ', in which slavery was prohibited by act of congress. this compromise did not repeal that one. it did not affect nor propose to repeal it. but at last it became judge douglas's duty, as he thought (and i find no fault with him), as chairman of the committee on territories, to bring in a bill for the organization of a territorial government--first of one, then of two territories north of that line. when he did so, it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the missouri compromise. that was because the compromise of had not repealed it. and now i ask why he could not have left that compromise alone? we were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. we were making no fuss about it. all had acquiesced in the compromise measures of . we never had been seriously disturbed by any abolition agitation before that period.... i close this part of the discussion on my part by asking him the question again, why, when we had peace under the missouri compromise, could you not have let it alone? * * * * * he tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different institutions of the states of the union; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference of the natural features of the states. i agree to all that. have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? not at all. have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar, or because we have a different class relative to the production of flour in this state? have they produced any differences? not at all. they are the very cements of this union. they don't make the house a house divided against itself. they are the props that hold up the house and sustain the union. but has it been so with this element of slavery? have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over it? and when will we cease to have quarrels over it? like causes produce like effects. it is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. whenever it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. all the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts to spread it over more territory. it was thus at the date of the missouri compromise. it was so again with the annexation of texas; so with the territory acquired by the mexican war; and it is so now. whenever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. now, i appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my political friends), as rational men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? will not the same cause that produced agitation in , when the missouri compromise was formed,--that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of texas, and at other times,--work out the same results always? do you think that the nature of man will be changed; that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another? this has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extend. what right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, that the agitation will come to an end, until it shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition? this is the view i entertain, and this is the reason why i entertained it, as judge douglas has read from my springfield speech. ... at freeport i answered several interrogatories that had been propounded to me by judge douglas at the ottawa meeting.... at the same time i propounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many for me as i did for him, and i would reserve myself for a future instalment when i got them ready. the judge, in answering me upon that occasion, put in what i suppose he intends as answers to all four of my interrogatories. the first one of these i have before me, and it is in these words: _question ._ if the people of kansas shall by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a state constitution and ask admission into the union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the english bill--some , --will you vote to admit them? as i read the judge's answer in the newspaper, and as i remember it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no,--i will or i won't. he answers at very considerable length, rather quarrelling with me for asking the question, and insisting that judge trumbull had done something that i ought to say something about; and finally, getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means to be understood, he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of kansas. i only bring this forward now, for the purpose of saying that, if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. but if he does not, i shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of kansas in disregard of the english bill. he has the right to remove any misunderstanding i may have. i only mention it now, that i may hereafter assume this to have been the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. the second interrogatory i propounded to him was this: _question ._ can the people of a united states territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the united states, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a state constitution? to this judge douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the territory prior to the formation of a constitution. he goes on to tell us how it can be done. as i understand him, he holds that it can be done by the territorial legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. for the sake of clearness, i state it again: that they can exclude slavery from the territory,--first, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation; and second, by unfriendly legislation. if i rightly understand him, i wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. in the first place, the supreme court of the united states has decided that any congressional prohibition of slavery in the territories is unconstitutional: they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former proposition that the constitution of the united states expressly recognizes property in slaves; and from that other constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. hence they reach the conclusion that as the constitution of the united states expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an act of congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. that i understand to be the decision of the supreme court. i understand also that judge douglas adheres most firmly to that decision; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the territory unless in violation of that decision? that is the difficulty. in the senate of the united states, in , judge trumbull in a speech, substantially if not directly, put the same interrogatory to judge douglas, as to whether the people of a territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution? judge douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the "congressional globe," under date of june , . the judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not, was a question to be decided by the supreme court. he put that proposition, as will be seen by the "congressional globe," in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance,--that it was a question for the supreme court. i maintain that when he says, after the supreme court has decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the supreme court. he shifts his ground. i appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the supreme court? has not the supreme court decided that question? when he now says that the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people? does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people? this is a very simple proposition,--a very plain and naked one. it seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. in a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the supreme court. he did not stop then to tell us that, whatever the supreme court decides, the people can by withholding necessary "police regulations" keep slavery out. he did not make any such answer. i submit to you now, whether the new state of the case has not induced the judge to sheer away from his original ground? would not this be the impression of every fair-minded man? i hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false. it is not true at all. i hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "police regulations" which the judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. not only so, but is there not another fact,--how came this dred scott decision to be made? it was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in minnesota territory, claiming his freedom because the act of congress prohibited his being so held there. will the judge pretend that dred scott was not held there without police regulations? there is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time. this shows that there is vigour enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country, even against unfriendly legislation. it takes not only law, but the enforcement of law to keep it out. that is the history of this country upon the subject. i wish to ask one other question. it being understood that the constitution of the united states guarantees property in slaves in the territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the united states courts, organized for the government of the territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case? it is a maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. again: i will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon your duties? swear to support the constitution of the united states. suppose you believe as judge douglas does, that the constitution of the united states guarantees to your neighbour the right to hold slaves in that territory,--that they are his property,--how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property? what do you understand by supporting the constitution of a state or of the united states? is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights established by that constitution as may be practically needed? can you, if you swear to support the constitution and believe that the constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving it support? do you support the constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation? do you not violate and disregard your oath? i can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. there can be nothing in the words "support the constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the constitution. and what i say here will hold with still more force against the judge's doctrine of "unfriendly legislation." how could you, having sworn to support the constitution, and believing that it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right? that would be violating your own view of the constitution. not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void? not a moment. lastly, i would ask, is not congress itself under obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established under the united states constitution? i repeat the question, is not congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the united states constitution? a member of congress swears to support the constitution of the united states, and if he sees a right established by that constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection? let me ask you why many of us, who are opposed to slavery upon principle, give our acquiescence to a fugitive-slave law? why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when passed? because the constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. it gives the right to reclaim slaves; and that right is, as judge douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that will enforce it. the mere declaration, "no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due," is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. now, on what ground would a member of congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract, vote for a fugitive law, as i would deem it my duty to do? because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. and, although it is distasteful to me, i have sworn to support the constitution; and, having so sworn, i cannot conceive that i do support it if i withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practical. and if that is true in regard to a fugitive-slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the constitution than the right to hold slaves in the territories? for this decision is a just exposition of the constitution, as judge douglas thinks. is the one right any better than the other? if i wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the territories, if a member of congress, i could not do it, holding the view that the constitution establishes that right. if i did it at all, it would be because i deny that this decision properly construes the constitution. but if i acknowledge with judge douglas that this decision properly construes the constitution, i cannot conceive that i would be less than a perjured man if i should refuse in congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it needed.... _from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at charleston, illinois. september , _ judge douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether i am in favour of negro citizenship. so far as i know, the judge never asked me the question before. he shall have no occasion ever to ask it again, for i tell him very frankly that i am not in favour of negro citizenship.... now my opinion is, that the different states have the power to make a negro a citizen under the constitution of the united states, if they choose. the dred scott decision decides that they have not that power. if the state of illinois had that power, i should be opposed to the exercise of it. that is all i have to say about it. judge douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south, ... and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. i will not charge upon judge douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but i call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and i dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. while i am here, perhaps i ought to say a word, if i have the time, in regard to the latter portion of the judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said that i entertained the belief that this government would not endure, half slave and half free. i have said so, and i did not say it without what seemed to me good reasons. it perhaps would require more time than i have now to set forth those reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions. have we ever had any peace on this slavery question? when are we to have peace upon it if it is kept in the position it now occupies? how are we ever to have peace upon it? that is an important question. to be sure, if we will all stop and allow judge douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. but let me ask judge douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? they have been wrangling over this question for forty years. this was the cause of the agitation resulting in the missouri compromise; this produced the troubles at the annexation of texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the mexican war. again, this was the trouble quieted by the compromise of , when it was settled "for ever," as both the great political parties declared in their national conventions. that "for ever" turned out to be just four years, when judge douglas himself reopened it. when is it likely to come to an end? he introduced the nebraska bill in , to put another end to the slavery agitation. he promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a quarrel with the president about the lecompton constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation. but in one speech, i think last winter, he did say that he didn't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of kansas have voted down the lecompton constitution. how is it over? that was only one of the attempts to put an end to the slavery agitation,--one of these "final settlements." is kansas in the union? has she formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under? is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that territory?... if kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question would still be among us. i say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us, but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new territories,--to restrict it for ever to the old states where it now exists. then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. that is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. the other way is for us to surrender, and let judge douglas and his friends have their way, and plant slavery over all the states,--cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong--regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of our negroes as we do of our horse and cattle. _from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at galesburg, illinois. october , _ ... the judge has alluded to the declaration of independence, and insisted that negroes are not included in that declaration; and that it is a slander on the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were meant therein; and he asks you, is it possible to believe that mr. jefferson, who penned that immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? would he not at once have freed them? i only have to remark upon this part of his speech (and that too, very briefly, for i shall not detain myself or you upon that point for any great length of time), that i believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the declaration of independence up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation from one single man, that the negro was not included in the declaration of independence; i think i may defy judge douglas to show that he ever said so, that washington ever said so, that any president ever said so, that any member of congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the democratic party in regard to slavery had to invent that affirmation. and i will remind judge douglas and this audience, that while mr. jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking on this very subject, he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he remembered that god was just;" and i will offer the highest premium in my power to judge douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of jefferson. ... i want to call to the judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these debates.... in order to fix extreme abolitionism upon me, judge douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared had been passed by a republican state convention, in october , held at springfield, illinois, and he declared that i had taken a part in that convention. it turned out that although a few men calling themselves an anti-nebraska state convention had sat at springfield about that time, yet neither did i take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as judge douglas read. so apparent had it become that the resolutions that he read had not been passed at springfield at all, nor by any state convention in which i had taken part, that seven days later at freeport ... judge douglas declared that he had been misled ... and promised ... that when he went to springfield he would investigate the matter.... i have waited as i think a sufficient time for the report of that investigation. ... a fraud, an absolute forgery, was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three,--lanphier, harris, and douglas.... whether it can be narrowed in any way, so as to exonerate any one of them, is what judge douglas's report would probably show. the main object of that forgery at that time was to beat yates and elect harris to congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to judge douglas at that time. ... the fraud having been apparently successful upon that occasion, both harris and douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. as the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his body full of eels, said, when she was asked what was to be done with him, 'take out the eels and set him again,' so harris and douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which they gained harris's election, and set the fraud again, more than once.... and now that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud, we find that judge douglas manifests no surprise at all.... but meanwhile the three are agreed that each is a most honourable man. _notes for speeches. october _ suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which he has had given him? "give to him that is needy" is the christian rule of charity; but "take from him that is needy" is the rule of slavery. the sum of pro-slavery theology seems to be this: "slavery is not universally right, nor yet universally wrong; it is better for some people to be slaves; and, in such cases, it is the will of god that they be such." certainly there is no contending against the will of god; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining and applying it to particular cases. for instance, we will suppose the rev. dr. ross has a slave named sambo, and the question is, "is it the will of god that sambo shall remain a slave, or be set free?" the almighty gives no audible answer to the question, and his revelation, the bible, gives none--or at most none but such as admits of a squabble as to its meaning; no one thinks of asking sambo's opinion on it. so at last it comes to this, that dr. ross is to decide the question; and while he considers it, he sits in the shade, with gloves on his hands, and subsists on the bread that sambo is earning in the burning sun. if he decides that god wills sambo to continue a slave, he thereby retains his own comfortable position; but if he decides that god wills sambo to be free, he thereby has to walk out of the shade, throw off his gloves, and delve for his own bread. will dr. ross be actuated by the perfect impartiality which has ever been considered most favourable to correct decisions? we have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. it is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. it is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. we keep up a controversy in regard to it. that controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion, and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. i suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. the republican party think it wrong--we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. we think it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the states where it exists, but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects the existence of the whole nation. because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. we deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it we have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. i suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the states where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. we go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the constitution would permit us. we think the constitution would permit us to disturb it in the district of columbia. still we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which i don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to--the terms of making the emancipation gradual and compensating the unwilling owners. where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. we also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. we insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. we don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. we oppose the dred scott decision in a certain way, upon which i ought perhaps to address you in a few words. we do not propose that when dred scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free. we do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of congress or the president to favour no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. we do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the foundation not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the states themselves. we propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. i will add this, that if there be any man who does not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which i have mentioned, or in any one of them, that man is misplaced and ought to leave us. while, on the other hand, if there be any man in the republican party who is impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. he will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. this, gentlemen, as well as i can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. i will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. that policy is the democratic policy, and that sentiment is the democratic sentiment. if there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the democratic party, in relation to this subject, i ask him to bear with me while i state a few things tending, as i think, to prove that proposition. in the first place, the leading man,--i think i may do my friend judge douglas the honour of calling him such,--advocating the present democratic policy, never himself says it is wrong. he has the high distinction, so far as i know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. almost everybody else says one or the other, but the judge never does. if there be a man in the democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, i suggest to him in the first place that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never says that it is wrong. in the second place, i suggest to him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. if you will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. perhaps that democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as i am will tell me that i am wrong about this. i wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. you say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to anybody else saying so? do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? you say it must not be opposed in the free states, because slavery is not there; it must not be opposed in the slave states, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. then where is the place to oppose it? there is no suitable place to oppose it. there is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. frank blair and gratz brown tried to get up a system of gradual emancipation in missouri, had an election in august, and got beat; and you, mr. democrat, threw up your hat and hallooed, "hurrah for democracy!" so i say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when judge douglas says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. he cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. when judge douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. when he says that slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly if there is no difference between them as property; but if the one is property, held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the arguments sustaining the democratic policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. let us understand this. i am not, just here, trying to prove that we are right and they are wrong. i have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference between us; and i now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated,--can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till then, i think, will we in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. _mr. lincoln's reply to judge douglas in the seventh and last debate. alton, illinois. october , _ ... but is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to this institution of slavery springs from office-seeking,--from the mere ambition of politicians? is that the truth? how many times have we had danger from this question? go back to the day of the missouri compromise. go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this same slavery question. go back to the time of the annexation of texas. go back to the troubles that led to the compromise of . you will find that every time, with the single exception of the nullification question, they sprung from an endeavour to spread this institution. there never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties themselves. but does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles? does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder? what divided the great methodist church into two parts, north and south? what has raised this constant disturbance in every presbyterian general assembly that meets? what disturbed the unitarian church in this very city two years ago? what has jarred and shaken the great american tract society recently,--not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power, that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society, in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? is this the work of politicians? is that irresistible power which for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? if you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, i assure you that i will quit before they have half done so. but where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society, which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions? i say where is the philosophy or the statesmanship, based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? yet this is the policy here in the north that douglas is advocating,--that we are to care nothing about it! i ask you if it is not a false philosophy? is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about,--a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about? ... the judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the states have to decide the whole thing for themselves. i agree with him very readily.... our controversy with him is in regard to the new territories. we agree that when states come in as states they have the right and power to do as they please.... we profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the states. what i insist upon is, that the new territories shall be kept free from it while in the territorial condition ... ... these are false issues, upon which judge douglas has tried to force the controversy.... the real issue in this controversy--the one dressing upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. the sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the republican party. it is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle; from which all their propositions radiate. they look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. they insist that it, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. they also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery some time, as being a wrong. these are the views they entertain in regard to it, as i understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions are brought within this range, i have said, and i here repeat it, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which i have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. and if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us, and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. we disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. he is not placed properly with us. on this subject of treating it as a wrong and limiting its spread, let me say a word. has anything ever threatened the existence of this union save and except this very institution of slavery? what is it that we hold most dear amongst us? our own liberty and prosperity. what has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity save and except this institution of slavery? if this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery,--by spreading it out and making it bigger? you may have a wen or a cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. that is no proper way of treating what you regard as a wrong. you see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong,--restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. that is the peaceful way--the old-fashioned way--the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. on the other hand, i have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong. that is the democratic sentiment of this day. i do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. that class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like judge douglas, treat it as indifferent, and do not say it is either right or wrong. these two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. and if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," i would like to reason with him. you never treat it _as_ a wrong. what other thing that you consider a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. although you pretend to say so yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. you must not say anything about it in the free states, because it is not here. you must not say anything about it in the slave states, because it is there. you must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. you must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place." there is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. but, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave states should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favour of it. you would be in favour of it! you say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. but you are deceiving yourself. you all know that frank blair and gratz brown, down there in st. louis, undertook to introduce that system in missouri. they fought as valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation, which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. now i will bring you to the test. after a hard fight they were beaten; and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for democracy! more than that; take all the argument made in favour of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. the arguments to sustain that policy carefully exclude it. even here to-day, you heard judge douglas quarrel with me, because i uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. although henry clay could say he wished every slave in the united states was in the country of his ancestors, i am denounced by those who pretend to respect henry clay, for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. the democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. try it by some of judge douglas's arguments. he says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down in the territories." i do not care myself in dealing with that expression whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject or only of the national policy he desires to have established. but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.... any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery.... but if it is a wrong, he cannot say that people have a right to do wrong. he says that, upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go into a new territory like other property. this is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property.... but if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong.... the democratic policy everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. that is the real issue. that is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of judge douglas and myself shall be silent. it is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. they are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. the one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. it is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. it is the same spirit that says, "you toil and work and earn bread, and i'll eat it." no matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king, who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labour, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race,--it is the same tyrannical principle.... whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter thrown out, so that men can fairly see the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably, too. there will be no war, no violence. it will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. _from a speech at columbus, ohio, on the slave trade, popular sovereignty, etc. september , _ ... the republican party, as i understand its principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the states of this union; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the original and chief purpose of the republican organization. i say "chief purpose" of the republican organization; for it is certainly true that if the national house shall fall into the hands of the republicans, they will have to attend to all the matters of national house-keeping as well as this. the chief and real purpose of the republican party is eminently conservative. it proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to. the chief danger to this purpose of the republican party is not just now the revival of the african slave-trade, or the passage of a congressional slave-code ... but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is that insidious douglas popular sovereignty. this is the miner and sapper. while it does not propose to revive the african slave-trade, nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second dred scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. i say this _douglas_ popular sovereignty--for there is a broad distinction, as i now understand it, between that article and a genuine popular sovereignty. i believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. i think a definition of genuine popular sovereignty in the abstract would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. applied to governments, this principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it; and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. i understand that this government of the united states under which we live, is based upon this principle; and i am misunderstood if it is supposed that i have any war to make upon that principle. now, what is judge douglas's popular sovereignty? it is, as a principle, no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this: if, in a new territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that territory, or the other members of the families of communities of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of states as parent of all,--however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. that is douglas popular sovereignty applied. ... i cannot but express my gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among us, as i believe it is, is attracting more and more attention. i do not believe that governor seward uttered that sentiment because i had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject, and saw the truth of it. nor do i believe, because governor seward or i uttered it, that mr. hickman of pennsylvania, in different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty and slavery. you see we are multiplying. now, while i am speaking of hickman, let me say, i know but little about him. i have never seen him, and know scarcely anything about the man; but i will say this much about him: of all the anti-lecompton democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. ... judge douglas ... proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence as the question would be to me, whether my neighbour should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco; that there is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents; that when a new territory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, like the canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come thereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon anybody save the few men who first plant upon the soil; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the family of communities composing these states, nor any way endangers the general government. judge douglas ignores altogether the very well-known fact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. ... did you ever, five years ago, hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the declaration of national independence; that it did not mean negroes at all; and when "all men" were spoken of, negroes were not included? ... then i suppose that all now express the belief that the declaration of independence never did mean negroes. i call upon one of them to say that he said it five years ago. if you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that strikes me is to remark that there has been a _change_ wrought in you, and a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute.... is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change? public opinion in this country is everything. in a nation like ours this popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already wrought a change in the public mind to the extent i have stated.... ... now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, i ask you to note that fact (the popular-sovereignty of judge douglas), and the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to deal with the negro everywhere as with the brute. if public sentiment has not been debauched already to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction is all that is wanting; and this is constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious popular sovereignty. you need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready for all these things, and you will receive and support or submit to the slave-trade, revived with all its horrors,--a slave-code enforced in our territories,--and a new dred scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart of the free north. ... i ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these popular sovereigns are at this work: blowing out the moral lights around us; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute; that the declaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with the crocodile and the reptile; that man with body and soul is a matter of dollars and cents. i suggest to this portion of the ohio republicans, or democrats, if there be any present, the serious consideration of this fact, that there is now going on among you a steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject. with this, my friends, i bid you adieu. _from a speech at cincinnati, ohio, on the intentions of "black republicans," the relation of labour and capital, etc. september , _ ... i say, then, in the first place to the kentuckians that i am what they call, as i understand it, a "black republican." i think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. i desire that it should be no further spread in these united states, and i should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole union. while i say this for myself, i say to you, kentuckians, that i understand you differ radically with me upon this proposition; that you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this union. now, there being this broad difference between us, i do not pretend, in addressing myself to you, kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you. that would be a vain effort. i do not enter upon it. i only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next presidency, at charleston, my distinguished friend, judge douglas. in all that, there is no real difference between you and him; i understand he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. i will try to demonstrate that proposition. in kentucky perhaps--in many of the slave states certainly--you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the bible. you are trying to show that slavery existed in the bible times by divine ordinance. now, douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery was right by the bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery of the white man,--of men without reference to colour,--and he knows very well that you may entertain that idea in kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any northern support upon it. he makes a wiser argument for you. he makes the argument that the slavery of the black man--the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different colour from your own--is right. he thereby brings to your support northern voters, who could not for a moment be brought by your own argument of the bible right of slavery. ... at memphis he [judge douglas] declared that in all contests between the negro and the white man, he was for the white man, but that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile, he was for the negro. he did not make that declaration accidentally ... he made it a great many times. the first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you are wronging the white man in some way or other; and that whoever is opposed to the negro being enslaved is in some way or other against the white man. is not that a falsehood? if there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, i should be for the white man as much as judge douglas; but i say there is no such necessary conflict. i say there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved,--that the mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labour in the vicinity of the fields of their own labour.... there is one other thing that i will say to you in this relation. it is but my opinion; i give it to you without a fee. it is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. you will surely be beaten if you do not take him. we, the republicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend "to stand by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether you take him or not. we know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both together. we know that "you are all of a feather," and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect to do it. we don't intend to be very impatient about it. we mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved as it is possible for men to be. when we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. i will tell you, so far as i am authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. we mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as washington, jefferson, and madison treated you. we mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution; to abide by all and every compromise of the constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerate men (if we have degenerated) may, according to the example of those noble fathers--washington, jefferson, and madison. we mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. we mean to recognize and bear in mind always, that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and to treat you accordingly. we mean to marry your girls when we have a chance--the white ones, i mean, and i have the honour to inform you that i once did have a chance in that way. i have told you what we mean to do. i want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do? i often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the union whenever a republican, or anything like it, is elected president of the united states. [a voice: "that is so."] "that is so," one of them says; i wonder if he is a kentuckian? [a voice: "he is a douglas man."] well, then, i want to know what you are going to do with your half of it. are you going to split the ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? or are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows? or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger of your losing it? do you think you can better yourselves on that subject by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to return those specimens of your movable property that come hither? you have divided the union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligation to do anything for you, how much better off do you think you will be? will you make war upon us and kill us all? why, gentlemen, i think you are as gallant and as brave men as live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions; but man for man, you are not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. you will never make much of a hand at whipping us. if we were fewer in numbers than you, i think that you could whip us; if we were equal it would likely be a drawn battle; but being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us.... labour is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. there is a difference in opinion about the elements of labour in society. some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labour, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labour of the community. they assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. they begin next to consider what is the best way. they say there are but two ways,--one is to hire men and to allure them to labour by their consent; the other is to buy the men, and drive them to it, and that is slavery. having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the question of whether the labourers themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired labourers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of slaves. in the first place, i say the whole thing is a mistake. that there is a certain relation between capital and labour, i admit. that it does exist, and rightfully exist, i think is true. that men who are industrious and sober and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also if they should choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labour, and hire other people to labour for them,--is right. in doing so, they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others,--hired labourers, receiving their capital for it. thus a few men that own capital hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labour rightfully--a relation of which i make no complaint. but i insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labour of the country. there are a plenty of men in the slave states that are altogether good enough for me, to be either president or vice-president, provided they will profess their sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on such ground that our men upon principle can vote for them. there are scores of them--good men in their character for intelligence, for talent and integrity. if such an one will place himself upon the right ground, i am for his occupying one place upon the next republican or opposition ticket. i will go heartily for him. but unless he does so place himself, i think it is perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis; that if a union be made, the elements will so scatter that there can be no success for such a ticket. the good old maxims of the bible are applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs; and in this, as in other things, we may say that he who is not for us is against us; he who gathereth not with us, scattereth. i should be glad to have some of the many good and able and noble men of the south place themselves where we can confer upon them the high honour of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. it would do my soul good to do that thing. it would enable us to teach them that inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say.... _from a letter to j.w. fell. december , _ i was born february , , in hardin county, kentucky. my parents were both born in virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps i should say. my mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a family of the name of hanks, some of whom now reside in adams, and others in macon county, illinois. my paternal grandfather, abraham lincoln, emigrated from rockingham county, virginia, to kentucky about or , where a year or two later he was killed by the indians, not in battle, but by stealth, when he was labouring to open a farm in the forest. his ancestors, who were quakers, went to virginia from berks county, pennsylvania. an effort to identify them with the new england family of the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity of christian names in both families, such as enoch, levi, mordecai, solomon, abraham, and the like. my father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and he grew up literally without education. he removed from kentucky to what is now spencer county, indiana, in my eighth year. we reached our new home about the time the state came into the union. it was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. there i grew up. there were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin'" to the rule of three. if a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighbourhood, he was looked upon as a wizard. there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. of course, when i came of age i did not know much. still, somehow, i could read, write, and cipher to the rule of three, but that was all. i have not been to school since. the little advance i now have upon this store of education i have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity. i was raised to farm work, which i continued till i was twenty-two. at twenty-one i came to illinois, macon county. then i got to new salem, at that time in sangamon, now in menard county, where i remained a year as a sort of clerk in a store. then came the black hawk war; and i was elected a captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any i have had since. i went the campaign, was elated, ran for the legislature the same year ( ), and was beaten--the only time i ever have been beaten by the people. the next and three succeeding biennial elections i was elected to the legislature. i was not a candidate afterward. during this legislative period i had studied law, and removed to springfield to practise it. in i was once elected to the lower house of congress. was not a candidate for re-election. from to , both inclusive, practised law more assiduously than ever before. always a whig in politics; and generally on the whig electoral tickets, making active canvasses. i was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the missouri compromise aroused me again. what i have done since then is pretty well known. if any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said i am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing on an average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse black hair and gray eyes. no other marks or brands recollected. _from an address delivered at cooper institute, new york. february , _ ... now, and hear, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. i do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. to do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience--to reject all progress, all improvement. what i do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so on evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. if any man at this day sincerely believes that the proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument he can. but he has no right to mislead others who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" were of the same opinion--thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. if any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority, or some part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. but he should, at the same time, have the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk the responsibility by asserting that they understood the question just as well and even better than we do now. but enough! let all who believe that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. this is all republicans ask, all republicans desire, in relation to slavery. as those fathers marked it, so let it again be marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. for this republicans contend, and with this, so far as i know or believe, they will be content. and now, if they would listen,--as i suppose they will not,--i would address a few words to the southern people. i would say to them: you consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and i consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. still, when you speak of us republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. you will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "black republicans." in all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "black republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite--license, so to speak--among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. now, can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. you say we are sectional. we deny it. that makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. you produce your proof; and what is it? why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. the fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? if it does, then, in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. you cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? if you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. you will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. the fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. and if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. if we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. if our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. do you accept the challenge? no! then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by washington in his farewell address. less than eight years before washington gave that warning he had, as president of the united states, approved and signed an act of congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free states. bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? could washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? we respect that warning of washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. but you say you are conservative,--eminently conservative,--while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. what is conservatism? is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? we stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. true, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. you are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congressional slave-code for the territories; some for congress forbidding the territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favour of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. consider, then, whether your claim for conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. we deny it. we admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. it was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. we resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? go back to that old policy. what has been will be again, under the same conditions. if you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. you charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. we deny it; and what is your proof? harper's ferry! john brown! john brown was no republican; and you have failed to implicate a single republican in his harper's ferry enterprise. if any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. if you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. if you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. you need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is simply malicious slander. some of you admit that no republican designedly aided or encouraged the harper's ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. we do not believe it. we know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." you never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. when it occurred, some important state elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. the elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. every republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favour. republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. surely this does not encourage them to revolt. true, we do, in common with "our fathers who framed the government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. for anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a republican party. i believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. in your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with black republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines black republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves. slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the republican party was organized. what induced the southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at harper's ferry? you can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that southampton was "got up by black republicanism." in the present state of things in the united states, i do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. the indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. the slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. the explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. much is said by southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. a plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favourite master or mistress, would divulge it. this is the rule; and the slave revolution in haiti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. the gunpowder plot of british history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. in that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as i think, can happen in this country for a long time. whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. in the language of mr. jefferson, uttered many years ago, "it is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their places be, _pari passu_, filled up by free white labourers. if, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." mr. jefferson did not mean to say, nor do i, that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. he spoke of virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, i speak of the slaveholding states only. the federal government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution--the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any american soil which is now free from slavery. john brown's effort was peculiar. it was not a slave insurrection. it was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. in fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. that affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. an enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. he ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. orsini's attempt on louis napoleon, and john brown's attempt at harper's ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. the eagerness to cast blame on old england in the one case, and on new england in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. and how much would it avail you if you could, by the use of john brown, helper's book, and the like, break up the republican organization? human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. there is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. you cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. you can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? what would that other channel probably be? would the number of john browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? but you will break up the union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. that has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the constitution. but we are proposing no such thing. when you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. but no such right is specifically written in the constitution. that instrument is literally silent about any such right. we, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the constitution, even by implication. your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. you will rule or ruin in all events. this, plainly stated, is your language. perhaps you will say the supreme court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favour. not quite so. but waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. the court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. when i say the decision was made in a sort of way, i mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution." an inspection of the constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there--"distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else; "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. if they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the constitution, nor the word "property," even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person"; and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labour which may be due"--as a debt payable in service or labour. also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the constitution the idea that there could be property in man. to show all this is easy and certain. when this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? and then it is to be remembered that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live"--the men who made the constitution--decided this same constitutional question in our favour long ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? but you will not abide the election of a republican president! in that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! that is cool. a highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, or i shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" to be sure, what the robber demanded of me--my money--was my own; and i had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. * * * * * wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories, and to overrun us here in these free states? if our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belaboured,--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of "don't care," on a question about which all true men do care; such as union appeals beseeching true union men to yield to disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to washington, imploring men to unsay what washington said, and undo what washington did. neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. _lincoln's farewell address at springfield, illinois. february , _ my friends, no one not in my situation can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. to this place, and the kindness of these people, i owe everything. here i have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. here my children have been born, and one is buried. i now leave, not knowing when or whether ever i may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon washington. without the assistance of that divine being who ever attended him i cannot succeed. with that assistance i cannot fail. trusting in him, who can go with me and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. to his care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, i bid you an affectionate farewell. _a letter to the hon. geo. ashmun accepting his nomination for the presidency. may , _ i accept the nomination tendered me by the convention over which you presided, and of which i am formally apprized in the letter of yourself and others, acting as a committee of the convention for that purpose. the declaration of principles and sentiments which accompanies your letter, meets my approval; and it shall be my care not to violate or disregard it in any part. imploring the assistance of divine providence, and with due regard to the views and feelings of all who were represented in the convention; to the rights of all the states and territories and people of the nation; to the inviolability of the constitution; and the perpetual union, harmony, and prosperity of all,--i am most happy to co-operate for the practical success of the principles declared by the convention. your obliged friend and fellow-citizen, a. lincoln. _letter to miss grace bedell. springfield, illinois. october , _ my dear little miss, your very agreeable letter of the th is received. i regret the necessity of saying i have no daughter. i have three sons--one seventeen, one nine, and one seven years of age. they, with their mother, constitute my whole family. as to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affectation if i were to begin it now? _from an address to the legislature at indianapolis, indiana. february , _ fellow-citizens of the state of indiana, i am here to thank you much for this magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support given by your state to that political cause which i think is the true and just cause of the whole country and the whole world. solomon says "there is a time to keep silence," and when men wrangle by the mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using the same word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence. the words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and often with some temper and hot blood. let us make sure, if we can, that we do not misunderstand the meaning of those who use them. let us get exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of words. what then is _coercion_? what is _invasion_? would the marching of an army into south carolina, without the consent of her people and with hostile intent towards them, be invasion? i certainly think it would; and it would be coercion also, if the south carolinians were forced to submit. but if the united states should merely retake and hold its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all these things be invasion or coercion? do our professed lovers of the union, but who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these, on the part of the united states, would be coercion or invasion of a state? if so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their affection would seem exceedingly thin and airy. if sick, the little pills of the homoeopathist would be much too large for them to swallow. in their view, the union as a family relation would seem to be no regular marriage, but a sort of free-love arrangement to be maintained only on _passional attraction_. by the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a state? i speak not of the position assigned to a state in the union by the constitution; for that, by the bond, we all recognize. that position, however, a state cannot carry out of the union with it. i speak of that assumed primary right of a state to rule all which is _less_ than itself, and ruin all which is larger than itself. if a state and a county in a given case should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the state better than the county? would an exchange of _names_ be an exchange of _rights_ upon principle? on what rightful principle may a state, being not more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionally larger subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? what mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by merely calling it a state? fellow-citizens, i am not asserting anything: i am merely asking questions for you to consider. and now allow me to bid you farewell. _from his address to the legislature at columbus, ohio. february , _ it is true, as has been said by the president of the senate, that a very great responsibility rests upon me in the position to which the votes of the american people have called me. i am deeply sensible of that weighty responsibility. i cannot but know, what you all know, that without a name, perhaps without a reason why i should have a name, there has fallen upon me a task such as did not rest even upon the father of his country; and so feeling, i cannot but turn and look for that support without which it will be impossible for me to perform that great task. i turn then, and look to the great american people, and to that god who has never forsaken them. allusion has been made to the interest felt in relation to the policy of the new administration. in this i have received from some a degree of credit for having kept silence, and from others, some deprecation. i still think i was right. in the varying and repeatedly shifting scenes of the present, and without a precedent which could enable me to judge by the past, it has seemed fitting that before speaking upon the difficulties of the country, i should have gained a view of the whole field, being at liberty to modify and change the course of policy as future events may make a change necessary. i have not maintained silence from any want of real anxiety. it is a good thing that there is no more than anxiety, for there is nothing going wrong. it is a consoling circumstance that when we look out, there is nothing that really hurts anybody. we entertain different views upon political questions, but nobody is suffering anything. this is a most consoling circumstance, and from it we may conclude that all we want is time, patience, and a reliance on that god who has never forsaken this people. _from his remarks at pittsburgh, pennsylvania. february , _ ... the condition of the country is an extraordinary one, and fills the mind of every patriot with anxiety. it is my intention to give this subject all the consideration i possibly can, before specially deciding in regard to it, so that when i do speak, it may be as nearly right as possible. when i do speak, i hope i may say nothing in opposition to the spirit of the constitution, contrary to the integrity of the union, or which will prove inimical to the liberties of the people or to the peace of the whole country. and furthermore, when the time arrives for me to speak on this great subject, i hope i may say nothing to disappoint the people generally throughout the country, especially if the expectation has been based upon anything which i have heretofore said. ... if the great american people only keep their temper on both sides of the line, the troubles will come to an end, and the question which now distracts the country will be settled, just as surely as all other difficulties of a like character which have originated in this government have been adjusted. let the people on both sides keep their self-possession, and just as other clouds have cleared away in due time, so will this great nation continue to prosper as heretofore. ... it is often said that the tariff is the specialty of pennsylvania. assuming that direct taxation is not to be adopted, the tariff question must be as durable as the government itself. it is a question of national house-keeping. it is to the government what replenishing the meal-tub is to the family. ever-varying circumstances will require frequent modifications as to the amount needed and the sources of supply. so far there is little difference of opinion among the people. it is only whether, and how far, duties on imports shall be adjusted to favour home productions. in the home market that controversy begins. one party insists that too much protection oppresses one class for the advantage of another; while the other party argues that, with all its incidents, in the long run all classes are benefited. in the chicago platform there is a plank upon this subject, which should be a general law to the incoming administration. we should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes. that plank is as i now read: "that while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as will encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to working-men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers adequate reward for their skill, labour, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." ... my political education strongly inclines me against a very free use of any of the means by the executive to control the legislation of the country. as a rule, i think it better that congress should originate as well as perfect its measures without external bias. i therefore would rather recommend to every gentleman who knows he is to be a member of the next congress, to take an enlarged view, and post himself thoroughly, so as to contribute his part to such an adjustment of the tariff as shall provide a sufficient revenue, and in its other bearings, so far as possible, be just and equal to all sections of the country and classes of the people. _from his speech at trenton to the senate of new jersey. february , _ ... i cannot but remember the place that new jersey holds in our early history. in the early revolutionary struggle few of the states among the old thirteen had more of the battle-fields of the country within their limits than old new jersey. may i be pardoned if, upon this occasion, i mention that away back in my childhood, the earliest days of my being able to read, i got hold of a small book, such a one as few of the younger members have ever seen,--"weems's life of washington." i remember all the accounts there given of the battle-fields and struggles for the liberties of the country, and none fixed themselves upon my imagination so deeply as the struggle here at trenton, new jersey. the crossing of the river, the contest with the hessians, the great hardships endured at that time,--all fixed themselves upon my memory more than any single revolutionary event; and you all know, for you have all been boys, how those early impressions last longer than any others. i recollect thinking then, boy even though i was, that there must have been something more than common that these men struggled for. i am exceedingly anxious that that thing--that something even more than national independence; that something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world for all time to come,--i am exceedingly anxious that this union, the constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which the struggle was made, and i shall be most happy indeed if i shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the almighty, and of this, his most chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle. _address in independence hall, philadelphia. february , _ i am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. you have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. i can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments i entertain have been drawn, so far as i have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall. i have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the declaration of independence. i have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that declaration. i have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. i have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. it was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the declaration of independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. this is the sentiment embodied in the declaration of independence. now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? if it can, i will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if i can help to save it. if it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. but if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, i was about to say i would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. there is no necessity for it. i am not in favour of such a course; and i may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. the government will not use force unless force is used against it. my friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. i did not expect to be called on to say a word when i came here. i supposed i was merely to do something toward raising a flag. i may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. but i have said nothing but what i am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of almighty god, to die by. _reply to the mayor of washington, d.c. february , _ mr. mayor, i thank you, and through you the municipal authorities of this city who accompany you, for this welcome. and as it is the first time in my life, since the present phase of politics has presented itself in this country, that i have said anything publicly within a region of country where the institution of slavery exists, i will take this occasion to say that i think very much of the ill-feeling that has existed and still exists between the people in the section from which i came and the people here, is dependent upon a misunderstanding of one another. i therefore avail myself of this opportunity to assure you, mr. mayor, and all the gentlemen present, that i have not now, and never have had, any other than as kindly feelings towards you as to the people of my own section. i have not now and never have had any disposition to treat you in any respect otherwise than as my own neighbours. i have not now any purpose to withhold from you any of the benefits of the constitution under any circumstances, that i would not feel myself constrained to withhold from my own neighbours; and i hope, in a word, that when we become better acquainted,--and i say it with great confidence,--we shall like each other the more. i thank you for the kindness of this reception. _first inaugural address. march , _ fellow-citizens of the united states, in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, i appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the constitution of the united states to be taken by the president "before he enters on the execution of his office." i do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern states that by the accession of a republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. there has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. it is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. i do but quote from one of those speeches when i declare that "i have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so." those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that i had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. and, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which i now read:-- "_resolved_, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." i now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, i only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. i add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another. there is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labour. the clause i now read is as plainly written in the constitution as any other of its provisions:-- "no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." it is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. all members of congress swear their support to the whole constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. to the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? there is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. if the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. and should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? and might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states"? i take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. and while i do not choose now to specify particular acts of congress as proper to be enforced, i do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. it is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a president under our national constitution. during that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government they have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. yet, with all this scope of precedent, i now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. a disruption of the federal union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. i hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. continue to execute all the express provisions of our national constitution, and the union will endure for ever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. again, if the united states be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? one party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the union itself. the union is much older than the constitution. it was formed, in fact, by the articles of association in . it was matured and continued by the declaration of independence in . it was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the articles of confederation in . and, finally, in one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the constitution was "to form a more perfect union." but if the destruction of the union by one or by a part only of the states be lawfully possible, the union is less perfect than before the constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. it follows from these views that no state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any state or states, against the authority of the united states, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. i therefore consider that, in view of the constitution and the laws, the union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability i shall take care, as the constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the union be faithfully executed in all the states. doing this i deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and i shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the american people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. i trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. in doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. the power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. where hostility to the united states, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. while the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that i deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. the mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the union. so far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favourable to calm thought and reflection. the course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. that there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, i will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, i need address no word to them. to those, however, who really love the union may i not speak? before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? all profess to be content in the union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the constitution, has been denied? i think not. happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the constitution has ever been denied. if by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. but such is not our case. all the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. but no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. no foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. shall fugitives from labour be surrendered by national or by state authority? the constitution does not expressly say. _may_ congress prohibit slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. _must_ congress protect slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. from questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. if the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. there is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. if a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. for instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present union now claim to secede from it? all who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. i do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the supreme court; nor do i deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. and while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. at the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. it is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. one section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. this is the only substantial dispute. the fugitive-slave clause of the constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. the great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. this, i think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. the foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. physically speaking, we cannot separate. we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. a husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. they cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. i cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national constitution amended. while i make no recommendation of amendments, i fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and i should, under existing circumstances, favour rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. i will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. i understand a proposed amendment to the constitution--which amendment, however, i have not seen--has passed congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service. to avoid misconstruction of what i have said, i depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, i have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. the chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. the people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. his duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? is there any better or equal hope in the world? in our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? if the almighty ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the north, or on yours of the south, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the american people. by the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. while the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. my countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. if there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. if it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. intelligence, patriotism, christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favoured land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. the government will not assail you. you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while i shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." i am loath to close. we are not enemies, but friends. we must not be enemies. though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. _address at utica, new york. february , _ ladies and gentlemen, i have no speech to make to you, and no time to speak in. i appear before you that i may see you, and that you may see me; and i am willing to admit, that, so far as the ladies are concerned, i have the best of the bargain, though i wish it to be understood that i do not make the same acknowledgment concerning the men. _from his first message to congress, at the special session. july , _ ... it is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of fort sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. they well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. they knew--they were expressly notified--that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. they knew that this government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the union from actual and immediate dissolution,--trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box, for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object,--to drive out the visible authority of the federal union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution.... that this was their object the executive well understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains not only to keep this declaration good, but also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world should not be able to misunderstand it.... by the affair at fort sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. then and thereby the assailants of the government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight, or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort sent to that harbour years before for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. in this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, "immediate dissolution or blood." and this issue embraces more than the fate of these united states. it presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. it presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretences made in this case or any other pretences, or arbitrarily without any pretence, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. it forces us to ask: "is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?" so viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation. the call was made, and the response of the country was most gratifying, surpassing in unanimity and spirit the most sanguine expectation. ... the people of virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to make its nest within her borders,--and this government has no choice left but to deal with it where it finds it. and it has the less regret, as the loyal citizens have in due form claimed its protection. those loyal citizens this government is bound to recognize and protect, as being virginia. in the border states, so called,--in fact, the middle states,--there are those who favour a policy which they call "armed neutrality;" that is, an arming of those states to prevent the union forces passing one way, or the disunion the other, over their soil. this would be disunion completed. figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an impassable wall along the line of separation,--and yet not quite an impassable one, for under the guise of neutrality, it would tie the hands of union men, and freely pass supplies from among them to the insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. at a stroke, it would take all the trouble off the hands of secession, except only what proceeds from the external blockade. it would do for the disunionists that which of all things they most desire,--feed them well and give them disunion without a struggle of their own. it recognizes no fidelity to the constitution, no obligation to maintain the union; and while very many who have favoured it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect. ... the forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so long continued, as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our national union was probable. while this, on discovery, gave the executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the united states are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world. ... it is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this contest a short and decisive one; that you place at the control of the government for the work, at least four hundred thousand men, and $ , , . that number of men is about one-tenth of those of proper ages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage; and the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by the men who seem ready to devote the whole. ... a right result at this time, will be worth more to the world than ten times the men and ten times the money. the evidences reaching us from the country leaves no doubt that the material for the work is abundant, and that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it legal sanction, and the hand of the executive to give it practical shape and efficiency. one of the greatest perplexities of the government is to avoid receiving troops faster than it can provide for them. in a word, the people will save their government, if the government itself will do its part only indifferently well. it might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the south be called _secession_ or _rebellion_. the movers, however, well understand the difference. at the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. they knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. they knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. they invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the union. the sophism itself is that any state of the union may consistently with the national constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the union without the consent of the union or of any other state. the little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judges of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice. with rebellion thus _sugar-coated_ they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretence of taking their state out of the union, who could have been brought to no such thing the day before. this sophism derives much, perhaps the whole of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a state--to each state of our federal union. our states have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the union by the constitution, no one of them ever having been a state out of the union. the original ones passed into the union even before they cast off their british colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting texas. and even texas in its temporary independence was never designated a state. the new ones only took the designation of states on coming into the union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the declaration of independence. therein the "united colonies" were declared to be "free and independent states;" but even then the object plainly was, not to declare their independence of one another or of the union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledges and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward abundantly show. the express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the articles of confederation two years later, that the union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. having never been states, either in substance or name, outside of the union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state-rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the union itself? much is said about the "sovereignty" of the states; but the word is not in the national constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the state constitutions. what is _sovereignty_ in the political sense of the term? would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior?" tested by this, no one of our states, except texas, ever was a sovereignty. and even texas gave up the character on coming into the union, by which act she acknowledged the constitution of the united states, and the laws and treaties of the united states made in pursuance of the constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the land. the states have their status in the union, and they have no other legal status. if they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. the union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. by conquest or purchase, the union gave each of them whatever of independence or liberty it has. the union is older than any of the states, and, in fact, it created them as states. originally some dependent colonies made the union, and in turn the union threw off their old dependence for them, and made them states, such as they are. not one of them ever had a state constitution independent of the union. of course it is not forgotten that all the new states framed their constitutions before they entered the union,--nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the union. unquestionably the states have the powers and the rights reserved to them in and by the national constitution; but among these, surely, are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive; but, at most, such only as were known in the world at the time, as governmental powers; and, certainly, a power to destroy the government itself had never been known as a governmental--as a merely administrative power. this relative matter of national power and states rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. whatever concerns the whole world should be confided to the whole--to the general government; while whatever concerns only the state should be left exclusively to the state. this is all there is of original principle about it.... what is now combated, is the position that secession is consistent with the constitution--is lawful and peaceful. it is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. the nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of these states were formed; is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? the nation paid very large sums (in the aggregate, i believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve florida of the aboriginal tribes; is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? the nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called seceding states in common with the rest; is it just that the creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining states pay the whole?... again, if one state may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. is this quite just to the creditors? did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? if we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain. the seceders insist that our constitution admits of secession. they have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which, of necessity, they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. if they have discarded it, they thereby admit that, on principle, it ought not to be in ours. if they have retained it, by their own construction of ours, they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts, or effecting any other or selfish or unjust object. the principle itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can stand. if all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. but suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do.... it may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions we enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole people, beyond any example in the world. of this we now have a striking and an impressive illustration. so large an army as the government has now on foot was never before known, without a soldier in it but who has taken his place there of his own free choice. but more than this, there are many single regiments, whose members, one and another, possess full practical knowledge of all the arts, sciences, and professions, and whatever else, whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and there is scarcely one from which there could not be selected a president, a cabinet, a congress, and perhaps a court, abundantly competent to administer the government itself. nor do i say that this is not true also in the army of our late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if it is, so much the better reason why the government which has conferred such benefits on both them and us should not be broken up. whoever in any section proposes to abandon such a government, would do well to consider in deference to what principle it is that he does it; what better he is likely to get in its stead; whether the substitute will give, or be intended to give, so much of good to the people? there are some foreshadowings on this subject. our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one penned by jefferson, they omit the words, "all men are created equal." why? they have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one signed by washington, they omit "we, the people," and substitute "we, the deputies of the sovereign and independent states." why? why this deliberate pressing out of view the rights of men and the authority of the people? this is essentially a people's contest. on the side of the union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men,--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. yielding to partial and temporary departures from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for the existence of which we contend. i am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and appreciate this. it is worthy of note that while in this, the government's hour of trial, large numbers of those in the army and navy who have been favoured with the offices have resigned and proved false to the hand which had pampered them, not one common soldier or common sailor is known to have deserted his flag. our popular government has often been called an experiment. two points in it our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. one still remains,--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. it is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war. _from his message to congress at its regular session. december , _ fellow-citizens of the senate and house of representatives, in the midst of unprecedented political troubles, we have cause of great gratitude to god for unusual good health and abundant harvests. you will not be surprised to learn that in the peculiar exigencies of the times, our intercourse with foreign nations has been attended with profound solicitude, chiefly turning upon our own domestic affairs. a disloyal portion of the american people have, during the whole year, been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the union. a nation which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad; and one party, if not both, is sure, sooner or later, to invoke foreign intervention. nations thus tempted to interfere are not always able to resist the counsels of seeming expediency and ungenerous ambition, although measures adopted under such influences seldom fail to be injurious and unfortunate to those adopting them. the disloyal citizens of the united states who have offered the ruin of our country in return for the aid and comfort which they have invoked abroad, have received less patronage and encouragement than they probably expected. if it were just to suppose, as the insurgents have seemed to assume, that foreign nations in this case, discarding all moral, social, and treaty obligations, would act solely and selfishly for the most speedy restoration of commerce, including especially the acquisition of cotton, those nations appear as yet not to have seen their way to their object more directly or clearly through the destruction than through the preservation of the union. if we could dare to believe that foreign nations are actuated by no higher principle than this, i am quite sure a sound argument could be made to show them that they can reach their aim more readily and easily by aiding to crush this rebellion than by giving encouragement to it. the principal lever relied on by the insurgents for exciting foreign nations to hostility against us, as already intimated, is the embarrassment of commerce. those nations, however, not improbably saw from the first that it was the union which made as well our foreign as our domestic commerce. they can scarcely have failed to perceive that the effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty; and that one strong nation promises a more durable peace and a more extensive, valuable, and reliable commerce than can the same nation broken into hostile fragments. * * * * * it continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government,--the rights of the people. conclusive evidence of this is found in the most grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents. in those documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage, and the denial to the people of all right to participate in the selection of public officers, except the legislative, boldly advocated, with laboured arguments to prove that large control of the people in government is the source of all political evil. monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at, as a possible refuge from the power of the people. in my present position, i could scarcely be justified were i to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. it is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favour of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which i ask a brief attention. it is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labour, in the structure of government. it is assumed that labour is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labours, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of it, induces him to labour. this assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire labourers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all labourers are either hired labourers, or what we call slaves. and further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired labourer is fixed in that condition for life. now, there is no such relation between capital and labour as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired labourer. both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. labour is prior to and independent of capital. capital is only the fruit of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. labour is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labour and capital, producing mutual benefits. the error is in assuming that the whole labour of the community exists within that relation. a few men own capital, and that few avoid labour themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labour for them. a large majority belong to neither class,--neither work for others, nor have others working for them. in most of the southern states, a majority of the whole people, of all colours, are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern, a majority are neither hirers nor hired. men with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favours of capital on the one hand, nor of hired labourers or slaves on the other. it is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labour with capital--that is, they labour with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labour for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. no principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free, hired labourer being fixed to that condition for life. many independent men, everywhere in these states, a few years back in their lives were hired labourers. the prudent, penniless beginner in the world labours for wages a while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labours on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. this is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. no men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty, none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost. _letter to general g.b. mcclellan. washington. february , _ my dear sir, you and i have distinct and different plans for a movement of the army of the potomac--yours to be down the chesapeake, up the rappahannock to urbana and across land to the terminus of the railroad on the york river; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad southwest of manassas. if you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, i shall gladly yield my plan to yours. _first._ does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time and money than mine? _second._ wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine? _third._ wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine? _fourth._ in fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would? _fifth._ in case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine? i have just assisted the secretary of war in framing part of a despatch to you, relating to army corps, which despatch of course will have reached you long before this will. i wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. i ordered the army corps organization, not only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve generals whom you had selected and assigned as generals of division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every _military man_ i could get an opinion from (and every modern military book), yourself only excepted. of course i did not on my own judgment pretend to understand the subject. i now think it indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. it is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one or two pets and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. i have had no word from sumner, heintzelman, or keyes. the commanders of these corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but i am constantly told that you have no consultation or communication with them,--that you consult and communicate with nobody but general fitz john porter, and perhaps general franklin. i do not say these complaints are true or just, but at all events it is proper you should know of their existence. do the commanders of corps disobey your orders in anything? ... are you strong enough--are you strong enough, even with my help--to set your foot upon the necks of sumner, heintzelman, and keyes, all at once? this is a practical and a very serious question for you. _lincoln's proclamation revoking general hunter's order setting the slaves free. may , _ ... general hunter nor any other commander or person has been authorized by the government of the united states to make proclamation declaring the slaves of any state free, and that the supposed proclamation now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void so far as respects such declaration.... on the sixth day of march last, by a special message, i recommended to congress the adoption of a joint resolution, to be substantially as follows:--_resolved, that the united states ought to co-operate with any state which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state earnest expression to compensate for its inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system_. the resolution in the language above quoted was adopted by large majorities in both branches of congress, and now stands an authentic, definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the states and people most immediately interested in the subject-matter. to the people of those states i now earnestly appeal. i do not argue--i beseech you to make arguments for yourselves. you cannot, if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. i beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. the proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. it acts not the pharisee. the change it contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking anything. will you not embrace it? so much good has not been done by one effort in all past time as in the providence of god it is now your high privilege to do. may the vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it. _appeal to the border states in behalf of compensated emancipation. july , _ after the adjournment of congress, now near, i shall have no opportunity of seeing you for several months. believing that you of the border states hold more power for good than any other equal number of members, i feel it a duty which i cannot justifiably waive, to make this appeal to you. i do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually. room in south america for colonization can be obtained cheaply and in abundance, and when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the freed people will not be so reluctant to go. i am pressed with a difficulty not yet mentioned,--one which threatens division among those who, united, are none too strong. general hunter is an honest man. he was, and i hope still is, my friend. i valued him none the less for his agreeing with me in the general wish that all men everywhere could be free. he proclaimed all men free within certain states, and i repudiated the proclamation. he expected more good and less harm from the measure than i could believe would follow. yet in repudiating it, i gave dissatisfaction if not offence to many whose support the country cannot afford to lose. and this is not the end of it. the pressure in this direction is still upon me, and is increasing. by conceding what i now ask, you can relieve me, and, much more, can relieve the country, in this important point. upon these considerations i have again begged your attention to the message of march last. before leaving the capitol, consider and discuss it among yourselves. you are patriots and statesmen, and as such, i pray you, consider this proposition, and at the least commend it to the consideration of your states and people. as you would perpetuate popular government for the best people in the world, i beseech you that you do in no wise omit this. our common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views and boldest action to bring it speedy relief. once relieved, its form of government is saved to the world, its beloved history and cherished memories are vindicated, and its happy future fully assured and rendered inconceivably grand. i intend no reproach or complaint when i assure you that, in my opinion, if you all had voted for the resolution in the gradual-emancipation message of last march, the war would now be substantially ended. and the plan therein proposed is yet one of the most potent and swift means of ending it. let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that in no event will the states you represent ever join their proposed confederacy, and they cannot much longer maintain the contest. but you cannot divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them, so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states. beat them at elections, as you have overwhelmingly done, and, nothing daunted, they still claim you as their own. you and i know what the lever of their power is. break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more for ever. most of you have treated me with kindness and consideration, and i trust you will not now think i improperly touch what is exclusively your own, when, for the sake of the whole country, i ask, can you, for your states, do better than to take the course i urge? discarding punctilio and maxims adapted to more manageable times, and looking only to the unprecedentedly stern facts of our case, can you do better in any possible event? you prefer that the constitutional relation of the states to the nation shall be practically restored without disturbance of the institution; and if this were done, my whole duty in this respect, under the constitution and my oath of office, would be performed. but it is not done, and we are trying to accomplish it by war. the incidents of the war cannot be avoided. if the war continues long, as it must if the object be not sooner attained, the institution in your states will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion,--by the mere incidents of the war. it will be gone, and you will have nothing valuable in lieu of it. much of its value is gone already. how much better for you and for your people to take the step which at once shortens the war and secures substantial compensation for that which is sure to be wholly lost in any other event? how much better to thus save the money which else we sink for ever in the war! how much better to do it while we can, lest the war ere long render us pecuniarily unable to do it! how much better for you as seller, and the nation as buyer, to sell out and buy out that without which the war could never have been, than to sink both the thing to be sold and the price of it in cutting one another's throats! _from a letter to cuthbert bullitt. july , _ now, i think the true remedy is very different from that suggested by mr. durant. it does not lie in rounding the rough angles of the war, but in removing the necessity for the war. the people of louisiana who wish protection to person and property, have but to reach forth their hands and take it. let them in good faith reinaugurate the national authority, and set up a state government conforming thereto under the constitution. they know how to do it, and can have the protection of the army while doing it. the army will be withdrawn as soon as such government can dispense with its presence, and the people of the state can then, upon the old constitutional terms, govern themselves to their own liking. this is very simple and easy. if they will not do this, if they prefer to hazard all for the sake of destroying the government, it is for them to consider whether it is probable that i will surrender the government to save them from losing all. if they decline what i suggest, you will scarcely need to ask what i will do. what would you do in my position? would you drop the war where it is, or would you prosecute it in future with elder-stalk squirts charged with rose-water? would you deal lighter blows rather than heavier ones? would you give up the contest, leaving any available means untried? i am in no boastful mood. i shall not do more than i can; but i shall do all i can to save the government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personal inclination. i shall do nothing in malice. what i deal with is too vast for malicious dealing. _letter to august belmont. july , _ dear sir, you send to mr. w---- an extract from a letter written at new orleans the th instant, which is shown to me. you do not give the writer's name; but plainly he is a man of ability, and probably of some note. he says: "the time has arrived when mr. lincoln must take a decisive course. trying to please everybody, he will satisfy nobody. a vacillating policy in matters of importance is the very worst. now is the time, if ever, for honest men who love their country to rally to its support. why will not the north say officially that it wishes for the restoration of the union as it was?" and so, it seems, this is the point on which the writer thinks i have no policy. why will he not read and understand what i have said? the substance of the very declaration he desires is in the inaugural, in each of the two regular messages to congress, and in many, if not all, the minor documents issued by the executive since the inauguration. broken eggs cannot be mended; but louisiana has nothing to do now but to take her place in the union as it was, barring the already broken eggs. the sooner she does so, the smaller will be the amount of that which will be past mending. this government cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing. those enemies must understand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the union unhurt. if they expect in any contingency to ever have the union as it was, i join with the writer in saying, "now is the time." how much better it would have been for the writer to have gone at this, under the protection of the army at new orleans, than to have sat down in a closet writing complaining letters northward. _his letter to horace greeley. august , _ i have just read yours of the th instant, addressed to myself through the "new york tribune." if there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which i may know to be erroneous, i do not now and here controvert them. if there be in it any inferences which i may believe to be falsely drawn, i do not now and here argue against them. if there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, i waive it, in deference to an old friend whose heart i have always supposed to be right. as to the policy i "seem to be pursuing," as you say, i have not meant to leave any one in doubt. i would save the union. i would save it in the shortest way under the constitution. the sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the union will be,--the union as it was. if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time save slavery, i do not agree with them. if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, i do not agree with them. _my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery._ if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i would do it; if i could save it by freeing all the slaves, i would do it; and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also do that. what i do about slavery and the coloured race, i do because i believe it helps to save the union; and what i forbear, i forbear because i do not believe it would help to save the union. i shall do less whenever i shall believe that what i am doing hurts the cause; and i shall do more whenever i shall believe doing more will help the cause. i shall try to correct errors where shown to be errors, and i shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views. i have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty, and i intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. _from his reply to the chicago committee of united religious denominations. september , _ the subject presented in the memorial is one upon which i have thought much for weeks past, and i may even say for months. i am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. i am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps, in some respects, both. i hope it will not be irreverent for me to say, that if it is probable that god would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed that he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless i am more deceived in myself than i often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of providence in this matter. and if i can learn what it is, i will do it. these are not, however, the days of miracles, and i suppose it will be granted that i am not to expect a direct revelation. i must study the plain, physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right. the subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. for instance, four gentlemen of standing and intelligence, from new york, called as a delegation on business connected with the war; but before leaving, two of them earnestly besought me to proclaim general emancipation, upon which the other two at once attacked them. you also know that the last session of congress had a decided majority of anti-slavery men, yet they could not unite on this policy. and the same is true of the religious people. why the rebel soldiers are praying with a great deal more earnestness, i fear, than our own troops, and expecting god to favour their side: for one of our soldiers who had been taken prisoner told senator wilson a few days since that he met nothing so discouraging as the evident sincerity of those he was among in their prayers. but we will talk over the merits of the case. what good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? i do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the pope's bull against the comet! would my word free the slaves, when i cannot even enforce the constitution in the rebel states? is there a single court or magistrate or individual that would be influenced by it there? and what reason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of congress, which i approved, and which offers protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within our lines? yet i cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to come over to us. and suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedom from me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? how can we feed and care for such a multitude? general butler wrote me a few days since that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed to him than to all the white troops under his command. they eat, and that is all; though it is true general butler is feeding the whites also by the thousand, for it nearly amounts to a famine there. if now, the pressure of the war should call off our forces from new orleans to defend some other point, what is to prevent the masters from reducing the blacks to slavery again? for i am told that whenever the rebels take any black prisoners, free or slave, they immediately auction them off! they did so with those they took from a boat that was aground in the tennessee river a few days ago. and then i am very ungenerously attacked for it. for instance, when, after the late battles at and near bull run, an expedition went out from washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bring in the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help, and sent them into slavery, horace greeley said in his paper "that the government would probably do nothing about it." what could i do? now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? understand, i raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds, for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war i suppose i have a right to take any measures which may best subdue the enemy; nor do i urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the south. i view this matter as a practical war-measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion. [the committee had said that emancipation would secure us the sympathy of the world, slavery being the cause of the war. to which the president replied:] i admit that slavery is at the root of the rebellion, or at least its _sine qua non_. the ambition of politicians may have instigated them to act, but they would have been impotent without slavery as their instrument. i will also concede that emancipation would help us in europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition. i grant further, that it would help somewhat at the north, though not so much, i fear, as you and those you represent, imagine. still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war,--and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their labourers, which is of great importance; but i am not so sure that we could do much with the blacks. if we were to arm them, i fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels; and indeed, thus far, we have not had arms enough to equip our white troops. i will mention another thing, though it meet only your scorn and contempt. there are fifty thousand bayonets in the union armies from the border slave states. it would be a serious matter if, in consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. i do not think they all would,--not so many indeed, as a year ago, nor as six months ago; not so many to-day as yesterday. every day increases their union feeling. they are also getting their pride enlisted, and want to beat the rebels. let me say one thing more: i think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. this is a fundamental idea, going down about as deep as anything. do not misunderstand me because i have mentioned these objections. they indicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented my action in some such way as you desire. i have not decided against a proclamation of liberty to the slaves, but hold the matter under advisement. and i can assure you that the subject is on my mind by day and night, more than any other. whatever shall appear to be god's will, i will do. i trust that in the freedom with which i have canvassed your views, i have not in any respect injured your feelings. _from the annual message to congress. december , _ since your last annual assembling, another year of health and bountiful harvests has passed; and while it has not pleased the almighty to bless us with a return of peace, we can but press on, guided by the best light he gives us, trusting that in his own good time and wise way, all will yet be well. the correspondence, touching foreign affairs, which has taken place during the last year, is herewith submitted, in virtual compliance with a request to that effect made by the house of representatives near the close of the last session of congress. if the condition of our relations with other nations is less gratifying than it has usually been at former periods, it is certainly more satisfactory than a nation so unhappily distracted as we are, might reasonably have apprehended. in the month of june last, there were some grounds to expect that the maritime powers, which, at the beginning of our domestic difficulties, so unwisely and unnecessarily, as we think, recognized the insurgents as a belligerent, would soon recede from that position, which has proved only less injurious to themselves than to our own country. but the temporary reverses which afterward befell the national arms, and which were exaggerated by our own disloyal citizens abroad, have hitherto delayed that act of simple justice. the civil war, which has so radically changed for the moment the occupations and habits of the american people, has necessarily disturbed the social condition and affected very deeply the prosperity of the nations with which we have carried on a commerce that has been steadily increasing throughout a period of half a century. it has, at the same time, excited political ambitions and apprehensions which have produced a profound agitation throughout the civilized world. in this unusual agitation we have forborne from taking part in any controversy between foreign states, and between parties or factions in such states. we have attempted no propagandism and acknowledged no revolution. but we have left to every nation the exclusive conduct and management of its own affairs. our struggle has been, of course, contemplated by foreign nations with reference less to its own merits than to its supposed and often exaggerated effects and consequences resulting to those nations themselves. nevertheless, complaint on the part of this government, even if it were just, would certainly be unwise.... there is no line, straight or crooked, suitable for a national boundary, upon which to divide. trace through from east to west upon the line between the free and the slave country, and we shall find a little more than one-third of its length are rivers, easy to be crossed, and populated, or soon to be populated, thickly upon both sides; while nearly all its remaining length are merely surveyors' lines, over which people may walk back and forth without any consciousness of their presence. no part of this line can be made any more difficult to pass, by writing it down on paper or parchment as a national boundary. the fact of separation, if it comes, gives up, on the part of the seceding section, the fugitive-slave clause, along with all other constitutional obligations upon the section seceded from, while i should expect no treaty stipulation would be ever made to take its place. but there is another difficulty. the great interior region bounded east by the alleghanies, north by the british dominions, west by the rocky mountains, and south by the line along which the culture of corn and cotton meets, ... already has above ten millions of people, and will have fifty millions within fifty years, if not prevented by any political folly or mistake. it contains more than one-third of the country owned by the united states,--certainly more than one million of square miles. once half as populous as massachusetts already is, and it would have more than seventy-five millions of people. a glance at the map shows that, territorially speaking, it is the great body of the republic. the other parts are but marginal borders to it, the magnificent region sloping west from the rocky mountains to the pacific being the deepest, and also the richest, in undeveloped resources. in the production of provisions, grains, grasses, and all which proceed from them, this great interior region is naturally one of the most important in the world. ascertain from the statistics the small proportion of the region which has, as yet, been brought into cultivation, and also the large and rapidly increasing amount of its products, and we shall be overwhelmed with the magnitude of the prospect presented. and yet this region has no sea-coast, touches no ocean anywhere. as part of one nation, its people now find, and may for ever find, their way to europe by new york, to south america and africa by new orleans, and to asia by san francisco. but separate our common country into two nations, as designed by the present rebellion, and every man of this great interior region is thereby cut off from one or more of these outlets,--not perhaps by a physical barrier, but by embarrassing and onerous trade regulations. and this is true, wherever a dividing or boundary line may be fixed. place it between the now free and slave country, or place it south of kentucky, or north of ohio, and still the truth remains that none south of it can trade to any port or place north of it, except upon terms dictated by a government foreign to them. these outlets, east, west, and south, are indispensable to the well-being of the people inhabiting, and to inhabit, this vast interior region. which of the three may be the best, is no proper question. all are better than either; and all of right belong to that people and their successors for ever. true to themselves, they will not ask where a line of separation shall be, but will vow rather that there shall be no such line. nor are the marginal regions less interested in these communications to and through them to the great outside world. they too, and each of them, must have access to this egypt of the west, without paying toll at the crossing of any national boundary. our national strife springs not from our permanent part, not from the land we inhabit, not from our national homestead. there is no possible severing of this but would multiply and not mitigate evils among us. in all its adaptations and aptitudes, it demands union and abhors separation. in fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost.... fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honour or dishonour, to the latest generation. we say we are for the union. the world will not forget that we say this. we know how to save the union. the world knows we do know how to save it. we, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free,--honourable alike in what we give and what we preserve. we shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. other means may succeed; this could not fail. the way is plain, peaceful, generous, just,--a way which, if followed, the world will for ever applaud, and god must for ever bless. _emancipation proclamation. january , _ whereas, on the twenty-second day of september, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the president of the united states, containing, among other things, the following, to wit: "that on the first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the united states, shall be then, thenceforward, and for ever free; and the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. "that the executive will, on the first day of january aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the united states; and the fact that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the congress of the united states by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the united states." now, therefore, i, abraham lincoln, president of the united states, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the united states, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the united states, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the united states, the following, to wit: arkansas, texas, louisiana (except the parishes of st. bernard, plaquemines, jefferson, st. john, st. charles, st. james, ascension, assumption, terrebonne, lafourche, st. mary, st. martin, and orleans, including the city of new orleans), mississippi, alabama, florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, and virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as west virginia, and also the counties of berkeley, accomac, northampton, elizabeth city, york, princess anne, and norfolk, including the cities of norfolk and portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. and by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, i do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. and i hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and i recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labour faithfully for reasonable wages. and i further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the united states to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. and upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the constitution upon military necessity, i invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favour of almighty god. in witness whereof, i have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the united states to be affixed. [sidenote: l.s.] done at the city of washington, this first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the united states of america the eighty-seventh. abraham lincoln. by the president: william h. seward, secretary of state. _letter to general grant. july , _ my dear general, i do not remember that you and i ever met personally. i write this now as a grateful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. i wish to say a word further. when you first reached the vicinity of vicksburg, i thought you should do what you finally did--march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and i never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than i, that the yazoo pass expedition and the like could succeed. when you got below and took port gibson, grand gulf, and vicinity, i thought you should go down the river and join general banks, and when you turned northward, east of the big black, i feared it was a mistake. i now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right and i was wrong. yours very truly, a. lincoln. _letter to ---- moulton. washington. july , _ my dear sir, there has been a good deal of complaint against you by your superior officers of the provost-marshal-general's department, and your removal has been strongly urged on the ground of "persistent disobedience of orders and neglect of duty." firmly convinced, as i am, of the patriotism of your motives, i am unwilling to do anything in your case which may seem unnecessarily harsh or at variance with the feelings of personal respect and esteem with which i have always regarded you. i consider your services in your district valuable, and should be sorry to lose them. it is unnecessary for me to state, however, that when differences of opinion arise between officers of the government, the ranking officer must be obeyed. you of course recognize as clearly as i do the importance of this rule. i hope you will conclude to go on in your present position under the regulations of the department. i wish you would write to me. _letter to mrs. lincoln. washington. august , _ my dear wife, all as well as usual, and no particular trouble anyway. i put the money into the treasury at five per cent., with the privilege of withdrawing it any time upon thirty days' notice. i suppose you are glad to learn this. tell dear tad poor "nanny goat" is lost, and mrs. cuthbert and i are in distress about it. the day you left nanny was found resting herself and chewing her little cud on the middle of tad's bed; but now she's gone! the gardener kept complaining that she destroyed the flowers, till it was concluded to bring her down to the white house. this was done, and the second day she had disappeared and has not been heard of since. this is the last we know of poor "nanny." _letter to james h. hackett. washington. august , _ my dear sir, months ago i should have acknowledged the receipt of your book and accompanying kind note; and i now have to beg your pardon for not having done so. for one of my age i have seen very little of the drama. the first presentation of falstaff i ever saw was yours here, last winter or spring. perhaps the best compliment i can pay is to say, as i truly can, i am very anxious to see it again. some of shakespeare's plays i have never read; while others i have gone over perhaps as frequently as any unprofessional reader. among the latter are _lear_, _richard iii._, _henry viii._, _hamlet_, and especially _macbeth_. i think nothing equals _macbeth_. it is wonderful. unlike you gentlemen of the profession, i think the soliloquy in _hamlet_ commencing "oh, my offence is rank," surpasses that commencing "to be or not to be." but pardon this small attempt at criticism. i should like to hear you pronounce the opening speech of richard iii. will you not soon visit washington again? if you do, please call and let me make your personal acquaintance. _note to secretary stanton. washington. november , _ dear sir, i personally wish jacob freese, of new jersey, to be appointed colonel of a coloured regiment, and this regardless of whether he can tell the exact shade of julius cæsar's hair. _the letter to james c. conkling. august , _ your letter inviting me to attend a mass meeting of unconditional union men, to be held at the capital of illinois on the third day of september, has been received. it would be very agreeable to me to thus meet my old friends at my own home, but i cannot just now be absent from here so long as a visit there would require. the meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion to the union; and i am sure my old political friends will thank me for tendering, as i do, the nation's gratitude to those and other noble men whom no partisan malice or partisan hope can make false to the nation's life. there are those who are dissatisfied with me. to such i would say: you desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. but how can we attain it? there are but three conceivable ways. first, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. this i am trying to do. are you for it? if you are, so far we are agreed. if you are not for it, a second way is to give up the union. i am against this. are you for it? if you are, you should say so plainly. if you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. i do not believe any compromise embracing the maintenance of the union is now possible. all i learn leads to a directly opposite belief. the strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. that army dominates all the country and all the people within its range. any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them. to illustrate: suppose refugees from the south and peace men of the north get together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the union. in what way can that compromise be used to keep lee's army out of pennsylvania? meade's army can keep lee's out of pennsylvania, and, i think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. but no paper compromise, to which the controllers of lee's army are not agreed, can at all affect that army. in an effort at such compromise we should waste time which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that would be all. a compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domination of that army by the success of our own army. now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from that rebel army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. all charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless. and i promise you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. i freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service,--the united states constitution,--and that, as such, i am responsible to them. but to be plain. you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. i certainly wish that all men could be free, while i suppose you do not. yet i have neither adopted nor proposed any measure which is not consistent with even your views, provided you are for the union. i suggested compensated emancipation, to which you replied, you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. but i had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation to save the union exclusively by other means. you dislike the emancipation proclamation, and perhaps would have it retracted. you say it is unconstitutional. i think differently. i think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war in time of war. the most that can be said--if so much--is that slaves are property. is there, has there ever been, any question that, by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? and is it not needed whenever taking it helps us or hurts the enemy? armies the world over destroy enemies' property when they cannot use it, and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female. but the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. if it is not valid, it needs no retraction. if it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favourably for the union. why better after the retraction than before the issue? there was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. the war has certainly progressed as favourably for us since the issue of the proclamation as before. i know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of coloured troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with republican party politics, but who hold them purely as military opinions. i submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged, that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. you say you will not fight to free negroes. some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. fight you, then, exclusively to save the union. i issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the union. whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the union, if i shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. i thought that in your struggle for the union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. do you think differently? i thought that whatever negroes could be got to do as soldiers leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the union. does it appear otherwise to you? but negroes, like other people, act upon motives. why should they do anything for us, if we will do nothing for them? if they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. and the promise being made, must be kept. the signs look better. the father of waters again goes unvexed to the sea. thanks to the great northwest for it. nor yet wholly to them. three hundred miles up they met new england, empire, keystone, and jersey hewing their way right and left. the sunny south, too, in more colours than one, also lent a hand. on the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. the job was a great national one, and let none be banned who bore an honourable part in it. and while those who cleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. it is hard to say that anything has been more bravely and well done than at antietam, murfreesboro, gettysburg, and on many fields of lesser note. nor must uncle sam's web-feet be forgotten. at all the watery margins they have been present. not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks. thanks to all,--for the great republic, for the principle it lives by and keeps alive, for man's vast future,--thanks to all. peace does not appear so distant as it did. i hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time. it will then have been proved that among freemen there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. and then there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while i fear there will be some white ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it. still, let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy, final triumph. let us be quite sober. let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a just god, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result. _his proclamation for a day of thanksgiving. october , _ the year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. to these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of almighty god. in the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the union. needful diversions of wealth and strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigour, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. no human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. they are the gracious gifts of the most high god, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. it has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole american people. i do, therefore, invite, my fellow-citizens in every part of the united states, and also those who are at sea, and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last thursday of november next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent father who dwelleth in the heavens. and i recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union. _address at the dedication of the national cemetery at gettysburg. november , _ fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battle-field of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. _from the annual message to congress. december , _ ... when congress assembled a year ago, the war had already lasted nearly twenty months, and there had been many conflicts on both land and sea, with varying results. the rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits; yet the tone of public feeling and opinion at home and abroad was not satisfactory. with other signs, the popular elections then just past indicated uneasiness among ourselves; while, amid much that was cold and menacing, the kindest words coming from europe were uttered in accents of pity that we were too blind to surrender a hopeless cause. our commerce was suffering greatly from a few vessels built upon and furnished from foreign shores, and we were threatened with such additions from the same quarter as would sweep our trade from the seas and raise our blockade. we had failed to elicit from european governments anything hopeful upon this subject. the preliminary emancipation proclamation, issued in september, was running its assigned period to the beginning of the new year. a month later the final proclamation came, including the announcement that coloured men of suitable condition would be received into the war service. the policy of emancipation and of employing black soldiers gave to the future a new aspect, about which hope and fear and doubt contended in uncertain conflict. according to our political system, as a matter of civil administration, the general government had no lawful power to effect emancipation in any state, and for a long time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure. it was all the while deemed possible that the necessity for it might come and that, if it should, the crisis of the contest would then be presented. it came, and, as was anticipated, was followed by dark and doubtful days. eleven months having now passed, we are permitted to take another review. the rebel borders are pressed still farther back, and by the complete opening of the mississippi, the country dominated by the rebellion is divided into distinct parts, with no practical communication between them. tennessee and arkansas have been substantially cleared of insurgent control, and influential citizens in each, owners of slaves and advocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare openly for emancipation in their respective states. of those states not included in the emancipation proclamation, maryland and missouri, neither of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slavery into new territories, only dispute now as to the best mode of removing it within their own limits. of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion, full one hundred thousand are now in the united states military service, about one-half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks; thus giving the double advantage of taking so much labour from the insurgent cause and supplying the places which otherwise must be filled with so many white men. so far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any. no servile insurrection or tendency to violence or cruelty has marked the measures of emancipation and arming the blacks. these measures have been much discussed in foreign countries, and contemporary with such discussion the tone of public sentiment there is much improved. at home the same measures have been fully discussed, supported, criticized, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly encouraging to those whose official duty it is to bear the country through this great trial. thus we have the new reckoning. the crisis which threatened to divide the friends of the union is passed. _letter to secretary stanton. washington. march , _ my dear sir, a poor widow, by the name of baird, has a son in the army, that for some offence has been sentenced to serve a long time without pay, or at most with very little pay. i do not like this punishment of withholding pay--it falls so very hard upon poor families. after he had been serving in this way for several months, at the tearful appeal of the poor mother, i made a direction that he be allowed to enlist for a new term, on the same condition as others. she now comes, and says she cannot get it acted upon. please do it. _letter to governor michael hahn. washington. march , _ my dear sir, i congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state governor of louisiana. now you are about to have a convention, which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. i barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the coloured people may not be let in--as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. they would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. but this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone. _an address at a fair for the sanitary commission. march , _ i appear to say but a word. this extraordinary war in which we are engaged falls heavily upon all classes of people, but the most heavily upon the soldier. for it has been said, "all that a man hath will he give for his life;" and while all contribute of their substance, the soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. _the highest merit, then, is due to the soldier._ in this extraordinary war extraordinary developments have manifested themselves, such as have not been seen in former wars; and amongst these manifestations nothing has been more remarkable than these fairs for the relief of suffering soldiers and their families. and the chief agents in these fairs are the women of america. i am not accustomed to the language of eulogy. i have never studied the art of paying compliments to women. but i must say, that if all that has been said by orators and poets since the creation of the world in praise of women were applied to the women of america, it would not do them justice for their conduct during this war. i will close by saying, god bless the women of america! _letter to a.g. hodges, of kentucky. april , _ i am naturally anti-slavery. if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. i cannot remember when i did not so think and feel, and yet i have never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. it was in the oath that i took, that i would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. i could not take office without taking the oath. nor was it my view that i might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. i understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. i had publicly declared this many times and in many ways. and i aver that, to this day, i have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract feeling and judgment on slavery. i did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the constitution? by general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. i felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution through the preservation of the nation. right or wrong, i assumed this ground; and now avow it. i could not feel that, to the best of my ability, i had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery or any minor matter, i should permit the wreck of government, country, and constitution, all together. when, early in the war, general fremont attempted military emancipation, i forbade it, because i did not then think it an indispensable necessity. when, a little later, general cameron, then secretary of war, suggested the arming of the blacks, i objected, because i did not think it an indispensable necessity. when, still later, general hunter attempted military emancipation, i again forbade it, because i did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. when, in march and may and july, , i made earnest and successive appeals to the border states to favour compensated emancipation, i believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. they declined the proposition, and i was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the union, and with it the constitution, or laying strong hand upon the coloured element. i chose the latter. in choosing it, i hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this i was not entirely confident. more than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force,--no loss by it anyhow or anywhere. on the contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and labourers. these are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. we have the men, and we could not have had them without the measure. and now let any union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. if he cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth. i add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. in telling this tale, i attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. i claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. now, at the end of three years' struggle, the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man, devised or expected. god alone can claim it. whither it is tending seems plain. if god now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the north, as well as you of the south, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of god. _from an address at a sanitary fair in baltimore. april , _ ... the world has never had a good definition of the word "liberty," and the american people, just now, are much in want of one. we all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. with some, the word "liberty" may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labour; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labour. here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name,--liberty. and it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names,--liberty and tyranny. the shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word "liberty;" and precisely the same difference prevails to-day, among us human creatures, even in the north, and all professing to love liberty. hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. recently, as it seems, the people of maryland have been doing something to define liberty, and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf's dictionary has been repudiated. _letter to general grant. april , _ not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, i wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as i understand it. the particulars of your plans i neither know nor seek to know. you are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, i wish not to obtrude any constraints nor restraints upon you. while i am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, i know these points are less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. if there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. and now, with a brave army and a just cause, may god sustain you. _from an address to the th ohio regiment. august , _ i almost always feel inclined, when i happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. it is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. i beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. i happen, temporarily, to occupy this white house. i am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. it is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. it is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright--not only for one, but for two or three years. the nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel. _reply to a serenade. november , _ it has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies. on this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little to the strain. if the loyal people united were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided and partially paralyzed by a political war among themselves? but the election was a necessity. we cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. the strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. what has occurred in this case must ever occur in similar cases. human nature will not change. in any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. but the election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good too. it has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. gold is good in its place, but living, brave, patriotic men are better than gold. but the rebellion continues; and now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common effort to save our common country? for my own part, i have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. so long as i have been here, i have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. while i am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election, and duly grateful as i trust to almighty god for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as i think, for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result. may i ask those who have not differed with me, to join with me in this same spirit towards those who have? and now let me close by asking three hearty cheers for our brave soldiers and seamen, and their gallant and skilful commanders. _a letter to mrs. bixley, of boston. november , _ dear madam, i have been shown in the files of the war department a statement of the adjutant-general of massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. i feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. but i cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. i pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. yours very sincerely and respectfully, abraham lincoln. _letter to general grant. washington. january , _ please read and answer this letter as though i was not president, but only a friend. my son, now in his twenty-second year, having graduated at harvard, wishes to see something of the war before it ends. i do not wish to put him in the ranks, nor yet to give him a commission, to which those who have already served long are better entitled, and better qualified to hold. could he, without embarrassment to you or detriment to the service, go into your military family with some nominal rank, i, and not the public, furnishing his necessary means? if no, say so without the least hesitation, because i am as anxious and as deeply interested that you shall not be encumbered as you can be yourself. _the second inaugural address. march , _ fellow-countrymen, at this second appearance to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. the progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, i trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. with high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. all dreaded it,--all sought to avert it. while the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war,--seeking to dissolve the union, and divide effects, by negotiation. both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. and the war came. one-eighth of the whole population were coloured slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but localized in the southern part of it. these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.... with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right,--let us strive on to finish the work we are in: to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. _a letter to thurlow weed. executive mansion, washington. march , _ dear mr. weed, every one likes a compliment. thank you for yours on my little notification speech and on the recent inaugural address. i expect the latter to wear as well as--perhaps better than--anything i have produced; but i believe it is not immediately popular. men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the almighty and them. to deny it, however, in this case, is to deny that there is a god governing the world. it is a truth which i thought needed to be told, and, as whatever of humiliation there is in it falls most directly on myself, i thought others might afford for me to tell it. truly yours, a. lincoln. _from an address to an indiana regiment. march , _ there are but few aspects of this great war on which i have not already expressed my views by speaking or writing. there is one--the recent effort of "our erring brethren," sometimes so called, to employ the slaves in their armies. the great question with them has been, "will the negro fight for them?" they ought to know better than we, and doubtless do know better than we. i may incidentally remark, that having in my life heard many arguments--or strings of words meant to pass for arguments--intended to show that the negro ought to be a slave,--if he shall now really fight to keep himself a slave, it will be a far better argument why he should remain a slave than i have ever before heard. he, perhaps, ought to be a slave if he desires it ardently enough to fight for it. or, if one out of four will, for his own freedom fight to keep the other three in slavery, he ought to be a slave for his selfish meanness. i have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. whenever i hear any one arguing for slavery, i feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. _from his reply to a serenade. lincoln's last public address. april , _ fellow-citizens, we meet this evening, not in sorrow but in gladness of heart. the evacuation of richmond and petersburg, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give the hope of a just and speedy peace, the joyous expression of which cannot be restrained. in all this joy, however, he from whom all blessings flow must not be forgotten. a call for a national thanksgiving is in the course of preparation, and will be duly promulgated. nor must those whose harder part give us the cause for rejoicing be overlooked. their honours must not be parcelled out with others. i, myself, was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honour for plan or execution is mine. to general grant, his skilful officers and brave men, all belongs. the gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take an active part. by these recent successes the reinauguration of the national authority,--reconstruction,--which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. it is fraught with great difficulty. unlike a case of war between independent nations, there is no organized organ for us to treat with,--no one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. we simply must begin with and mould from disorganized and discordant elements. nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. as a general rule i abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which i cannot properly offer an answer. in spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that i am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new state government of louisiana. in this i have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. in the annual message of december , and in the accompanying proclamation, i presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which i promised, if adopted by any state, should be acceptable to and sustained by the executive government of the nation. i distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable, and i also distinctly protested that the executive claimed no right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats in congress from such states. this plan was in advance submitted to the then cabinet, and approved by every member of it.... when the message of , with the plan before mentioned, reached new orleans, general banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with his military co-operation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. i wrote him and some of them to try it. they tried it, and the result is known. such has been my only agency in getting up the louisiana government. as to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. but as bad promises are better broken than kept, i shall treat this as a bad promise and break it, whenever i shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but i have not yet been so convinced. i have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed upon the question whether the seceded states, so called, are in the union or out of it. it would perhaps add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since i have found professed union men endeavouring to answer that question, i have purposely forborne any public expression upon it.... we all agree that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those states, is to again get them into that proper practical relation. i believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether these states have ever been out of the union, than with it. finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the union, and each for ever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the states from without into the union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. the amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained forty thousand, or thirty thousand, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand as it does. it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the coloured man. i would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. still, the question is not whether the louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. the question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave state of louisiana have sworn allegiance to the union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the state, held elections, organized a state government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the coloured man. their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. these twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the union and to perpetual freedom in the state,--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants,--and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. we, in effect, say to the white man: you are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. to the blacks, we say: this cup of liberty, which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. if this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring louisiana into proper, practical relations with the union, i have so far been unable to perceive it. if, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. we encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. the coloured man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring to the same end. grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps towards it, than by running backward over them? ... i repeat the question, can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? ... what has been said of louisiana will apply generally to other states. and yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state, and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. important principles may and must be inflexible. in the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the south. i am considering, and shall not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper. appendix anecdotes lincoln's entry into richmond the day after it was taken _as described at that time by a writer in the "atlantic monthly"_ they gathered around the president, ran ahead, hovered about the flanks of the little company, and hung like a dark cloud upon the rear. men, women and children joined the constantly-increasing throng. they came from all the by-streets, running in breathless haste, shouting and hallooing, and dancing with delight. the men threw up their hats, the women waved their bonnets and handkerchiefs, clapped their hands, and sang, "glory to god! glory, glory!" rendering all the praise to god, who had heard their wailings in the past, their moanings for wives, husbands, children, and friends sold out of their sight; had given them freedom, and after long years of waiting had permitted them thus unexpectedly to behold the face of their great benefactor. "i thank you, dear jesus, that i behold president linkum!" was the exclamation of a woman who stood upon the threshold of her humble home, and with streaming eyes and clasped hands gave thanks aloud to the saviour of men. another, more demonstrative in her joy, was jumping and striking her hands with all her might, crying, "bless de lord! bless de lord! bless de lord!" as if there could be no end to her thanksgiving. the air rang with a tumultuous chorus of voices. the street became almost impassable on account of the increasing multitude, till soldiers were summoned to clear the way.... the walk was long, and the president halted a moment to rest. "may de good lord bless you, president linkum!" said an old negro, removing his hat and bowing, with tears of joy rolling down his cheeks. the president removed his own hat, and bowed in silence; but it was a bow which upset the forms, laws, customs, and ceremonies of centuries. it was a death-shock to chivalry and a mortal wound to caste. "recognize a nigger! fough!" a woman in an adjoining house beheld it, and turned from the scene in unspeakable disgust. (the following nine anecdotes were related by frank b. carpenter, the painter, who, while executing his picture of the first reading in cabinet council of the emancipation proclamation, had the freedom of mr. lincoln's private office and saw much of the president while he posed, and whose relations with him became of an intimate character.) "you don't wear hoops--and i will ... pardon your brother" a distinguished citizen of ohio had an appointment with the president one evening at six o'clock. as he entered the vestibule of the white house, his attention was attracted by a poorly-clad young woman who was violently sobbing. he asked her the cause of her distress. she said she had been ordered away by the servants after vainly waiting many hours to see the president about her only brother, who had been condemned to death. her story was this:--she and her brother were foreigners, and orphans. they had been in this country several years. her brother enlisted in the army, but, through bad influences, was induced to desert. he was captured, tried and sentenced to be shot--the old story. the poor girl had obtained the signatures of some persons who had formerly known him, to a petition for a pardon, and alone had come to washington to lay the case before the president. thronged as the waiting-rooms always were, she had passed the long hours of two days trying in vain to get an audience, and had at length been ordered away. the gentleman's feelings were touched. he said to her that he had come to see the president, but did not know as _he_ should succeed. he told her, however, to follow him upstairs, and he would see what could be done for her. just before reaching the door, mr. lincoln came out, and meeting his friend said good-humouredly, "are you not ahead of time?" the gentleman showed him his watch, with the hand upon the hour of six. "well," returned mr. lincoln, "i have been so busy to-day that i have not had time to get a lunch. go in, and sit down; i will be back directly." the gentleman made the young woman accompany him into the office, and, when they were seated, said to her, "now, my good girl, i want you to muster all the courage you have in the world. when the president comes back, he will sit down in that arm-chair. i shall get up to speak to him, and as i do so you must force yourself between us, and insist upon the examination of your papers, telling him it is a case of life and death, and admits of no delay." these instructions were carried out to the letter. mr. lincoln was at first somewhat surprised at the apparent forwardness of the young woman, but observing her distressed appearance, he ceased conversation with his friend, and commenced an examination of the document she had placed in his hands. glancing from it to the face of the petitioner, whose tears had broken forth afresh, he studied its expression for a moment, and then his eye fell upon her scanty but neat dress. instantly his face lighted up. "my poor girl," said he, "you have come here with no governor, or senator, or member of congress, to plead your cause. you seem honest and truthful; _and you don't wear hoops_--and i will be whipped but i will pardon your brother." his joy in giving a pardon one night schuyler colfax left all other business to ask him to respite the son of a constituent, who was sentenced to be shot, at davenport, for desertion. he heard the story with his usual patience, though he was wearied out with incessant calls, and anxious for rest, and then replied:--"some of our generals complain that i impair discipline and subordination in the army by my pardons and respites, but it makes me rested, after a hard day's work, if i can find some good excuse for saving a man's life, and i go to bed happy as i think how joyous the signing of my name will make him and his family and his friends." and with a happy smile beaming over that care-furrowed face, he signed that name that saved that life. his simplicity and unostentatiousness the simplicity and absence of all ostentation on the part of mr. lincoln, is well illustrated by an incident which occurred on the occasion of a visit he made to commodore porter, at fortress monroe. noticing that the banks of the river were dotted with flowers, he said: "commodore, tad (the pet name for his youngest son, who had accompanied him on the excursion) is very fond of flowers; won't you let a couple of men take a boat and go with him for an hour or two, along the banks of the river, and gather the flowers?" look at this picture, and then endeavour to imagine the head of a european nation making a similar request, in this humble way, of one of his subordinates! a penitent man can be pardoned one day i took a couple of friends from new york upstairs, who wished to be introduced to the president. it was after the hour for business calls, and we found him alone, and, for _once_, at leisure. soon after the introduction, one of my friends took occasion to indorse, very decidedly, the president's amnesty proclamation, which had been severely censured by many friends of the administration. mr. s----'s approval touched mr. lincoln. he said, with a great deal of emphasis, and with an expression of countenance i shall never forget: "when a man is sincerely _penitent_ for his misdeeds, and gives satisfactory evidence of the same, he can safely be pardoned, and there is no exception to the rule!" "keep silence, and we'll get you safe across" at the white house one day some gentlemen were present from the west, excited and troubled about the commissions and omissions of the administration. the president heard them patiently, and then replied: "gentlemen, suppose all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of blondin to carry across the niagara river on a rope, would you shake the cable, or keep shouting out to him, 'blondin, stand up a little straighter--blondin, stoop a little more--go a little faster--lean a little more to the north--lean a little more to the south?' no, you would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hands off until he was safe over. the government are carrying an immense weight. untold treasures are in their hands. they are doing the very best they can. don't badger them. keep silence, and we'll get you safe across." rebuff to a man with a small claim during a public "reception," a farmer, from one of the border counties of virginia, told the president that the union soldiers, in passing his farm, had helped themselves not only to hay, but his horse, and he hoped the president would urge the proper officer to consider his claim immediately. mr. lincoln said that this reminded him of an old acquaintance of his, "jack chase," who used to be a lumberman on the illinois, a steady, sober man, and the best raftsman on the river. it was quite a trick, twenty-five years ago, to take the logs over the rapids; but he was skilful with a raft, and always kept her straight in the channel. finally a steamer was put on, and jack was made captain of her. he always used to take the wheel going through the rapids. one day when the boat was plunging and wallowing along the boiling current, and jack's utmost vigilance was being exercised to keep her in the narrow channel, a boy pulled his coat-tail, and hailed him with: "say, mister captain! i wish you would just stop your boat a minute--i've lost my apple overboard!" the president's silence over criticisms the president was once speaking about an attack made on him by the committee on the conduct of the war for a certain alleged blunder, or something worse, in the southwest--the matter involved being one which had fallen directly under the observation of the officer to whom he was talking, who possessed official evidence completely upsetting all the conclusions of the committee. "might it not be well for me," queried the officer, "to set this matter right in a letter to some paper, stating the facts as they actually transpired?" "oh, no," replied the president, "at least, not now. if i were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. i do the very best i know how--the very best i can; and i mean to keep doing so until the end. if the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. if the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing i was right would make no difference." "glad of it" on the occasion when the telegram from cumberland gap reached mr. lincoln that "firing was heard in the direction of knoxville," he remarked that he was "glad of it." some person present, who had the perils of burnside's position uppermost in his mind, could, not see _why_ mr. lincoln should be _glad_ of it, and so expressed himself. "why, you see," responded the president, "it reminds me of mistress sallie ward, a neighbour of mine, who had a very large family. occasionally one of her numerous progeny would be heard crying in some out-of-the-way place, upon which mrs. ward would exclaim, 'there's one of my children that isn't dead yet!'" his democratic bearing the evening before i left washington an incident occurred, illustrating very perfectly the character of the man. for two days my large painting had been on exhibition, upon its completion, in the east room, which had been thronged with visitors. late in the afternoon of the second day, the "black-horse cavalry" escort drew up as usual in front of the portico, preparatory to the president's leaving for the "soldiers' home," where he spent the midsummer nights. while the carriage was waiting, i looked around for him, wishing to say a farewell word, knowing that i should have no other opportunity. presently i saw him standing halfway between the portico and the gateway leading to the war department, leaning against the iron fence--one arm thrown over the railing, and one foot on the stone coping which supports it, evidently having been intercepted, on his way in from the war department, by a plain-looking man, who was giving him, very diffidently, an account of a difficulty which he had been unable to have rectified. while waiting, i walked out leisurely to the president's side. he said very little to the man, but was intently studying the expression of his face while he was narrating his trouble. when he had finished, mr. lincoln said to him, "have you a blank card?" the man searched his pockets, but finding none, a gentleman standing near, who had overheard the question, came forward, and said, "here is one, mr. president." several persons had, in the meantime, gathered around. taking the card and a pencil, mr. lincoln sat down upon the stone coping, which is not more than five or six inches above the pavement, presenting almost the appearance of sitting upon the pavement itself, and wrote an order upon the card to the proper official to "examine this man's case." while writing this, i observed several persons passing down the promenade, smiling at each other, at what i presume they thought the undignified appearance of the head of the nation, who, however, seemed utterly unconscious, either of any impropriety in the action, or of attracting any attention. to me it was not only a touching picture of the native goodness of the man, but of innate nobility of character, exemplified not so much by a disregard of conventionalities, as in unconsciousness that there _could_ be any breach of etiquette, or dignity, in the manner of an honest attempt to serve, or secure justice to a citizen of the republic, however humble he may be. [illustration: everyman, i will go with thee & be thy guide in thy most need to go by thy side.] proofreaders phrases for public speakers and paragraphs for study compiled by grenville kleiser to the student the experienced public speaker acquires through long practise hundreds of phrases which he uses over and over again. these are essential to readiness of speech, since they serve to hold his thought well together and enable him to speak fluently even upon short notice. this book is one of practise, not theory. the student should read aloud daily several pages of these phrases, think just what each one means, and whenever possible till out the phrase in his own words. a month's earnest practise of this kind will yield astonishing results. he should also study the paragraphs, reprinted here from notable speeches, and closely observe the use made of climax and other effects. the phrase and the paragraph are the principal elements in the public speaker's english style, and the student will be amply repaid for any time he devotes to their analysis. grenville kleiser contents useful phrases paragraphs from notable speeches useful phrases a further objection to again, can we doubt again, we have abundant instances alas! how often all experience evinces that all that i have been stating hitherto all that is quite true. all this, i know well enough all this is unnatural because all we do know is that am i mistaken in this? amid so much that is uncertain and, again, it is to be presumed that and, finally, have not these and, further, all that i have said and hence it continually happens and hence it is that and here, in passing, let us notice and here observe that and if i know anything of and if it is further asked why and i sometimes imagine that and i wish also to say that and, in fact, it is and it is certainly true and it may be admitted that and just here we touch the vital point in and let me here again refer to and now it begins to be apparent and now we are naturally brought on to and now we are told and pursuing the subject and so again in this day and so, in like manner and strange to say and such, i say, is and the same is true of and the whole point of these observations is and this is manifestly true any thoughtful man can readily perceive as far as my experience goes as for me, i say as it were at first it does seem as tho at this very moment, there are at times we hear it said. be it so. be true to your own sense of right. believe me, it is quite impossible for but all is not done. but bear in mind that but by no kind of calculation can we but do not tell me that but further still but here we take our stand. but i am not quite sure that but i digress. but i do not desire to obtrude a but i recollect that but i shall go still farther. but i submit whether it but i will not dwell on but i will not pause to point out but if you look seriously at facts but in any case but in fact there is no reason for but is it in truth so easy to but is it rationally conceivable that but it is fitting i should say but, it may be urged, if but lest it should still be argued that but let it be once understood that but let us suppose all these but look at the difference. but my idea of it is but now, i repeat, but now, lastly, let us suppose but now let us turn to but now, on the other hand, could but now some other things are to be noted but somehow all is changed! but the question for us is but to go still further but waiving this assumption but we dwell too long but we have faith that but what is the motive? but what then? but with us how changed! but why do we speak of but you may say truly but you must remember can there be a better illustration than can you doubt it? certainly, i did not know compare now the case of did time admit i could show you does anybody believe that do you dream that do not entertain so weak an imagination do not misunderstand me. enough has been said of even apart from the vital question of everybody has to say that few people will dispute first, sir, permit me to observe for instance, for instance, there surely is for my part, i can say that i desire for the sake of clearness for this simple reason for what? fortunately i am not obliged from time to time happily for us has the gentleman done? have we any right to such a he can not do it. heaven forbid! hence, i repeat, it is hence it is that hence, too, it has often, been said here i have to speak of here i wish i could stop. here it will be objected to me here let me meet one other question history is replete with how are we to explain this how do you account for i acknowledge the force of i admire the indignation which i admit it. i admit, that if i allude to i am advised that already i am aware that i am distinctly maintaining i am expecting to hear next i am going to suggest i am in sympathy with i am justified in regarding i am led to make one remark i am mainly concerned with i am myself of opinion that i am naturally led on to speak of i am no friend to i am not arguing the i am not ashamed to acknowledge i am not complaining of i am not denying that i am not disposed to deny i am not going to attempt to i am not here to defend the i am not insensible of i am not justifying the i am not speaking of exceptions. i am not trying to absolve i am obliged to mention i am perfectly astounded at i am perfectly confident that i am perfectly indifferent concerning i am persuaded that i am quite certain that i am sanguine that those who i am speaking to-night for myself. i am sure, at least, that i am sure you will allow me i am sure you will do me the justice i am told that the reason i am well aware that i am willing to admit that i appeal to you on behalf of i ask how you are going to i ask myself i ask, then, as concerns the i ask your attention to this point. i assume that the argument for i assume, then, that i beg not to be interrupted here i beg respectfully to differ from i beg to assure you i believe i speak the sentiment of i believe in it as firmly as i believe in the i believe you feel, as i feel, that i can not believe it. i can not but feel that i can not do better than i can not even imagine why i can not, therefore, agree with i can not very well i can scarcely conceive anything i carry with me no hostile remembrance. i certainly do not recommend i come now to observe i come, then, to this i conclude that it was i confess i can not help agreeing with i confess my notions are i confess that i like to dwell on i confess truly i dare say i dare say to you i differ very much from i do not absolutely assert i do not believe that i do not blush to acknowledge i do not contend that i do not forget that i do not know on what pretense i do not mean to propose i do not mean to say i do not mistrust the future. i do not overlook tho fact that i do not pretend to believe i do not question this. i do not stand here before you i do not think it unfair reasoning to i do not vouch for i do not want to argue the question of i do not wish to be partial. i do not wish you to suppose that i do not yield to any one i entirely agree upon this point. i fear i only need refer to i firmly believe that i grant, of course, that i grant that there are i grant, too, of course, that i have all along been showing i have already alluded to i have already said, and i repeat it i have always argued that i have another objection to i have appealed to the testimony i have a right to think that i have been interested in hearing i have been requested to say a word, i have heard it said recently i have hitherto been adducing instances i have indicted i have listened with pleasure to i have never been able to understand i have never fancied that i have no confidence, then, in i have no desire in this instance i have no doubt that it is i have only to add that i have read of the i have said that i have so high a respect for i have spoken of i have the confident hope that i have the strongest reason for i have to appeal to you i heartily hope and trust i hope i have now made it clear that i hope you will acquit me of i insist that you do not i invite you to consider i know it is not uncommon for i know that there is a difference of i know that this will sound strange i know well the sentiments of i know whereof i speak. i leave it to you to say. i marvel that i may as well reply i may be told that i may say further that i may take it for granted i mention them merely i merely indicate i must beg leave to dwell a moment i must fairly tell you that i must now beg to ask i myself feel confident i often wonder i only wish to recognize i pass by that. i pass, then, from the question of i personally doubt whether it i plainly and positively state i point you to i proceed to inquire into i quote from i read but recently a story i really can not think it necessary to i recollect that i rejoice at the change that i remember once when i reply with confidence that i rest my opinion on i said just now i see no objection to i see no reason to doubt i shall ask you one question i shall attempt to show i shall content myself with asking i shall not suffer myself to i shall not undertake i shall presently show i shall sum up what has been said. i shall, then, merely sum up i share the conviction of i should hold myself obliged to i should not like to hold the opinion i speak in the most perfect honesty i speak only for myself. i suppose most men will recollect i take leave to say i take the liberty of i think i am right in saying i think i can demonstrate that i think it impossible that i think it our duty i think it well not to be disputed that i think, on the contrary, that i think that this is a great mistake. i think these facts show that i think we should be willing to i trust it will not he considered ungenerous i trust we are not the men to i turn now to another reason why i undertake to say i use the word advisedly. i venture to assert that i venture to say i venture to think i want to invite your attention to i want to know whether i was astonished to learn i was forcibly struck with one remark i was very much struck with i will allow more than this readily. i will answer, not by retort, but by i will call to mind this i will go no further i will not attempt to note the i will not enter into details i will not go into the evidence of i will not stop to inquire whether i will show you presently i will speak but a word or two more. i will suppose the objection urged i wish i could state i wish to call your attention to i wish to know i wish to say something about i wish to observe that i would not he understood as saying i would not, indeed, say a word to extenuate if any man were to tell me if any one is so short-sighted if i had my share if i hesitate, it is because if i insist on this point here if i mistake not the sentiment of if i must give an instance of this if i read the signs of the time aright if i were asked what it is that if other evidence be wanting if, perchance, one should say if such a thing were possible if such feelings were ever entertained if such is the fact, then if there is a man here if we accept at all the argument if we are conscious of if we find that if we resign ourselves to facts if you want to find out what if you wish the most conclusive proof in a broader and a larger sense in a sense, and a very real sense in answer to this singular theory in like manner in order to carry out in proof of this drift toward in proportion as in proportion, then, in pursuance of these clear and express in saying all this, i do not forget in something of a parallel in such cases in support of this claim in support of what i have been saying in the first place in the first place, then, i say in the first place there is in the last resort in the light of these things in this connection in this point of view, doubtless in this situation, let us in this respect they are in view of these facts, i say in what i have to say is it fair to say that is it not evident that is it not quite possible that is it said that is not that the common sentiment? is there any reason for it affords me unusual pleasure it is but too true that it can scarcely be imagined that it can not be too often repeated it certainly follows, then, it does not appear to me it has been maintained that it has been more than hinted that it has been said, and said truly, it has sometimes been remarked that it is a common observation that it is a curious fact that it is a fact patent to any one that it is a melancholy fact that it is a notorious fact that it is a thing commonly said that it is a very serious matter. it is a very serious question it is also to be borne in mind it is amazing that there are any among us it is an additional satisfaction it is an undeniable truth that it is apparent that it is certain that it is certainly not sufficient to say it is difficult to conceive that it is exceedingly unlikely that it is historically certain that it is in effect the reply of it is in quite another kind, however, it is, indeed, commonly said it is more difficult to it is necessary to account for it is no more than fitting that it is not a good thing to see it is not a wise thing to it is not alleged it is not chiefly, however, it is not for me here to recall it is not, however, it is not long since i had occasion it is not my purpose to discuss it is not necessary that i define it is not proposed to it is not surprizing that it is not to be denied that it is not told traditionally it is not true that it is not wonderful that it is observable enough it is of little consequence it is of importance that it is of very little importance what it is quite true that it is related of it is singular that it is the most extraordinary thing that it is to my mind a it is true, indeed, that it is well known that it is well that we clearly apprehend it is wholly unnecessary it is worthy of remark it looks to me to be it may be a matter of doubt it may be shown that it may be suggested that it may be supposed that it may in a measure be true that it may not be improper for me to suggest it must be borne in mind that it must be confest that it must be recollected that it need hardly be said that it remains for us to consider it remains to it remains to be shown that it reminds me of an anecdote it seems a truism to say it seems now to be generally admitted it should also be remembered that it should be remembered it so happens that it was my good fortune it was not so it was under these circumstances it were foolish to talk of it were rash to say it will be easy to cite it will be found, in the second place, it will be observed also that it will be well to recall it will not surely be objected it would be misleading to say it would be no less impracticable to it would be vain to seek it would do no good to repeat it would seem that largely, i have no doubt, it is due let it be repeated let it be for an instant supposed let me add that let me ask who there is among us let me explain myself by saying let me illustrate let me instance in one thing only let me put the subject before you let me say one word further. let me tell you let me tell you a very interesting story let no one suppose that let the truth be said outright let these instances suffice let us bear in mind that let us consider that let us go a step further. let us say frankly let us see whether let us stand together. let us look a little at let us take an example in let us take, first of all, make no mistake. men are often doubtful about moreover, i am sure, moreover, i believe that much has been said of late about my antagonism is only aroused when my answer is, that my belief is that my own opinion is nay, further than this, need i speak of neither is it true that nevertheless, we must admit next i give you the opinion of next i observe that no man who listens to me underrates no matter what no, no. no objection can be brought against the no one realizes this more no one will, with justice, say no one will question no one would take the pains to challenge the no wonder, then, that nobody really doubts that nor am i, believe me, so arrogant as nor can we imagine that nor is this surprizing nor, lastly, does this not a few persons demand not many words are required to show not quite so. not so here. nothing is more certain than nothing less. now, after what i have said, now apply this to now do you observe what follows from now for one moment let us now i have done. now, i proceed to examine now i want to ask whether now it is evident now let us observe what now, mark it. now, on the other hand, let me now perhaps you will ask me now we come to the question observe, if you please, that occasionally it is whispered that of course, it will be said that of no less import is of the final issue i have no doubt. on the contrary on the one hand on the other hand on the other hand, you will see on the whole, then, i observe one word more and i have done. once more, how else could one fact is clear only a few days ago our position is that our position is unquestionable. over and over again it has been shown that perhaps, sir, i am mistaken in perhaps the reason of this may be permit me to add another circumstance permit me to remind you please remember that if readily we admit that since you have suffered me to so far is clear, but so it came naturally about so much for some men think, indeed, that some persons have exprest surprize that something of extravagance there may be in strange as it may seem strictly speaking, it is not such an avowal is not such is not my theory. such is steadfastly my opinion that such is the truth. such, then, is the answer whir i make to supposing, for instance, surely i do not misinterpret the spirit surely it is preposterous surely, then, surely, this is good and clear reasoning. take, again, the case of take the instance of that is quite obvious. that we might have done. the audacity of the statement is the charge is false. the conclusion is irresistible. the contempt that is cast the fact is substantially true. the fact, is that there is not the fact need not be concealed that the facts are before us all the first point to be ascertained is the language is perfectly plain. the least desirable form of the more i consider this question the plea serves well with the point i wish to bring out the problem that presents itself is the question at issue is primarily the question is not the question presented is the question with me is the substance of all this is the time is not far distant when the time is short. the truth of this has not been then, finally, then, i repeat, there are many people nowadays who there are people who tell you that there is a cynicism which there is a word which i wish to say there is another reason why there is another sense in which. there is much force in there is no danger of our overrating the there is no evidence that there is no good reason why there is no mistaking the fact there is no other intelligible answer there is no parallel to there is no sufficient reason for there is none other. there is not a shadow of there is one other point connected with there is one other point to which there is something suggestive in there was a time when none denied it. these absurd pretensions they did what they could. this being the case, you will see this brings me to a point on which this does not mean this expectation was disappointed. this i have already shown this is a great mistake. this is it's last resort. this is the only remaining alternative. this leads me to the question this relieves me of the necessity of this is clearly perceived by this is especially true of this is essentially a question of this is very different from tho all this is obvious thus, you see to avoid all possibility of being to be sure to-day i have additional satisfaction in to my own mind, to my own mind, certainly, it is to pass from that i notice to take a very different instance to this end we must to this, likewise, it may be added to this there can be but one answer. to show all this is easy and certain. to show this in fact to sum up, then truly, gentlemen unless i am wholly wrong unless i greatly mistake the temper we all remember we are all aware that we are here to discuss we are now able to determine we are told that we can not leave unchallenged the we deny it. we have an instance in we have no right to say we, in our turn, must we know they will not we laugh to scorn the idea we look around us we may have an overpowering sense of we may rest assured that we must not propose in we often speak of we ought, first of all, to note we should pause to consider we will hear much in these days we will not examine the proof of what are you asked to do? what are you going to do? what can be more intelligible than what do you say to what do we understand by what has become of it? what is more remarkable still what is the answer to all this? what is this but an acknowledgment of what is your opinion? what then remains? what we do say is when all has been said, there remains when i look around me when it can be shown that when it is recognized that when that is said, all is said when we contemplate the when we reflect on these sentiments where there is prejudice, it is no use to argue. who finds fault with these things? why should an argument be required to prove that why should it be necessary to confirm will you tell me how with possibly a single exception with regard to what has been stated yet it is plain yet, strange to say, you and i may hold that you can not assert that you can not invent a series of argument you can not say that you do not pretend that you have the authority of you know as well as i do you may object at once, and say you may object that you may point, if you will, to you may search the history of you tell me that you will say that paragraphs from notable speeches let me here pause once more to ask whether the book in its genuine state, as far as we have advanced in it, makes the same impression on your minds now as when it was first read to you in detached passages; and whether, if i were to tear off the first part of it, which i hold in my hand, and give it to you as an entire work, the first and last passages, which have been selected as libels on the commons, would now appear to be so when blended with the interjacent parts? i do not ask your answer--i shall have it in your verdict. thomas lord erskine. from "speech in behalf of stockdale." * * * * * indeed, many of the statements we now read of the necessity of the wise governing the weak and ignorant are almost literal reproductions of the arguments advanced by the slaveholders of the south in defence of slavery just preceding the outbreak of the civil war. that divergence from our original ideal produced the pregnant sayings of mr. lincoln, "a house divided against itself can not stand," and its corollary, "this nation can not permanently endure half slave and half free." he saw dearly that american democracy must rest, if it continued to exist, upon the ethical ideal which presided over its birth--that of the absolute equality of all men in political rights. wayne macveagh. from, "ideals in american politics." * * * * * the idea of liberty is license; it is not liberty but it is license. license to do what? license to violate law, to trample constitutions under foot, to take life, to take property, to use the bludgeon and the gun or anything else for the purpose of giving themselves power. what statesman ever heard of that us a definition of liberty? what man in a civilized age has ever heard of liberty being the unrestrained license of the people to do as they please without any restraint of law or of authority? no man--no, not one--until we found the democratic party, would advocate this proposition and indorse and encourage this kind of license in a free country. john alexander logan. from "self-government in louisiana." * * * * * my countrymen, we do not now differ in our judgment concerning the controversies of past generations, and fifty years hence our children will be divided in their opinions concerning our controversies. they will surely bless their fathers and their fathers' god that the union was preserved, that slavery was overthrown, and that both races were made equal before the law. we may hasten or we may retard, but we can not prevent the final reconciliation. is it not possible for us now to make a truce with time, by anticipating and accepting its inevitable verdicts? enterprises of the highest importance to our moral and material well-being invite us, and offer ample scope for the employment of our best powers. let all our people, leaving behind them the battle-fields of dead issues, move forward, and, in the strength of liberty and a restored union, win the grander victories of peace. james abram garfield. from "inaugural address." * * * * * i wish you, by the aid of the training which i recommend, to be able to look beyond your own lives and have pleasure in surroundings different from those in which you move. i want you to be able--and mark this point--to sympathize with other times, to be able to understand the men and women of other countries, and to have the intense enjoyment--an enjoyment which i am sure you would all appreciate--of mental change of scene. i do not only want you to know dry facts; i am not only looking to a knowledge of facts, nor chiefly to that knowledge. i want the heart to be stirred as well as the intellect. i want you to feel more and live more than you can do if you only know what surrounds yourselves. i want the action of the imagination, the sympathetic study of history and travels, the broad teaching of the poets, and, indeed, of the best writers of other times and other countries, to neutralize and check the dwarfing influences of necessarily narrow careers and necessarily stunted lives. that is the point which you will see i mean when i ask you to cultivate the imagination. i want to introduce you to other, wider, and nobler fields of thought, and to open up vistas of other worlds, when refreshing and bracing breezes will stream upon your minds and souls. george joachim goschen. from "on the cultivation of the imagination." * * * * * but it is a noteworthy fact that eminent qualities in men may often be traced to similar qualities in their mothers. knowledge, it is true, is not hereditary, but high mental qualities are so, and experience and observation seem to prove that the transmission is chiefly through the mother's side. but leaving this physiological view, let us look at the purely educational. imagine an educated mother training and molding the powers of her children, giving to them in the years of infancy those gentle yet permanent tendencies which are of more account in the formation of character than any subsequent educational influences, selecting for them the best instructors, encouraging and aiding them in their difficulties, rejoicing with them in their successes, able to take an intelligent interest in their progress in literature and science. john william dawson. from "on the higher education of women." * * * * * it only remains to remind you that another consideration has been strongly prest upon you, and, no doubt, will be insisted on in reply. you will be told that the matters which i have been justifying as legal, and even meritorious, have therefore not been made the subject of complaint; and that whatever intrinsic merit parts of the book may be supposed or even admitted to possess, such merit can afford no justification to the selected passages, some of which, even with, the context, carry the meaning charged by the information, and which, are indecent animadversions on authority. thomas lord erskine from "speech in behalf of blockdale." * * * * * but let it now for argument's sake be admitted, saving always the reputation of honorable men who are not here to defend themselves--let it, i say, for argument's sake, be admitted that the gentlemen alluded to acted under the influence of improper motives. what then? is a law that has received the varied assent required by the constitution and is clothed with all the needful formalities thereby invalidated? can you impair its force by impeaching the motives of any member who voted for it? gouverneur morris. from "speech on the judiciary." * * * * * let us pause, sir, before we give an answer to this question. the fate of us, the fate of millions now alive, the fate of millions yet unborn, depend upon the answer. let it be the result of calmness and intrepidity; let it be dictated by the principles of loyalty and the principles of liberty. let it be such as never, in the worst events, to give us reason to reproach ourselves, or others reason to reproach us, for having done too much or too little. james wilson. from "vindication of the colonies." * * * * * it is impossible to deny the facts, which were so glaring at the time. it is a painful thing to me, sir, to be obliged to go back to these unfortunate periods of the history of this war and of the conduct of this country; but i am forced to the task by the use which has been made of the atrocities of the french as an argument against negotiation. i think i have said enough to prove that if the french have been guilty we have not been innocent. nothing but determined incredulity can make us deaf and blind to our own acts, when we are so ready to yield an assent to all the reproaches which are thrown out on the enemy, and upon which reproaches we are gravely told to continue the war. charles james fox. from "on the rejection of bonaparte's overtures." * * * * * now i think the people ought not to be made to wait for the relief they have a right to demand. they ought not to be made to suffer while we argue one another out of the recorded and inveterate opinions of our whole lives. i say, therefore, for myself, that, anxious to afford them all the relief which they require, regretting that the state of opinion around me puts it out of my power to afford that relief in the form i might prefer. i accommodate myself to my position, and make haste to do all that i can by the shortest way that i can. consider how much better it is to relieve them to some substantial extent by this means, at once, than not to relieve at all, than not to initiate a system or measure of relief at all, and then go home at the end of this session of congress, weak and weary, and spend the autumn in trying to persuade them that it was the fault of some of our own friends that nothing was done. how poor a compensation for wrongs to the people will be the victories over our friends! rufus choate. from "the necessity of compromises in american politics." * * * * * it is of the very essence of true patriotism, therefore, to be earnest and truthful, to scorn the flatterer's tongue, and strive to keep its native land in harmony with the laws of national thrift and power. it will tell a land of its faults as a friend will counsel a companion. it will speak as honestly as the physician advises a patient. and if occasion requires, an indignation will flame out of its love like that which burst from the lips of moses when he returned from the mountain and found the people to whom he had revealed the austere jehovah and for whom he would cheerfully have sacrificed his life worshiping a calf. thomas starr king. from "on the privilege and duties of patriotism." * * * * * our president is dead. he has served us faithfully and well. he has kept the faith; he has finished his course. henceforth there is laid up for him a crown of glory, which the lord, the righteous judge, shall give him in that day. and he who gave him to us, and who so abundantly blest his labors, and helped him to accomplish so much for his country and his race, will not permit the country which he saved to perish. i believe in the overruling providence of god, and that, in permitting the life of our chief magistrate to be extinguished, he only closed one volume of the history of his dealings with this nation, to open another whose pages shall be illustrated with fresh developments of his love and sweeter signs of his mercy. what mr. lincoln achieved he achieved for us; but he left as a choice a legacy in his christian example, in his incorruptible integrity, and in his unaffected simplicity, if we will appropriate it, as in his public deeds. so we take this excellent life and its results, and, thanking god for them, cease all complaining and press forward under new leaders to now achievements, and the completion of the great work which he who has gone left as a sacred trust upon our hands. josiah gilbert holland. from "eulogy of abraham lincoln." * * * * * patriotism says, and says it in the interest of peace and economy and final fraternity, "fight and conquer even at the risk of holding them for a generation under the yoke." fight, tho, on such a scale that there will be no need of holding them; that they will gladly submit again to the rule which makes the republic one and blesses all portions with protection and with bounty. fight till they shall know that they kick against fate and the resistless laws of the world! patriotism calls on the cabinet and the head of the nation and the generals who give tone to the campaign to forget the customs and interests of peace till we shall gain it by the submission of the rebels and the shredding of their last banner into threads. thomas starr king. from "on the privilege and duties of patriotism." * * * * * for myself, i believe that whatever estrangements may have existed in the past, or may linger among us now, are born of ignorance and will be dispelled by knowledge. i believe that of our forty-five states there are no two who, if they could meet in the familiarity of the intercourse, in the fulness of personal knowledge, would not only cease to entertain any bitterness, or alienation, or distrust, but each would utter to the other the words of the jewish daughter, in that most exquisite of idylls which has come down to us almost from the beginning of time: "entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou guest, i will go; and where thou lodgest, i will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy god my god. "where thou diest, will i die, and there will i be buried; the lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part me and thee." george frisbie hoar. from "address at the banquet of the new england society." * * * * * he knew full well and displayed in his many splendid speeches and addresses that one unerring purpose of freedom and of union ran through her whole history; that there was no accident in it all; that all the generations, from the _mayflower_ down, marched to one measure and followed one flag; that all the struggles, all the self-sacrifice, all the prayers and the tears, all the fear of god, all the soul-trials, all the yearnings for national life, of more than two centuries, had contributed to make the country that he served and loved. he, too, preached, in season and out of season, the gospel of nationality. joseph hodges choate. from "oration on rufus choate." * * * * * i leave these fellows and turn for a moment to their victims. and i would here, without any reference to my own case, earnestly implore that sympathy with political sufferers should not be merely telescopic in its character, "distance lending enchantment to the view"; and that when your statesmen sentimentalize upon, and your journalists denounce, far-away tyrannies--the horrors of neapolitan dungeons--the abridgment of personal freedom in continental countries--the exercise of arbitrary power by irresponsible authority in other lands--they would turn their eyes homeward and examine the treatment and the sufferings of their own political prisoners. i would in all sincerity suggest that humane and well-meaning men who exert themselves for the remission of the death-penalty as a mercy would rather implore that the doom of solitary and silent captivity should be remitted to the more merciful doom of an immediate relief from suffering by immediate execution--the opportunity of an immediate appeal from man's cruelty to god's justice. stephen joseph meany. from "legality of arrest." * * * * * do you ask me our duty as scholars? gentlemen, thought, which the scholar represents, is life and liberty. there is no intellectual or moral life without liberty. therefore, as a man must breathe and see before he can study, the scholar must have liberty first of all; and as the american scholar is a man and has a voice in his own government, so his interest in political affairs must precede all others. he must build his house before he can live in it. he must be a perpetual inspiration of freedom in politics. he must recognize that the intelligent exercise of political rights, which is a privilege in a monarchy, is a duty in a republic if it clash with his case, his retirement, his taste, his study, let it clash, but let him do his duty. the course of events is incessant, and when the good deed is slighted, the bad deed is done. george william curtis. from "the duty of the american scholar." * * * * * let us, then, go straight forward to our duty, taking heed of nothing but the right. in this wise shall we build a work in accord with the will of him who is daily fashioning the world to a higher destiny; a work resting at no point upon wrong or injustice, but everywhere reposing upon truth and justice; a work which all mankind will be interested in preserving in every age, since it will insure the increasing glory and well-being of mankind through all ages. ignatius donnelly. from "reconstruction." * * * * * we are not only to do some things, but we are to do all things, and we are to continue so to do, so that the least deviation from the moral law, according to the covenant of works, whether in thought, word, or deed, deserves eternal death at the hand of god. and if one evil thought, if one evil word, if one evil action deserves eternal damnation, how many hells, my friends, do every one of us deserve whose lives have been one continued rebellion against god! before ever, therefore, you can speak peace to your hearts, you must be brought to see, brought to believe, what a dreadful thing it is to depart from the living god. george whitefield. from sermon, "on the method of grace." * * * * * i say we must necessarily undo these violent, oppressive acts. they must he repealed. you will repeal them. i pledge myself for it that you will in the end repeal them. i stake my reputation on it. i will consent to be taken for an idiot if they are not finally repealed. avoid, then, this humiliating, disgraceful necessity. with a dignity becoming your exalted situation make the first advances to concord, to peace, and happiness; for that is your true dignity, to act with prudence and justice. that you should first concede is obvious, from sound and rational policy. concession comes with better grace and more salutary effect from superior power. it reconciles superiority of power with the feelings of men, and establishes solid confidence on the foundations of affection and gratitude. lord chatham. from "on removing troops from boston." for aught i know the next flash of electric fire that simmers along the ocean cable may tell us that paris, with every fiber quivering with the agony of impotent despair, writhes beneath the conquering heel of her loathed invader. ere another moon shall wax and wane the brightest star in the galaxy of nations may fall from the zenith of her glory never to rise again. ere the modest violets of early spring shall ope their beauteous eyes the genius of civilization may chant the wailing requiem of the proudest nationality the world has ever seen, as she shatters her withered and tear-moistened lilies o'er the bloody tomb of butchered france. james proctor knott. from speech on "duluth." * * * * * among her noblest children his native city will cherish him, and gratefully recall the unbending puritan soul that dwelt in a form so gracious and urbane. the plain house in which he lived--severely plain, because the welfare of the suffering and the slave were preferred to books and pictures and every fair device of art; the house to which the north star led the trembling fugitive, and which the unfortunate and friendless knew; the radiant figure passing swiftly through the streets, plain as the house from which it came, regal with royalty beyond that of kings; the ceaseless charity untold; the strong sustaining heart of private friendship; the eloquence which, like the song of orpheus, will fade from living memory into a doubtful tale; that great scene of his youth in faneuil hall; the surrender of ambition; the mighty agitation and the mighty triumph with which his name is forever blended; the consecration of a life hidden with god in sympathy with man--these, all these, will live among your immortal traditions, heroic even in your heroic story. but not yours alone! as years go by, and only the large outlines of lofty american characters and careers remain, the wide republic will confess the benediction of a life like this, and gladly own that if with perfect faith and hope assured america would still stand and "bid the distant generations hail," the inspiration of her national life must be the sublime moral courage, the all-embracing humanity, the spotless integrity, the absolutely unselfish, devotion of great powers to great public ends, which were the glory of wendell phillips. george william curtis. from "eulogy of wendell phillips." * * * * * no, it is something else than circumstances which makes us do god's will, just as it is something else than miracle which makes us believe his word. miracle and circumstances do their part. they assist the heart; they make the task of the will easier; they do not compel obedience. he who has made us free respects our freedom even when we use it against himself--even when we resist his own must gracious and gentle pressure and choose to disbelieve or to disobey him. if moses and the prophets are to persuade us--if we are not to be beyond persuasion, tho one rose from the dead--there must be that inward seeking, yearning after god, that wholeness of heart, that tender and affectionate disposition toward him who is the end as he is the source of our existence, of which the bible is so full from first to last--which is the very essence of religion--which he, its object and its author, gives most assuredly to all who ask him. henry parry liddon. from sermon, "the adequacy of present opportunities." * * * * * instantly under such an influence you ascend above the smoke and stir of this small local strife; you tread upon the high places of the earth and of history; you think and feel as an american for america; her power, her eminence, her consideration, her honor, are yours; your competitors, like hers, are kings; your home, like hers, is the world; your path, like hers, is on the highway of empires; our charge, her charge, is of generations and ages; your record, her record, is of treaties, battles, voyages, beneath all the constellations; her image, one, immortal, golden, rises on your eye as our western star at evening rises on the traveler from his home; no lowering cloud, no angry river, no lingering spring, no broken crevasse, no inundated city or plantation, no tracts of sand, arid and burning, on that surface, but all blended and softened into one beam of kindred rays, the image, harbinger, and promise of love, hope, and a brighter day! rufus choate. from "oration on american nationality." * * * * * i believe in woman-suffrage for the sake of woman herself. i believe in it because i am the son of a woman and the husband of a woman and the father of a prospective woman. i remember that at one of the first woman-suffrage meetings i ever attended one of the first speakers was an odd fellow from the neighboring town, considered half a lunatic. that didn't make much impression in those days when we were all considered a little crazy, but he was a little crazier than the rest of us. he pushed forward on the platform, seeming impatient to speak, and throwing his old hat down by his side, he said, "i don't know much about this subject nor any other; but i know this, my mother was a woman." i thought it was the best condensed woman-suffrage argument i ever heard in my life. thomas wentworth higginson. from "for self-respect and self-protection." when the people complain they must either be right or in error. if they be right, we are in duty bound to inquire into the conduct of the ministers and to punish those who appear to have been most guilty. if they be in error, we ought still to inquire into the conduct of our ministers in order to convince the people that they have been misled. we ought not, therefore, in any question relating to inquiry, to be governed by our own sentiments. we must be governed by the sentiments of our constituents if we are resolved to perform our duty both as true representatives of the people and as faithful subjects of our king. lord chatham. from "second speech on sir robert walpole." * * * * * for this great evil some immediate remedy must be provided; and i confess, my lords, i did hope that his majesty's servants would not have suffered so many years of peace to relapse without paying some attention to an object which ought to engage and interest all. i flattered myself i should see some barriers thrown up in defense of the constitution; some impediment formed to stop the rapid progress of corruption. i doubt not we all agree that something must be done. i shall offer my thoughts, such as they are, to the consideration of the house; and i wish that every noble lord that hears me would be as ready as i am to contribute his opinion to this important service. i will not call my own sentiments crude and undigested. it would he unfit for me to offer anything to your lordships which i had not well considered; and this subject, i own, has not long occupied my thoughts. i will now give them to your lordships without reserve. lord chatham. from "speech on the state of the nation." * * * * * we have the freedom and freshness of a youthful nationality. we can trace out new paths which must be followed by our successors; we have a right to plant wherever we please the trees under shade of which they will sit. the independence which we thus enjoy, and the freedom to originate which we can claim, are in themselves privileges, but privileges that carry with them great responsibilities. john william dawson. from "on the progress of science in canada." * * * * * from your great cities and teeming prairies, from your learned altars and countless cottages, from your palaces on sea and land, from your millions on the waters and your multiplied millions on the plains, let one united cheering voice meet the voice that now comes so earnest from the south, and let the two voices go up in harmonious, united, eternal, ever-swelling chorus, flag of our union! wave on; wave ever! ay, for it waves over freemen, not subjects; over states, not provinces; over a union of equals, not of lords and vassals; over a land of law, of liberty, and peace, not of anarchy, oppression, and strife! benjamin harvey hill. from "on the perils of the nation." * * * * * it is really astonishing to hear such an argument seriously urged in this house. but, say these gentlemen, if you found yourself upon a precipice, would you stand to inquire how you were led there before you considered how to get off? no, sir; but if a guide had led me there i should very probably be provoked to throw him over before i thought of anything else. at least i am sure i should not trust to the same guide for bringing me off; and this, sir, is the strongest argument that can be used for an inquiry. lord chatham. from "speech on sir robert walpole." * * * * * but let us hope for better things. let us trust in that gracious being who has hitherto held our country as in the hollow of his hand. let us trust to the virtue and the intelligence of the people, and to the efficacy of religious obligation. let us trust to the influence of washington's example. let us hope that that fear of heaven which expels all other fear, and that regard to duty which transcends all other regard, may influence public men and private citizens, and lead our country still onward in her happy career. full of these gratifying anticipations and hopes, let us look forward to the end of that century which is now commenced. a hundred years hence other disciples of washington will celebrate his birth, with no less of sincere admiration than we now commemorate it. when they shall meet, as we now meet, to do themselves and him that honor, so surely as they shall see the blue summits to his native mountains rise in the horizon, so surely as they shall behold the river on whose banks he lived, and on whose banks he rests, still flowing on toward the sea, so surely may they see, as we now see, the flag of the union floating on the top of the capitol; and then, as now, may the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country! daniel webster. from "the character of washington." * * * * * i am now talking of the invisible realities of another world, of inward religion, of the work of god upon a poor sinner's heart. i am now talking of a matter of great importance, my dear hearers; you are all concerned in it, your souls are concerned in it, your eternal salvation is concerned in it. you may be all at peace, but perhaps the devil has lulled you asleep into a carnal lethargy and security, and will endeavor to keep you there till he get you to hell, and there you will be awakened; but it will be dreadful to be awakened and find yourselves so fearfully mistaken, when the great gulf is fixt, when you will be calling to all eternity for a drop of water to cool your tongue and shall not obtain it. george whitefield. from "on the method of grace." * * * * * why, sir, have i been so careful in bringing down with great particularity these distinctions? because in my judgment there are certain logical consequences following from them as necessarily as various corollaries from a problem in euclid. if we are at war, as i think, with a foreign country, to all intents and purposes, how can a man here stand up and say that he is on the side of that foreign country and not be an enemy to his country? benjamin franklin butler. from "character and results of war." * * * * * my lords, this awful subject, so important to our honor, constitution, and our religion, demands the most solemn and effectual inquiry. and again i call upon your lordships, and the united powers of the state, to examine it thoroughly and decisively and to stamp upon it an indelible stigma of the public abhorrence. and again i implore those holy prelates of our religion to do away these iniquities from among us. let them perform an illustration; let them purify this house and this country from this sin. lord chatham. from "the attempt to subjugate america." * * * * * now, there are three questions before the people of the country to-day, and they are all public, all unselfish, all patriotic, all elevated, and all ennobling as subjects of contemplation and of action. they are the public peace in this large and general sense that i have indicated. they are the public faith, without which there is no such thing as honorable national life; and the public service, which unless pure and strong and noble makes all the pagans of free government but doggerel in our ears. william maxwell evarts. from "the day we celebrate." * * * * * indeed, gentlemen, washington's farewell address is full of truths important at all times, and particularly deserving consideration at the present. with a sagacity which brought the future before him, and made it like the present, he saw and pointed out the dangers that even at this moment most imminently threaten us. i hardly know how a greater service of that kind could now be done to the community than by a renewed and wide diffusion of that admirable paper, and an earnest invitation to every man in the country to reperuse and consider it. its political maxims are invaluable; its exhortations to love of country and to brotherly affection among citizens, touching; and the solemnity with which it urges the observance of moral duties, and impresses the power of religious obligation, gives to it the highest character of truly disinterested, sincere, parental advice. daniel webster. from "the character of washington." * * * * * let no man dare, when i am dead, to charge me with dishonor; let no man attaint my memory by believing that i could have engaged in any cause but that of my country's liberty and independence; or that i could have become the pliant minion of power in the oppression or the miseries of my countrymen. the proclamation of the provisional government speaks for our views; no inference can be tortured from it to countenance barbarily or debasement at home, or subjection, humiliation, or treachery from abroad. i would not have submitted to a foreign oppressor for the same reason that i would resist the foreign and domestic oppressor; in the dignity of freedom i would have fought upon the threshold of my country, and its enemy should enter only by passing over my lifeless corpse. am i, who lived but for my country, and who have subjected myself to the dangers of the jealous and watchful oppressor and the bondage of the grave only to give my countrymen their rights and my country her independence--am i to be loaded with calumny and not suffered to resent or repel it? no, god forbid! robert emmet. from "speech when under sentence of death." * * * * * when the law is the will of the people, it will be uniform and coherent; but fluctuation, contradiction, and inconsistency of councils must be expected under those governments where every evolution in the ministry of a court produces one in the state--such being the folly and pride of all ministers, that they ever pursue measures directly opposite to those of their predecessors. samuel adams. from "american independence." * * * * * i refer to the past not in malice, for this is no day for malice, but simply to place more distinctly in front the gratifying and glorious change which has come both to our white fellow citizens and ourselves and to congratulate all upon the contrast between now and then, the new dispensation of freedom with its thousand blessings to both races, and the old dispensation of slavery with its ten thousand evils to both races--white and black. in view, then, of the past, the present, and the future, with the long and dark history of our bondage behind us, and with liberty, progress and enlightenment before us, i again congratulate you upon this auspicious day and hour. frederick douglass. from "inauguration of the freedmen's memorial monument to abraham lincoln." * * * * * in all popular tumults the worst men bear the sway at first. moderate and good men are often silent for fear of modesty, who in good time may declare themselves. those who have any property to lose are sufficiently alarmed already at the progress of these public violences and violations to which every man's dwelling, person, and property are hourly exposed. numbers of such valuable men and good subjects are ready and willing to declare themselves for the support of government in due time, if government does not fling away its own authority. lord mansfield. from "the right of england to tax america." * * * * * in jurisprudence, which reluctantly admits any new adjunct, and counts in its train a thousand champions ready to rise in defense of its formularies and technical rules, the victory has been brilliant and decisive. the civil and the common law have yielded to the pressure of the times, and have adopted much which philosophy and experience have recommended, altho it stood upon no test of the pandects and claimed no support from the feudal polity. commercial law, at least so far as england and america are concerned, is the creation of the eighteenth century. it started into life with the genius of lord mansfield, and, gathering in its course whatever was valuable in the earlier institutes of foreign countries, had reflected back upon them its own superior lights, so as to become the guide and oracle of the commercial world. joseph story. from "characteristics of the age." * * * * * when that history comes to be written you know whose will be the central and prominent figure. you know that mr. gladstone will stand out before posterity as the greatest man of his time--remarkable not only for his extraordinary eloquence, for his great ability, for his stedfastness of purpose, for his constructive skill, but more, perhaps, than all these, for his personal character, and for the high tone that he has introduced into our polities and public fife. i sometimes think that great men are like great mountains, and that we do not appreciate their magnitude while we are close to them. you have to go to a distance to see which peak it is that towers above its fellows; and it may be that we shall have to put between us and mr. gladstone a space of time before we shall see how much greater he has been than any of his competitors for fame and power. joseph chamberlain. from "on liberal aims." * * * * * let us never despair of our country. actual evils can be mitigated; bad tendencies can be turned aside; the burdens of government can be diminished; productive industry will be renewed; and frugality will repair the waste of our resources. then shall the golden days of the republic once more return, and the people become prosperous and happy, samuel jones tilden. from "address on administrative reform." * * * * * had abraham lincoln died from any of the numerous ills to which flesh is heir; had he reached that good old age to which his rigorous constitution and his temperate habits gave promise; had he been permitted to see the end of his great work; had the solemn curtain of death come down but gradually, we should still have been smitten with a heavy grief and treasured his name lovingly. but dying as he did die, by the red hand of violence; killed, assassinated, taken off without warning, not because of personal hate, but because of his fidelity to union and liberty, he is doubly dear to us and will be precious forever. frederick douglass. from "inauguration of the freedmen's memorial monument to abraham lincoln." * * * * * let this be an occasion of joy. why should it not be so! is not the heaven over your heads, which has so long been clothed in sackcloth, beginning to disclose its starry principalities and illumine your pathway? do you not see the pitiless storm which, has so long been pouring its rage upon you breaking away, and a bow of promise as glorious as that which succeeded the ancient deluge spanning the sky--a token that to the end of time the billows of prejudice and oppression shall no more cover the earth to the destruction of your race; but seedtime and harvest shall never fail, and the laborer shall eat the fruit of his hands. is not your cause developing like the spring? yours has been a long and rigorous winter. the chill of contempt, the frost of adversity, the blast of persecution, the storm of oppression--all have been yours. there was no substance to be found--no prospect to delight the eye or inspire the drooping heart--no golden ray to dissipate the gloom. the waves of derision were stayed by no barrier, but made a clear breach over you. but now--thanks be to god! that dreary winter is rapidly hastening away. the sun of humanity is going steadily up from the horizon to its zenith, growing larger and brighter, and melting the frozen earth beneath, its powerful rays. the genial showers of repentance are softly falling upon the barren plain; the wilderness is budding like the rose; the voice of joy succeeds the cotes of we; and hope, like the lark, is soaring upward and warbling hymns at the gate of heaven. william lloyd garrison. "from words of encouragement to the opprest." * * * * * listen to the voice of justice and of reason; it cries to us that human judgments are never certain enough to warrant society in giving death to a man convicted by other men liable to error. had you imagined the most perfect judicial system; had you found the most upright and enlightened judges, there will always remain some room for error or prejudice. why interdict to yourselves the means of reparation? why condemn yourself to powerlessness to help opprest innocence? what good can come of the sterile regrets, these illusory reparations you grant to a vain shade, to insensible ashes? they are the sad testimonials of the barbarous temerity of your penal laws. to rob the man of the possibility of expiating his crime by his repentance or by acts of virtue; to close to him without mercy every return toward a proper life, and his own esteem; to hasten his descent, as it were, into the grave still covered with the recent blotch, of his crime, is in my eyes the most horrible refinement of cruelty. maximilien marie isidore robespierre. from "against capital punishment." * * * * * and love, young men, love and venerate the ideal. the ideal is the word of god. high above every country, high above humanity, is the country of the spirit, the city of the soul, in which all are brethren who believe in the inviolability of thought and in the dignity of our immortal soul; and the baptism of this fraternity is martyrdom. from that high sphere spring the principles which alone can redeem the peoples. arise for the sake of these, and not from impatience of suffering or dread of evil. anger, pride, ambition, and the desire of material prosperity, are common alike to the peoples and their oppressors, and even should you conquer with these to-day, you would fall again to-morrow; but principles belong to the peoples alone, and their oppressors can find no arms to oppose them. adore enthusiasm, the dreams of the virgin soul, and the visions of early youth, for they are a perfume of paradise which the soul retains in issuing from the hands of its creator. respect, above all things, your conscience; have upon your lips the truth implanted by god in your hearts, and, while laboring in harmony, even with those who differ from you, in all that tends to the emancipation of our soil, yet ever bear your own banner erect and boldly promulgate your own faith. giuseppe mazzini. from "to the young men of italy." * * * * * even if we conquer the south, as conquer we must, unless chastened by visible misfortunes in the north, our triumph breeding unbounded conceit, we plunge the deeper in the vortex of voluptuous prosperity, our country forgotten by the people, its honors and dignities the sport and plunder of every knave and fool that can court or bribe the mob, the national debt repudiated, justice purchased in her temples as laws now are in the legislature, the life and property of no man safe, the last relics of public virtue destroyed, anarchy will reign amid universal ruin. daniel dougherty. from "address on the perils of the republic." * * * * * to conclude "how are the mighty fallen!" fallen before the desolating hand of death. alas, the ruins of the tomb! the ruins of the tomb are an emblem of the ruins of the world; when not an individual, but a universe, already marred by sin and hastening to dissolution, shall agonize and die! directing your thoughts from the one, fix them for a moment on the other. anticipate the concluding scene, the final catastrophe of nature, when the sign of the son of man shall he seen in heaven; when the son of man himself shall appear in the glory of his father, and send forth judgment unto victory. the fiery desolation envelops towns, palaces, and fortresses; the heavens pass away! the earth melts! and all those magnificent productions of art which ages heaped on ages have reared up are in one awful day reduced to ashes. eliphalet nott. from the sermon "on the death of alexander hamilton." * * * * * "westward the course of empire takes its way; the four first acts already past, a fifth shall close the drama with the day: time's noblest offspring is the last." this extraordinary prophecy may be considered only as the result of long foresight and uncommon sagacity; of a foresight and sagacity stimulated, nevertheless, by excited feeling and high enthusiasm. so clear a vision of what america would become was not founded on square miles, or on existing numbers, or on any common laws of statistics. it was an intuitive glance into futurity; it was a grand conception, which they have hitherto so hopelessly mismanaged, you must expect to go on from had to worse; you must expect to lose the little prestige which you retain; you must expect to find in other portions of the world the results of the lower consideration that you occupy in the eyes of mankind; you must expect to be drawn, on, degree by degree, step by step, under the cover of plausible excuses, under the cover of highly philanthropic sentiments, to irreparable disasters, and to disgrace that it will be impossible to efface. lord salisbury. from "speech on the abandonment of general gordon." * * * * * you will pardon me, gentlemen, if i say i think that we have need of a more rigorous scholastic rule; such an asceticism, i mean, as only the hardihood and devotion of the scholar himself can enforce. we live in the sun and on the surface--a thin, plausible, superficial existence, and talk of muse and prophet, of art and creation. but out of our shallow and frivolous way of life, how can greatness ever grow? come now, let us go and be dumb. let us sit with our hands on our mouths, a long, austere, pythagorean lustrum. let us live in corners and do chores, and suffer, and weep, and drudge, with eyes and hearts that love the lord. silence, seclusion, austerity, may pierce deep into the grandeur and secret of our being, and so living bring up out of secular darkness the sublimities of the moral constitution. how mean to go blazing, a gaudy butterfly, in fashionable or political saloons, the fool of society, the fool of notoriety, a topic for newspapers, a piece of the street, and forfeiting the real prerogative of the russet coat, the privacy, and the true and warm heart of the citizen! emerson. from "literary ethics." * * * * * sir, we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great public principles of liberty, and to do honor to the distinguished dead. the occasion is too severe for eulogy to the living. but, sir, your interesting relation to this country, the peculiar circumstances which surround you and surround us, call on me to express the happiness which we derive from your presence and aid in this solemn commemoration. webster. from "laying the cornerstone of bunker hill monument." * * * * * all experience teaches that the requirements and impartial practise of the principles of civil and religious liberty can not speedily be acquired by the inhabitants, left to their own way, under a protectorate by this nation. the experience of this nation in governing and endeavoring to civilize the indians teaches this. for about a century this nation exercised a protectorate over the tribes and allowed the natives of the country to manage their tribal and other relations in their own way. the advancement in civilization, was very slow and hardly perceptible. during the comparatively few years that congress has by direct legislation controlled their relations to each other and to the reservations the advancement in civilization has been tenfold more rapid. this is in accord with all experience. the un-taught can not become acquainted with the difficult problems of government and of individual rights and their due enforcement without skilful guides. jonathan ross. from "the nation's relation to its island possessions." * * * * * my friend, will you hear me to-day? hark! what is he saying to you? "come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and i will give you rest. take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for i am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." will you not think well of such a savior? will you not believe in him? will you not trust in him with all your heart and mind? will you not live for him? if he laid down his life for us, is it not the least we can do to lay down ours for him? if he bore the cross and died on it for me, ought i not be willing to take it up for him? oh have we not reason to think well of him? do you think it is right and noble to lift up your voice against such, a savior? do you think it just to cry "crucify him! crucify him!" oh, may god help all of us to glorify the father, by thinking well of his only-begotten son. dwight lyman moody. from "what think ye of christ?" * * * * * life has been often styled an ocean and our progress through it a voyage. the ocean is tempestuous and billowy, overspread by a cloudy sky, and fraught beneath with shelves and quick-sands. the voyage is eventful beyond comprehension, and at the same time full of uncertainty and replete with danger. every adventurer needs to be well prepared for whatever may befall him, and well secured against the manifold hazards of losing his course, sinking in the abyss, or of being wrecked against the shore. timothy dwight. from sermon, "the sovereignty of god." * * * * * i shall endeavor to clear away from the question all that mass of dissertation and learning displayed in arguments which have been fetched from speculative men who have written upon the subject of government, or from ancient records, as being little to the purpose. i shall insist that these records are no proofs of our present constitution. a noble lord has taken up his argument from the settlement of the constitution at the revolution; i shall take up my argument from the constitution as it is now. mansfield. from "the right of england to tax america." * * * * * the rays from this torch illuminate a century of unbroken friendship between france and the united states. peace and its opportunities for material progress and the expansion of popular liberties send from here a fruitful and noble lesson to all the world. it will teach the people of all countries that in curbing the ambitions and dynastic purposes of princes and privileged classes, and in cultivating the brotherhood of man, lies the true road to their enfranchisement. the friendship of individuals, their unselfish devotion to each other, their willingness to die in each other's stead, are the most tender and touching of human records; they are the inspiration of youth and the solace of age; but nothing human is so beautiful and sublime as two great peoples of alien race and language. chauncey mitchell depew. from "oration at the unveiling of the bartholdi statue." * * * * * with consciences satisfied with the discharge of duty, no consequences can harm you. there is no evil that we can not either face or fly from, but the consciousness of duty disregarded. a sense of duty pursues us ever. it is omnipresent, like the deity. if we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. if we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us. we can not escape their power, nor fly from their presence. they are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity, which lies yet further onward, we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the consciousness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and to console us so far as god may have given us grace to perform it. webster. from "the trial of john francis knapp for the murder of captain joseph white." * * * * * in the short space of time spanned by a single life, as if by "the touch of the enchanter's wand," the people have built a government before which the mightiest realms of the earth pale their splendors as do the stars of night before the refulgent glory of the coming day. population has increased from three to thirty millions. instead of thirteen, thirty-one stars now shine in the clear blue of this glorious flag. the multitudinous pursuits of enlightened life are cultivated to their highest pitch. the press is mighty and free. peace and contentment smile alike around the poor man's hearth and the rich man's hall. education scatters its priceless gift to every home in the land. religion gathers around its altars the faithful of every creed. statesmen have arisen "fit to govern all the world and rule it when 'tis wildest." orators have appeared who have rivaled the great masters of antiquity. the doors of the american parthenon are ever open to invite the humble but aspiring youth to enter and fill the loftiest niche. the highest dignity is within the grasp of all; for the lowly boy, born and reared in our own sweet valley of cumberland, shall, when the spring comes round again, be clothed by the people with the first of mortal honors--that of guiding for a time the american republic upon her highway of glory. daniel dougherty. from "oration on democracy." public speaking principles and practice by irvah lester winter in offering a book to students of public speaking the author would pay what tribute is here possible to charles william eliot who for many years has taught by example the power and beauty of perfected speech preface this book is designed to set forth the main principles of effective platform delivery, and to provide a large body of material for student practice. the work laid out may be used to form a separate course of study, or a course of training running parallel with a course in debating or other original speaking. it has been prepared with a view also to that large number who want to speak, or have to speak, but cannot have the advantage of a teacher. much is therefore said in the way of caution, and untechnical language is used throughout. the discussion of principles in part one is intended as a help towards the student's understanding of his task, and also as a common basis of criticism in the relation between teacher and pupil. the preliminary fundamental work of part two, technical training, deals first with the right formation of tone, the development of voice as such, the securing of a fixed right vocal habit. following comes the adapting of this improved voice to the varieties of use, or expressional effect, demanded of the public speaker. after this critical detailed drill, the student is to take the platform, and apply his acquired technique to continued discourse, receiving criticism after each entire piece of work. the question as to what should be the plan and the content of part three, platform practice, has been determined simply by asking what are the distinctly varied conditions under which men most frequently speak. it is regarded as profitable for the student to practice, at least to some extent, in all the several kinds of speech here chosen. in thus cultivating versatility, he will greatly enlarge his power of expression, and will, at length, discover wherein lies his own special capability. the principal aim in choosing the selections has been to have them sufficiently alive to be attractive to younger speakers, and not so heavy as to be unsuited to their powers. some of them have proved effective by use; many others are new. in all cases they are of good quality. it is hoped that the new features of the book will be found useful. one of these is a group of lighter after-dinner speeches and anecdotes. it has been said that, in present-day speech-making, humor has supplanted former-day eloquence. it plays anyway a considerable part in various kinds of speaking. the young speaker is generally ineffective in the expression of pleasantry, even his own. practice in the speaking of wholesome humor is good for cultivating quality of voice and ease of manner, and for developing the faculty of giving humorous turn to one's own thought. it is also entertaining to fellow students. other new features in the book are a practice section for the kind of informal speaking suited to the club or the classroom, and a section given to the occasional poem, the kind of poem that is associated with speech- making. a considerable space is given to argumentative selections because of the general interest in debating, and because a need has been felt for something suited for special forensic practice among students of law. some poetic selections are introduced into part two in order to give attractive variety to the student's work, and to provide for the advantage of using verse form in some of the vocal training. the few character sketches introduced may serve for cultivating facility in giving entertaining touches to serious discourse. all the selections for platform practice are designed, as seems most fitting, to occupy about five minutes in delivery. original speeches, wherein the student presents his own thought, may be intermingled with this more technical work in delivery, or may be taken up in a more special way in a subsequent course. it should, perhaps, be suggested that the plan of procedure here prescribed can be modified to suit the individual teacher or student. the method of advance explained in the discussion of principles is believed to be the best, but some who use the book may prefer, for example, to begin with the second group of selections, the familiar, colloquial passages, and proceed from these to those more elevated and sustained. this or any other variation from the plan here proposed can, of course, be adopted. for any plan the variety of material is deemed sufficient, and the method of grouping will be found convenient and practical. the making of this kind of book would not be possible except for the generous privileges granted by many authors and many publishers of copyrighted works. for the special courtesies of all whose writings have a place here the editor would make the fullest acknowledgment of indebtedness. the books from which extracts are taken have been mentioned, in every case, in a prominent place with the title of the selection, in order that so far as possible students may be led carefully to read the entire original, and become fully imbued with its meaning and spirit, before undertaking the vocal work on the selected portion. for the purpose of such reading, it would be well to have these books collected on a section of shelves in school libraries for easy and ready reference. the publishers from whose books selections have been most liberally drawn are, messrs. houghton mifflin company, messrs. lothrop, lee and shepard, messrs. little, brown, and company, of boston, and messrs. harper and brothers, messrs. charles scribner's sons, messrs. g. p. putnam's sons, messrs. g. w. dillingham company, messrs. doubleday, page and company, and mr. c. p. farrell, new york. several of the after-dinner speeches are taken from the excellent fifteen volume collection, "modern eloquence," by an arrangement with geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. in the first three volumes of this collection will be found many other attractive after-dinner speeches. i. l. w. cambridge, massachusetts. contents preface introduction part one a discussion of principles technical training establishing the tone vocal flexibility the formation of words making the point indicating values and relations expressing the feeling showing the picture expression by action platform practice the formal address the public lecture the informal discussion argumentative speech the after-dinner speech the occasional poem the making of the speech part two technical training establishing the tone o scotia!.......................... _robert burns_ o rome! my country!................ _lord byron_ ring out, wild bells!.............. _alfred lord tennyson_ roll on, thou deep!................ _lord byron_ thou too, sail on!................. _henry w. longfellow_ o tiber, father tiber!............. _lord macaulay_ marullus to the roman citizens..... _william shakespeare_ the recessional.................... _rudyard kipling_ the cradle of liberty.............. _daniel webster_ the impeachment of warren hastings. _edmund burke_ bunker hill........................ _daniel webster_ the gettysburg address............. _abraham lincoln_ vocal flexibility cæsar, the fighter................. _henry w. longfellow_ official duty...................... _theodore roosevelt_ look well to your speech........... _george herbert palmer_ hamlet to the players.............. _william shakespeare_ bellario's letter.................. _william shakespeare_ casca, speaking of cæsar........... _william shakespeare_ squandering of the voice........... _henry ward beecher_ the training of the gentleman...... _william j. tucker_ making the point brutus to the roman citizens....... _william shakespeare_ the precepts of polonius........... _william shakespeare_ the high standard.................. _lord rosebery_ on taxing the colonies............. _edmund burke_ justifying the president........... _john c. spooner_ britain and america................ _john bright_ values and transitions king robert of sicily.............. _henry w. longfellow_ laying the atlantic cable.......... _james t. fields_ o'connell, the orator.............. _wendell phillips_ justification for impeachment...... _edmund burke_ wendell phillips, the orator....... _george william curtis_ on the disposal of public lands.... _robert y. hayne_ the declaration of independence.... _abraham lincoln_ expressing the feeling northern greeting to southern veterans. ................................... _henry cabot lodge_ matches and overmatches............ _daniel webster_ the coalition...................... _daniel webster_ in his own defense................. _robert emmet_ on resistance to great britain..... _patrick henry_ invective against louis bonaparte.. _victor hugo_ showing the picture mount, the doge of venice!......... _mary russell mitford_ the revenge........................ _alfred lord tennyson_ a vision of war.................... _robert g. ingersoll_ sunset near jerusalem.............. _corwin knapp linson_ a return in triumph................ _t. de witt talmage_ a return in defeat................. _henry w. grady_ expression by action in our forefathers' day............ _t. de witt talmage_ cassius against cæsar.............. _william shakespeare_ the spirit of the south............ _henry w. grady_ something rankling here............ _daniel webster_ faith in the people................ _john bright_ the french against hayti........... _wendell phillips_ the necessity of force............. _john m. thurston_ against war with mexico............ _thomas corwin_ the murder of lovejoy.............. _wendell phillips_ depicting character a tale of the plains............... _theodore roosevelt_ gunga din.......................... _rudyard kipling_ address of sergeant buzfuz......... _charles dickens_ a natural philosopher.............. _maccabe_ response to a toast................ _litchfield moseley_ partridge at the play.............. _henry fielding_ a man's a man for a that........... _robert burns_ artemus ward's lecture............. _charles farrar brown_ jim bludso, of the prairie belle... _john hay_ the trial of abner barrow.......... _richard harding davis_ part three platform practice the speech of formal occasion the benefits of a college education _abbott lawrence lowell_ what the college gives............. _le baron russell briggs_ memorial day address............... _john d. long_ william mckinley................... _john hay_ robert e. lee...................... _john w. daniel_ farewell address to the united states senate. ...................................._henry clay_ the death of garfield.............. _james g. blaine_ the second inaugural address....... _abraham lincoln_ the death of prince albert......... _benjamin disraeli_ an appreciation of mr. gladstone... _arthur j. balfour_ william e. gladstone............... _lord rosebery_ the soldier's creed................ _horace porter_ competition in college............. _abbott lawrence lowell_ the public lecture a master of the situation.......... _james t. fields_ wit and humor...................... _minot j. savage_ a message to garcia................ _elbert hubbard_ shakespeare's "mark antony"........ _anonymous_ andré and hale..................... _chauncey m. depew_ the battle of lexington............ _theodore parker_ the homes of the people............ _henry w. grady_ general ulysses s. grant........... _canon g. w. farrar_ american courage................... _sherman hoar_ the minutemen of the revolution.... _george william curtis_ paul revere's ride................. _george william curtis_ the arts of the ancients........... _wendell phillips_ a man without a country............ _edward everett hale_ the execution of rodriguez......... _richard harding davis_ the informal discussion the flood of books................. _henry van dyke_ effectiveness in speaking.......... _william jennings bryan_ books, literature and the people... _henry van dyke_ education for business............. _charles william eliot_ the beginnings of american oratory. _thomas wentworth higginson_ daniel webster, the man............ _thomas wentworth higginson_ the enduring value of speech....... _thomas wentworth higginson_ to college girls................... _le baron russell briggs_ the art of acting.................. _henry irving_ address to the freshman class at harvard university ...................................._charles william eliot_ with tennyson at farringford....... _by his son_ notes on speech-making............. _brander matthews_ hunting the grizzly................ _theodore roosevelt_ argument and persuasion debates and campaign speeches on retaining the philippine islands _george f. hoar_ on retaining the philippine islands _william mckinley_ debate on the tariff............... _thomas b. reed_ debate on the tariff............... _charles f. crisp_ south carolina and massachusetts... _robert y. hayne_ south carolina and massachusetts... _daniel webster_ the republican party............... _john hay_ nominating ulysses s. grant........ _roscoe conkling_ the choice of a party.............. _roscoe conkling_ nominating john sherman............ _james a. garfield_ the democratic party............... _william e. russell_ the call to democrats.............. _alton b. parker_ nominating woodrow wilson.......... _john w. wescott_ democratic faith................... _william e. russell_ england and america................ _john bright_ on home rule in ireland............ _william e. gladstone_ the legal plea the dartmouth college case......... _daniel webster_ in defense of the kennistons....... _daniel webster_ in defense of the kennistons, ii... _daniel webster_ in defense of john e. cook......... _d. w. voorhees_ in defense of the soldiers......... _josiah quincy, jr._ in defense of the soldiers, ii..... _josiah quincy, jr._ in defense of the soldiers, iii.... _josiah quincy, jr._ in defense of lord george gordon... _lord thomas erskine_ pronouncing sentence for high treason ................................... _sir alfred wills_ the impeachment of andrew johnson.. _george s. boutwell_ the impeachment of andrew johnson.. _william m. evarts_ the impeachment of andrew johnson, ii ................................... _william m. evarts_ the after-dinner speech at a university club dinner........ _henry e. howland_ the evacuation of new york......... _joseph h. choate_ ties of kinship.................... _sir edwin arnold_ canada, england and the united states ................................... _sir wilfred laurier_ monsieur and madame................ _paul blouet (max o'rell)_ the typical american............... _henry w. grady_ the pilgrim mothers................ _joseph h. choate_ bright land to westward............ _e. o. wolcott_ woman.............................. _theodore tilton_ abraham lincoln.................... _horace porter_ to athletic victors................ _henry e. howland_ the occasional poem charles dickens.................... _william watson_ the mariners of england............ _thomas campbell_ class poem......................... _langdon warner_ a troop of the guard............... _hermann hagedorn, jr._ the boys........................... _oliver wendell holmes_ the anecdote the mob conquered.................. _george william curtis_ an example of faith................ _henry w. grady_ the rail-splitter.................. _h. l. williams_ o'connell's wit.................... _wendell phillips_ a reliable team.................... _theodore roosevelt_ meg's marriage..................... _robert collyer_ outdoing mrs. partington........... _sidney smith_ circumstance not a cause........... _sidney smith_ more terrible than the lions....... _a. a. mccormick_ irving, the actor.................. _john de morgan_ wendell phillips's tact............ _james burton pond_ baked beans and culture............ _eugene field_ secretary chase's chin-fly......... _f. b. carpenter_ index of titles index of authors introduction happily, it is no longer necessary to argue that public speaking is a worthy subject for regular study in school and college. the teaching of this subject, in one form or another, is now fairly well established. in each of the larger universities, including professional schools and summer schools, the students electing the courses in speaking number well into the hundreds. these courses are now being more generally placed among those counted towards the academic degrees. the demand for trained teachers in the various branches of the work in schools and colleges is far above the present supply. educators in general look with more favor upon this kind of instruction, recognizing its practical usefulness and its cultural value. the question of the present time, then, is not whether or not the subject shall have a place. some sort of place it always has had and always will have. present discussion should rather bear upon the policy and the method of that instruction, the qualifications to be required of teachers, and the consideration for themselves and their work that teachers have a right to expect. naturally, public speaking in the form of debating has received favor among educators. it seems to serve the ends of practice in speaking and it gives also good mental discipline. the high regard for debating is not misplaced. we can hardly overestimate the good that debating has done to the subject of speaking in the schools and colleges. the rigid intellectual discipline involved in debating has helped to establish public speaking in the regular curriculum, thus gaining for it, and for teachers in it, greater respect. to bring training in speech into close relation with training in thought, and with the study of expression in english, is most desirable. this, however, does _not_ mean that training in speech, as a distinct object in itself, should be allowed to fall into comparative neglect. it is quite possible that, along with the healthy disapproval of false elocution and meaningless declamation, may come an underestimation of the important place of a right kind and a due degree of technical training in voice and general form. in a recent book on public speaking, the statement is made that it is all well enough, if it so happens, for a speaker to have a pleasing voice, but it is not essential. this, though true in a sense, is misleading, and much teaching of this sort would be unfortunate for young speakers. it would seem quite unnecessary to say that beauty of voice is not in itself a primary object in vocal training for public speaking. the object is to make voices effective. in the effective use of any other instrument, we apply the utmost skill for the perfect adjustment or coordination of all the means of control. we do this for the attainment of power, for the conserving of energy, for the insuring of endurance and ease of operation. this is the end in the training of the voice. it is to avoid friction. it is to prevent nervous strain, muscular distortion, and failing power, and to secure easy response to the will of the speaker. the point not wholly understood or heeded is that, as a rule, the unpleasing voice is an indication of ill adjustment and friction. it denotes a mechanism wearing on itself--it means a voice that will weaken or fail before its time--a voice that needs repair. since speech is to express a speaker's thought, training in speech should not be altogether dissociated from training in thinking. it ought to go hand in hand, indeed, with the study of english, from first to last. but training in voice and in the method of speech is a technical matter. it ought not to be left to the haphazard treatment, the intense spurring on, of vocally unskilled coaches for speaking contests. discussions about the teaching of speaking are often very curious. we are frequently told by what means a few great orators have succeeded, but we are hardly ever informed of the causes from which many other speakers have been embarrassed or have failed. a book or essay is written to prove, from the individual experience of the author, the infallibility of a method. he was able to succeed, the argument runs, only by this or that means; therefore all should do as he did. it seems very plausible and attractive to read, for instance, that to succeed in speaking, it is only necessary to plunge in and be in earnest. but another writer points out that this is quite absurd; that many poor speakers have not lacked in intense earnestness and sincerity; that it isn't feeling or intense spirit alone that insures success, but it is the attainment as well of a vocal method. yet he goes on to argue that this vocal method, this forming of a public speaking voice and style, cannot be rightly gained from the teachers; it must be acquired through the exercise of each man's own will; if a man finds he is going wrong he must will to go right--as if many men had not persistently but unsuccessfully exercised their will to this very end. it is so easy, and so attractive, to resolve all problems into one idea. president woodrow wilson, of princeton university, once said that he always avoided the man or the book that proclaimed one idea for the correcting of society's ills. these ideas on which books or essays are written are too obviously fallacious to need extended comment; the wonder is that they are often quoted and commended as being beneficial in their teaching. if we want to row or sprint or play golf, we do not simply go in and do our utmost; we apply the best technical skill to the art; we seek to learn how, from the experience of the past, and through the best instructors obtainable. both common sense and experience show that the use of the human voice in the art of speaking is not the one thing, among all things, that cannot be successfully taught. the results of vocal teaching show, on the contrary, from multitudes of examples, from volumes of testimony, that there are few branches of instruction wherein the specially trained teacher is so much needed, and can be so effective as in the art of speaking. in an experience extending over many years, an experience dealing with about all the various forms of public speaking and vocal teaching, the present writer has tried many methods, conducted classes on several different plans, learned the needs, observed the efforts, considered the successes and failures, of many men and women of various ages and of many callings. the constant and insistent fact in all this period of experience has been that skillful, technical instruction, as such, is the one kind of instruction that should always be provided where public speaking is taught, and the one that the student should not fail to secure when it is at hand. other elements in good speech-making may, if necessary, be obtained from other sources. the teacher of speaking should teach speech. he should teach something else also, but he should, as a technician, teach that. the multitude of men and women who, in earlier and later life, come, in vocal trouble, to seek help from the experienced teacher, and the abundance of testimony as to the satisfactory results; the repeated evidences of failure to produce rightly trained voices wholly by so-called inspirational methods; the frequent evidences of pernicious vocal results from the forcing of young voices in the overintense and hasty efforts made in preparing for prize speaking, acting, and debating,--all these may not come to the understanding of the ordinary observer; they may not often, perhaps, come within the experience of the exceptionally gifted individuals who are usually cited as examples of distinguished success; they cannot impress themselves on educators who have little or no relation with this special subject; they naturally come into the knowledge and experience of the specially trained teacher of public speaking, who is brought into intimate relations with the subject and deals with all sorts and conditions of men. out of this experience comes the strong conviction that the teacher of public speaking should be a vocal technician and a vocal physician, able to teach constructively and to treat correctively, knowing all he can of all that has been taught before, but teaching only as much of what he knows as is necessary to any individual. for the dignity and worth of the teaching, the teacher of speaking should be trained, and should be a trainer, as has been indirectly said, in some other subject--in english literature or composition, in debating, history, or what not. he should be one of the academic faculty--concerned with thought, which speech expresses. he should not, for his other subject, be mainly concerned with gymnastics or athletics; he should not, for his own good and the consequent good of his work, be wholly taken up merely with the teaching of technical form in speaking. he should not be merely--if at all--a coach in inter- collegiate contests; nor should his service to an institution be adjudged mainly by the results of such contests. he should be an independent, intellectually grown and growing man, one who--in his exceptionally intimate relations with students--will have a large and right influence on student life. the offer recently held out by a university of a salary and an academic rank equal to its best, to a sufficiently qualified instructor in public speaking, was one of the several signs of a sure movement of to-day in the right direction--the demand for a man of high character and broad culture, specially skilled in the technical subject he was to teach, and the providing of a worthy position. one fact that needs to be impressed upon governing bodies of school and college is that the cultivation of good speaking cannot but be unsatisfactory when it is continued over only a very brief time. it may only do mischief. a considerable period is necessary, as is the case with other subjects, for reaching the student intelligence, for molding the faculties, for maturing the powers, for adapting method to the individual, and for bringing the personality out through the method, so that method disappears. senator george f. hoar once gave very sensible advice in an address to an audience of harvard students. he did not content himself with dwelling on the inevitable platitude, first have something to say, and then say it; he said he had been, in all his career, at a special disadvantage in public speaking, from the want of early training in the use of his voice; and he urged that students would do well not only to take advantage of such training in college, but to have their teacher, if it were possible, follow them, for a time, into their professional work. this idea was well exemplified in the case of phillips brooks--a speaker of spontaneity, simplicity, and splendid power. it is said that, in the period of his pulpit work, in the midst of his absorbing church labors, he made it a duty to go from time to time for a period of work with his teacher of voice, that he might be kept from falling back into wrong ways. it is often said that, if a man has it in him, he will speak well anyway. it is emphatically the man who has it in him, the man of intense temperament, like that of phillips brooks, who most needs the balance wheel, the sure reliance, of technique. that this technique should not be too technical; that form should not be too formal; that teaching should not be too good, or do too much, is one of the principles of good teaching. the point insisted on is that a considerable time is needed, as it is in other kinds of teaching, for thoroughly working out a few essential principles; for overcoming a few obstinate faults; for securing matured results by the right process of gradual development. there is much cause for gratification in the evidences of a growing appreciation, in all quarters, of the place due to spoken english, as a study to be taught continuously side by side with written english. much progress has also been made toward making youthful platform speaking, as well as youthful writing, more rational in form, more true in spirit, more useful for its purpose. in good time written and spoken english, conjoined with disciplinary training in thought and imagination, will both become firmly established in their proper place as subjects to be thoroughly and systematically taught. good teaching will become traditional, and good teachers not rare. and among the specialized courses in public speaking an important place should always be given to an exact training in voice and in the whole art of effective delivery. part one a discussion of principles technical training establishing the tone the common trouble in using the voice for the more vigorous or intense forms of speaking is a contraction or straining of the throat. this impedes the free flow of voice, causing impaired tone, poor enunciation, and unhealthy physical conditions. students should, therefore, be constantly warned against the least beginnings of this fault. the earlier indications of it may not be observed, or the nature of the trouble may not be known, by the untrained speaker. but it ought to have, from the first, the attention of a skilled teacher, for the more deep-seated it becomes, the harder is its cure. so very common is the "throaty" tone and so connected is throat pressure with every other vocal imperfection, that the avoiding or the correcting of this one fault demands constant watchfulness in all vigorous vocal work. the way to avoid the faulty control of voice is, of course, to learn at the proper time the general principles of what singers call voice production. these principles are few and, in a sense, are very simple, but they are not easily made perfectly clear in writing, and a perfect application of them, even in the simpler forms of speaking, often requires persistent practice. it will be the aim here to state only what the student is most likely to understand and profit by, and to leave the rest to the personal guidance of a teacher. the control of the voice, so far as it can be a conscious physical operation, is determined chiefly by the action of the breathing muscles about the waist and the lower part of the chest. the voice may be said to have its foundation in this part of the physical man. this foundation, or center of control, will be rightly established, not by any very positive physical action; not by a decided raising of the chest; not by any such marked expansion or contraction as to bring physical discomfort or rigid muscular conditions. when the breath is taken in, by an easy, natural expansion, much as air is taken into a bellows, there is, to a certain degree, a firming of the breathing muscles; but this muscular tension is felt by the speaker or singer, if felt at all, simply as a comfortable fullness around, and slightly above, the waistline, probably more in front than elsewhere. an eminent teacher of singing tells his pupils to draw the breath into the stomach. that probably suggests the sensation. when the breath has been taken in, it is to be gently withheld,--not given up too freely,--and the tone is formed on the top, so to speak, of this body of breath, chiefly, of course, in the mouth and head. for the stronger and larger voice the breath is not driven out and dissipated, but the tone is intensified and given completer resonance within--within the nasal or head cavities, somewhat within the pharynx and chest. this body of breath, easily held in good control, by the lower breathing muscles, forms what is called the vocal "support." it is a fixed base of control. it is a fundamental condition, and is to be steadily maintained in all the varied operations of the voice. since this fundamental control of voice is so important, breathing exercises are often prescribed for regular practice. such exercises, when directed by a thoroughly proficient instructor, may be vocally effective, and beneficial to health. unwisely practiced, they may be unfitted to vocal control and of positive physical harm. moderately taking the breath at frequent intervals, as a preparation or reënforcement for speaking, should become an unconscious habit. excessive filling of the lungs or pressing downward upon the abdomen should be avoided. in general, the hearing of the voice, and an expressional purpose in making the voice, are the better means of acquiring good breathing. for the purposes of public speaking, at least, it is seldom necessary to do much more, in regard to the breathing, than to instruct a student against going wrong. the speaker should have a settled feeling of sufficiency; he should hold himself well together, physically and morally, avoiding nervous agitation and physical collapse; he should allow the breath freedom rather than put it under unnatural constraint. perfect breathing can only be known by certain qualities in the voice. when it is best, the process is least observed. the student learns the method of breathing mainly by noting the result, by rightly hearing his voice. he must, after all, practice through the hearing. the discussion of vocal support has brought us to the second main principle, the government of the throat. the right control of the voice, by placing a certain degree of tension upon the breathing muscles, tends to take away all pressure and constraint from the throat, leaving that passage seemingly open and free, so that the breath body or column; as some conceive it, seems almost unbroken in continued speech, much as it is, or should be, in prolonging tone in singing. the throat is opened in a relaxed rather than a constrained way, so as to give free play for the involuntary action of the delicate vocal muscles connected with the larynx, which determine all the finer variations of voice. whatever kind of vocal effort is made, the student should constantly guard himself against the least throat stiffening or contraction, against what vocalists call a "throat grip." he is very likely to make some effort with the throat, or vocal muscles, when putting the voice to any unusual test--when prolonging tone, raising or lowering the pitch, giving sharp inflections, or striking hard upon words for emphasis. in these and other vocal efforts the throat muscles should be left free to do their own work in their own way. the throat is to be regarded as a way through; the motive power is below the throat; the place for giving sound or resonance, to voice, for stamping upon words their form and character, is in the mouth, front and back, and especially in the head. the last of the three main considerations, the concentration of tone where it naturally seems to be formed, is often termed voice "placing," or "placement." the possible objection to this term is that it may suggest a purely artificial or arbitrary treatment or method. rightly understood, it is the following of nature. its value is that it emphasizes the constancy of this one of the constant factors in voice. its result is a certain kind and degree of monotony; without that particular kind of monotony the voice is faulty. when the tone is forced out of its proper place, it is dissipated and more or less lost. a student once told the writer, when complimented on the good placement of his voice, that he learned this in his summer employment as a public crier at the door of a show tent. he said he could not possibly have endured the daily wear upon the voice in any other way. voices are heard among teamsters, foremen on the street, and auctioneers, that conform to this and other principles perfectly. we may say that in such cases the process of learning is unconscious. in the case of the untaught student it was conscious, and was exactly what he would have been instructed to do by a teacher. the point is that many cannot learn by themselves, and our more unconscious doings are likely to become our bad habits. just what this voice placement is can perhaps be observed simply by sounding the letter "m," or giving an ordinary hum, as the mother sings to the child. it is merely finding the natural, instinctive basal form of the voice, and making all the vowels simply as variations of this form. the hum is often practiced, with a soft pure quality, by singers. it is varied by the sound of "ng," as in "rung" or "hung," and the elemental sound of "l." the practice should always be varied, however, by a fuller sounding of the rounder vowels, lest the voice become too much confined or thinned. the speaker, like the singer, must find out how, by a certain adjustment all along the line from the breathing center to the point of issue of the breath at the front of the mouth, he can easily maintain a constant hitting place, to serve as the hammer head; one singing place for carrying the voice steadily through a sustained passage; one place where, as it were, the tone is held in check so it will not break through itself and go to pieces,--a "placing of the voice," which is to be preserved in every sort of change or play of tone, whether in one's own character or an assumed character; a constant focus or a fixed center of resonance, a forming of tone along the roof of the mouth and well forward in the head, the safeguard and, practically, the one most effective idea in the government of voice. and now it should be hastily stated that this excellent idea, like other good things, may be easily abused. if the tone is pushed forward or crowded into the head or held tight in its place, in the least degree, there is a drawing or a cramping in the throat; there is a "pressing" of the voice. it should be remembered that the constancy of high placement of tone depends upon the certainty of the tone foundation; that, after all, the voice must rest upon itself, and must not sound as if it were up on tip-toe or on stilts; that tone placement is merely a convenient term for naming a natural condition. as a final word on this part of the discussion, the student should of course be impressed with the idea that though these three features of vocal mechanism have been considered separately, all ideas about voice are ultimately to become one idea. the voice is to be thought of as belonging to the whole man, and is to become the spontaneous expression of his feelings and will; it should not draw attention to any particular part of the physical man; whatever number of conditions may be considered, the voice is finally to be one condition, a condition of normal freedom. a lack of freedom is indicated in the voice, as in other kinds of mechanism by some sign of friction--by a harsh tone from a constrained throat; by a nasal or a muffled tone, from some obstruction in the nasal passages of the head, either because of abnormal physical conditions, or because of an unnatural direction of the breath, mainly due probably to speaking with a closed mouth; by a bound-up, heavy, "chesty" tone, resulting from a labored method of breathing. voice in its freer state should be pure, clear, round, fairly musical, and fairly deep and rich. its multitude of expressive qualities had better be cultivated by the true purpose to express, in the simplest way, sentiments appropriated to one's self through an understanding and a comprehensive appreciation of various passages of good literature. as soon as possible all technique is to be forgotten, unless the consciousness is pricked by something going wrong. voices in general need, in the larger development, to be rounded. the vowel forms "oo" as in moon, "o" as in roll, and "a" as in saw, greatly help in giving a rounded form to the general speech; for all vowels can be molded somewhat into the form of these rounder ones. the vowels "e" as in meet, "a" as in late, short "e" as in met, short "a" as in sat, are likely to be made very sharp, thin, and harsh. when a passage for practice begins with round vowels, as for example, "roll on, thou deep and dark blue ocean, roll!" the somewhat rounded form of the lips, and the opened condition of the throat produced in forming the rounder vowels, can be to some extent maintained through the whole of the passage, in forming all the vowels; and this will give, by repeated practice, a gradually rounded and deepened general character to the voice. on the other hand the thinner, sharper vowels may serve to give keenness and point to tones too thick and dull. in applying these suggestions, as well as all other vocal suggestions, moderation and good sense must be exercised, for the sake of the good outward appearance and the good effect of the speaking. the chief vowel forms running from the deepest to the most shallow are: "oo" as in moon, "o" as in roll, "a" as in saw, "a" as in far, "a" as in say, "e" as in see. since the making of tones means practically the shaping of vowels, something should here be said about vowel forms. the mouth opening should of course be freely shaped for the best sounding of the vowels. for the vowel "a" as in far, the mouth is rather fully opened; for "a" as in saw, it is opened deep, that is, the mouth passage is somewhat narrowed, so as to allow increased depth. the vowel "o," as in no, has two forms, the clear open "o," and the "o" somewhat covered by a closer form of the lips, commonly, when the vowel is prolonged, the initial form, that is the open "o," is held, with the closed form, like "oo" in moon, touched briefly as the tone is finished. so with long "i" (y), as in thy, and "ou," as in thou--the first form is like a broad "a" as in far, with short "i" (sit) ending the "i" (y), and "oo" (moon) ending the "ou." this final sound, though sometimes accentuated for humorous effect, is usually not to be made prominent. the sound of "oi," as in voice, has the main form of "aw" as in saw, and the final form in short "i," as in pin. the vowel "u" is sounded like "oo" (moon) in a few words, as in rule, truth. generally, it sounds about like "ew" in new or mew. in some of the forms the front of the mouth will be open, in some half open, and in some, as in the case of long "e" (meet), nearly closed. whatever the degree of opening, the jaw should never be allowed to become stiffly set, nor the tongue nor lips to be held tight, in any degree or way. these faults cause a tightening in the throat, and affect the character of the tone. it will generally be advantage to the tone if the lips are trained to be very slightly protruding, in bell shape, and if the corners of the mouth be not allowed to droop, but be made very slightly to curve upward. the tongue takes of course various positions for different vowels. for our purposes, it may be sufficient to say that it will play its part best if it be not stiffened but is left quite free and elastic, perhaps quite relaxed, and if the tip of it be made to play easily down behind the lower teeth. since voice has here been discussed in an objective sort of way, it is fitting to emphasize the importance of what is called naturalness, or more correctly, simplicity. everybody desires this sort of result. it can readily be seen, however, that about everything we do is a second nature; is done, that is to say, in the acquired, acceptable, conventional way. voice and speech are largely determined by surrounding influences, and what we come to regard as natural may be only an acquired bad habit, which is, in fact, quite unnatural. voice should certainly be what we call human. better it should have some human faults than be smoothed out into negative perfection, without the true ring, the spunk of individuality. there is, nevertheless, a best naturalness, or second nature, and a worst. the object of training is to find the best. in this discussion of voice some of the ideas often applied to the first steps in the cultivation of singing have been presented, as those most effective also for training in speech. although, on the surface, singing and speaking are quite different, fundamentally they are the same. almost all persons have, if they will use it, an ear for musical pitch and tone, and the neglect to cultivate, in early life, the musical hearing and the singing tone is a mistake. to prospective public speakers it is something like a misfortune. the best speakers have had voices that sang in their speaking. this applies distinctly to the speaking, for example, of wendell phillips, who is commonly called the most colloquial of our public speakers. it has often been commented on in the case of gladstone, and applies peculiarly to some of our present-day speakers, who would be called, not orators, but impressive talkers. the meaning is, not of course that speaking should sound like singing, or necessarily like oratory, but that to the trained ear the best speaking has fundamentally the singing conditions, and the voice has singing qualities; and the elementary exercises designed for singing are excellent, in their simpler forms and methods, for the speaking voice. in carrying out this idea in voice training, the selections here given for the earliest exercises, are such as naturally call for some slight approach to the singing tone. some are in the spirit and style of song or hymn; others are in the form of address to distant auditors, wherein the reciter would call to a distance, or "sing out," as we say. this kind of speaking is a way of quickly "bringing out" the voice. young students especially are very apt in this, getting the idea at once, though needing, as a rule, special cautions and guidance for keeping the proper vocal conditions, so as to prevent "forcing." the passages are simple in spirit and form. they carry on one dominant feeling, needing little variation of voice. the idea is to render them in a way near to the monotone, that the student may learn to control one tone, so to speak, or to speak nearly in one key, before doing the more varied tones of familiar speech or of complex feeling. we might say the passages are to be read in some degree like the chant; but the chant is likely to bring an excess of head resonance and is too mechanical. the true spirit of the selections is to be given, from the first, but reduced to its very simplest form. difficulties arise, in this first step, in the case of two classes of student: those who lack sentiment or imagination, or at least the faculty of vocally expressing it, and those with an excess of feeling. the former class have to be mentally awakened; for some motive element, aesthetic appreciation or imaginative purpose, should play a part, as has been said, even in technical vocal training. the latter class must be restrained. excessive emotion either chokes off expression, or runs away with itself. calmness, evenness, poise, the easy control that comes from a degree of relaxation, without loss of buoyancy,--these are the conditions for good accomplishment of any kind. this self-mastery the high-strung, ardent spirit must learn, in order to become really strong. this is accomplished, in the case of a nervous temperament, not by tightening up and trying hard, but by relaxing, by letting down. in the use of these passages the voice will be set at first slightly high in pitch, in order to help in keeping a continuous sounding of tone against the roof of the mouth and to a proper degree in the head. this average pitch, or key, or at least the character of the tone, will be maintained without much change, and with special care that the tone be kept up in its place at the ends of lines or sentences, and be kept well fixed on its breath foundation. the simpler inflections indicating the plain meaning, will of course be observed, the tone will be kept easily supported by the frequently recovered breath that is under it. the back of the mouth will seem to be constantly somewhat open. there will be no attempt at special power, but only a free, mellow, flowing tone of moderate strength. in the exercise each voice will be treated, in detail, according to its particular needs, and in each teacher's own way. at the time of student life, when physical conditions are not matured, the counsel should repeatedly be given, not only that the voice, though used often and regularly, should be used moderately, but also that the voice should be kept youthful--youthful, if it can be, even in age--but especially in youth, whatever the kind of literature used for practice. also youth should be counseled not to try to make a voice like the voice of some one else, some speaker, or actor, or teacher. it will be much the best if it is just the student's own. vocal flexibility in the earliest exercises here given the tone will be, for the best and most immediate effect, kept running on somewhat in a straight line, so to speak; will have a certain sameness of sound; will be perhaps somewhat monotonous, because kept pretty much in one key, or in one average degree of pitch. it will perhaps be necessary to make the utterance for the time somewhat artificial. the voice is in the artificial stage, as is the work of an oarsman, for example, in learning the parts of the stroke, or that of a golfer in learning the "swing," although in the case of some students, when the vocal conditions are good and the tone is well balanced, very little of the artificial process is necessary. in that case the voice simply needs, in its present general form, to be developed. the next step in the training is to try a more varied use of the voice, without a loss of what has been acquired as to formation of tone. the student is to make himself able to slide the voice up and down in pitch, by what is called inflection, to raise or lower the pitch by varied intervals, momentarily to enlarge or diminish the tone, in expressive ways; in short, to adapt the improved tone, the more effective method of voice control, to more varied speech. in the early practice for getting tone variation, the student must guard most carefully against "forcing." additional difficulties arise when we have vocal changes, and moderate effort, in the degree of the change, is best. in running the tone up, one should let the voice take its own way. the tone should not be pushed or held by any slightest effort at the throat. the control should, as has been said, be far below the throat. in running an inflection from low to high, the tone may be allowed, especially in the earlier practice, to thin out at the top. and always when the pitch is high the tone should be smaller, as it is on a musical instrument, though it should have a consistent depth and dignity from its proper degree of connection with the chest. this consistent character in the upper voice is attained by giving the tone a bit of pomp or nobleness of quality. in taking a low pitch there is, among novices, always a tendency to bear down on the tone in order to gain strength or to give weight to utterance. the voice is thus crowded into, or on, the throat. the voice should never be pushed down or pressed back in the low pitch. this practice leads to raggedness of tone, and finally to virtual loss of the lower voice. the voice should fall of itself with only that degree of force which is legitimately given by the breath tension, produced easily, though firmly, by the breathing muscles. breadth will be given to the tone by some degree of expansion at the back of the mouth, or in the pharynx. as soon as can be, the speech should be brought down to the utmost of simplicity and naturalness, so that the thought of literature can be expressed with reality and truth; can be made to sound exactly as if it came as an unstudied, spontaneous expression of the student's own mind, and yet so it can be heard, so it will be adequate, so it will be pleasing in sound. the improved tone is to become the student's inevitable, everyday voice. the formation of words the term enunciation means the formation of words, including right vocal shape to the vowels and right form to the consonants. pronunciation is scholastic, relating to the word accent and the vowel sound. authority for this is in the dictionary. enunciation, belonging to elocution, is the act of forming those authorized sounds into finished speech. there is a common error regarding enunciation. it is usual, if a speaker is not easily understood, to say that he should "articulate" more clearly; that is, make the consonants more pronounced, and young students are thus often urged into wrongly directed effort with the tongue and lips. sometimes in books, articulation "stunts," in the form of nonsense alliterations, are prescribed, by which all the vowels are likely to be chewed into consonants. the result is usually an overexertion, and a consequent tightening, of the articulating muscles. at first, and for a time, it may appear that this forcing of the articulation brings the desired result of clearer speech, but it will, in the end, be destructive to voice and bring incoherent utterance. articulation exercises too difficult for the master, should not be given to the novice. all teachers of singing train voices, at first, on the vowel, and it should be known that, without right vowel, or tone, formation, efforts at good articulation are futile. every technical vocal fault must be referred back to the fundamental condition of right formation of tone, that is, the vowel. sputtering, hissing, biting, snapping, of consonants is not enunciation. the student should learn how without constraint, to prolong vowels; learn, if you please, the fundamentals of singing, and articulation, the formation of consonants, the jointing of syllables, will become easy. the reason for this is that when the vowel tone is rightly produced, all the vocal muscles are freed; the tongue, lips, and jaw act without constraint. the principle of rhythm simplifies greatly the problem of enunciation. it is easier, not only to make good tone, but also to speak words, in the reading of verse than of prose. it is much easier to read a rhythmical piece of prose than one lacking in rhythm. all prose, then, should be rendered with as much rhythmical flow as is allowed consistently with its spirit and meaning. care must be taken of course that no singsong effect occurs; that the exact meaning receives first attention. in case of long, hard words, ease is attained by making a slight pause before the word or before its preposition or article or other closely attached word, and by giving a strong beat to its accented syllable or syllables, with little effort on the subordinate syllables. the particular weakness among americans, in the speaking of words, is failure adequately to form the nasal, or head, sounds. the letters "l," "m," "n," are called vowel consonants. they can be given continuous sound, a head resonance. this sounding may be carried to a fault, or affectation; but commonly it is insufficiently done, and it should be among the first objects of cultivation in vocal practice. the humming of these head sounds, with very moderate force, is excellent for developing and clearing this resonance. the "ng" sound, as in rung, may be added. improper division of words into syllables is a common fault. the word "constitution," for example, is made "cons-titution," instead of "con- stitution;" "prin-ciple" is pronounced "prints-iple." a clean, correct formation should be made by slightly holding, and completing the accented syllable. the little word "also" is often called "als-o" or "als-so" or "alt-so"; chrysanthemum is pronounced "chrysant-themum"; coun-try is called "country," band so forth. in the case of doubled consonants, as in the word "mellow," "commemorate," "bubble," and the like, a momentary holding of the first consonant, so that a bit of separate impulse is given to the second, makes more perfect speaking. there is a slight difference between "mel-low" and "mel-ow," "bub-ble" and "bub-le," "com-memorate" and "com-emorate." these finer distinctions, if one cares to make speech accurate and refined, can be observed in words ending in "ence" and "ance" as in "guidance" and "credence"; in words with the ending "al," "el," or "le," as in "general," "principal," "final," "vessel," "rebel," "principle," and "little." if that troublesome word "separate" were from the beginning rightly pronounced, it would probably be less often wrongly spelled. one should hasten to say, however, that over-nicety in enunciation, pedantic exactness, obtrusive "elocutionary" excellence, or any sort of labored or affected effort should be carefully guarded against. the line of distinction between what is perfect and what is slightly strained is a fine one. very often, for example, one hears such endings as "or" in "creator," "ed" in "dedicated," "ess" in "readiness," "men" in "gentlemen," pronounced with incorrect prominence. these syllables, being very subordinate, should not be made to stand out with undue distinctness, and though the vowels should not be distorted into a wrong form, they should be obscured. in "gentlemen," for example, the "e" is, according to the dictionary, an "obscure" vowel, and the word is pronounced almost as "gentlem'n,"--not "gentle_mun_," of course, but not "gentlem_e_n." the fault in such forms is more easily avoided by throwing a sharp accent on the accented syllable, letting the other syllables fall easily out. the expression of greeting, "ladies and gentlemen," should have a strong accent on each first syllable of the two important words, with little prominence given to other syllables or the connecting word; as, "la'dies 'nd gen'tlem'n." in the same class of errors is that of making an extra syllable in such words as "even," "seven," "heaven," "eleven," and "given," where properly the "e" is elided, leaving "ev'n," "heav'n," and so forth. the mouth should remain closed when the first syllable is pronounced; the "n" is then simply sounded in the head. the same treatment should be given to such words as "chasm" and "enthusiasm." if the mouth is opened after the first part of the word is sounded, we have "chas-_u_m," "enthusias-_u_m." the little words "and," "as," "at" and the like should, of course, when not emphatic, be very lightly touched, with the vowel hardly formed, and the mouth only slightly opened. the word "and" is best sounded, where not emphatic, with light touch, slight opening of the mouth, and hardly any forming of the vowel; almost like "'nd." these words should be connected closely with the word which follows, as if they were a subordinate syllable of that word. often we hear such words as "country," "city," and their plurals, pronounced "countree," "citee," and "citees"; "ladies" is called "ladees." the sound should properly be that of short "i" not of long "e." the vowel sound, short "a," as in "cast," "fast," "can't," must be treated as a localism, and yet it is hardly necessary to adhere to any decided extreme because of local associations. vocally, the very narrow sound of short "a," called "western," is impossible. it can't be sung; in speech it is usually dry and harsh. as a matter of taste the very broad sound of the short "a," when it is made like "a" in "far," is objectionable because it is extraordinary. there is a form between these extremes, the correct short "a"; this ought to be acceptable anywhere. it is suggestive to observe that localisms are less pronounced among artists than among untrained persons. trained singers and actors belonging to different countries or sections of country, show few differences among themselves in english pronunciation. among localisms the letter "r" causes frequent comment. in singing and dramatic speaking, this letter is best formed at the tip of the tongue. in common speech it may be made only by a very slight movement at the back of the tongue. a decided throaty "burr" should always be avoided. in the case of vigorous dramatic utterance, the "r" may be quite decidedly rolled, on the principle that, in such cases, all consonants become a means of effectiveness in expression. in the expression of fine, delicate, or tender sentiment, all consonants should be lightly touched or should be obscured. enumeration of the many kinds of carelessness of speech would be to little purpose. scholarly speech requires a knowledge of correct forms, gained from the dictionary, and vocal care and skill in making these forms clear, smooth, and finished in sound. this discussion has perhaps suggested the extreme of accuracy in speech. but as has already been said, any degree of overnicety, of pedantic elegance, of stilted correctness, is especially irritating to a sensitive ear. excessive biting off of syllables, flipping of the tongue, showing of the teeth, twisting of the lips, is carrying excellence to a fault. the inactive jaw, tongue, and lips must be made mobile, and in the working away of clumsiness and slovenliness of speech, some degree of stiltedness must perhaps, for a time, be in evidence, but matured practice ought finally to result, not only in accuracy and finish, but in simplicity and ease in speaking. making the point when the student has made a fair degree of progress in the more strictly mechanical features of speech, the formation of tone, and the delivery of words, he is ready to give himself up more fully to the effective expression of thought. of first importance to the speaker, as it is to the writer, is the way to make himself clear as to his meaning. the question has to be put again and again to the young speaker, what is your point? what is the point in the sentence? what is the point in some larger division of the speech? what is the point, or purpose, of the speech as a whole? this point, or the meaning of what is said, should be so put, should be so clear, that no effort is required of a listener for readily apprehending and appreciating it. discussing now only the question of delivery, we say that the making of a point depends mainly upon what we commonly call emphasis. extending the meaning of emphasis beyond the limit of mere stress, or weight, of voice, we may define it as special distinctness or impressiveness of effect. in the case of a sentence there is often one place where the meaning is chiefly concentrated; often the emphasis is laid sharply upon two or more points or words in the sentence; sometimes it is put increasingly on immediately succeeding words, called a climax, and sometimes the stress of utterance seems to be almost equally distributed through all the principal words of the sentence. the particular point of a sentence is determined, not so much by what the sentence says as it stands by itself, as by its relation to what goes before or what follows after. the first thing, then, for the student to do is to become sure of the precise meaning of the sentence, with reference to the general context. then he must know whether or not he says, for the understanding of others, exactly what is meant. the means of giving special point to a statement is in some way to set apart, or to make prominent, the word or words of special significance. there are several ways in which this is done. commonly a stress or added weight of voice is put upon the word; generally, too, there is an inflection, a turning of the tone downward or upward; there is frequently a lengthening out of the vowel sound, and a sudden stop after, in some cases before, the word. any or all these special noticeable vocal effects serve to draw attention to the word and give it expressive significance. these effects are everywhere common in good everyday speech. in the formal art of speaking, they have to be more or less thought out and consciously practiced. emphasis is determined by the comparative importance of ideas. an idea is important when, being the first to arise in the mind, it becomes the motive for utterance. we see an object, the idea of high or broad or beautiful arises in the mind; we so form a sentence as to make that idea stand forth; this idea, or the word expressing it, becomes vocally emphatic. in this sentence, "he has done it in a way to impress upon the filipinos, so far as action and language can do it, his desire, and the desire of our people, _to do them good_," the idea "to do them good" is the one that arose first in the mind of the speaker and called up the other ideas that served to set this one prominently forth. it is the emphatic idea. it should be carried in the mind of the student speaker from the beginning of the sentence. again, an idea is important when it arises as closely related to the first, and becomes the chief means of giving utterance concerning the first. this second idea may be something said about the first; it may be compared or contrasted with the first. being matched against the first, it may become of equal significance with it. "who is here so _base_ that would be a _bondman_?" here the idea "base" is used to emphasize the quality of "bondman," and becomes equally emphatic with that idea. other ideas, or other words expressing them, being formed around these principal ones, will be subordinated or more loosely run over, since they simply serve as the setting for the principal ones, or the connecting links, holding them together. sometimes an idea arising in the mind grows in intensity, asserting itself by stronger and stronger successive words. for example, "he _mocks_ and _taunts_ her, he _disowns, insults_ and _flouts_ her"; and, "i impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly _outraged, injured_, and _oppressed_, in both sexes in every _age, rank, situation_, and _condition of life_." the impressiveness in delivering these successive words is increased not because they are in the form of a climax, but they are in the form of a climax because the thought is so insistent as to require new words for its expression. the student will be true and sure in his emphasis only when he takes ideas into his mind in the natural way; that is, he should seize upon the central idea before he gives utterance to any part of a statement. if that idea is constantly carried foremost in the mind, he will then, in due time, give it its true emphasis. so, in the case of a climax, he must realize the spirit and force behind the utterance, and not depend upon any mechanical process of merely increasing the strength of his tones. sometimes emphasis must be made to stand so strong as not merely to arrest the movement of thought, and fix the mind of the hearer upon a point, but to turn the attention of the hearer for the moment aside; to draw his mind to the thought of something very remote in time or place or relation, as in the case of making momentary reference to some historic fact or some well-known expression of literature. allusions and illustrations, then, should be given, not only with color but also with special emphasis. byron, contemplating the ruins of rome, calls her "the _niobe_ of nations." the hearer's mind should be arrested, his imagination stirred, at that word. words used in contrast with one another are given opposing effect by contrasting emphasis: "not that i loved _cæsar_ less, but that i loved _rome more_." "my _words fly up_; my _thoughts remain below_." when words are used with a double meaning, as in the case of a pun, or with a peculiar implication, or are repeated for some peculiar effect of mere repetition,--when we have, in any form, what is called a play upon words,--a peculiar pointedness is given, wherein the circumflex inflection plays a large part. "now is it _rome_ indeed and _room_ enough, when there is in it but one only man." "i had rather _bear with_ you than _bear_ you; yet if i did bear you, i should bear no _cross_, for i think you have no _money_ in your purse." "but, sir, the _coalition_! the _coalition_! aye, the _murdered coalition_!" although, as has been said, the usual method of making a point is to give striking force to an idea, very often the same effect, or a better effect, is produced by a striking sudden suppression of utterance, by way of decided contrast. when the discourse has been running vigorously and inflections have been repeatedly sharp and strong, the sudden stop, and the stilled utterance of a word, are most effective. only, the suppressed word must be set apart. there must be the pause before or after, or both before and after. robert ingersoll, when speaking with great animation, would often suddenly stop and ask a question in the quietest and most intimate way. this gave point to the question and was impressive. we have been considering thus far only primary or principal emphasis. of equal importance is the question of secondary emphasis. the difference in vocal treatment comes in regarding the principal emphasis as absolute or final, as making the word absolved from, cut off from, the rest of the sentence following, and having a final stop or conclusive effect, while the secondary may be regarded as only relatively emphatic, as being related in a subordinate way to the principal, and as maintaining a connection with the rest of the sentence, or as hanging upon the words which follow, or as being a step leading up to the main idea. the vocal indication of this connective principle is the circumflex inflection. the tone will be raised, as in the principal emphasis, but instead of being allowed to fall straight to a finality, it is turned upward at the finish, to hook on, as it were, to the following. the weight of voice will be less marked, the inflection less long, and the pause usually less decided, than in the case of the primary emphasis. "recall _romance_, recite the names of heroes of legend and _song_, but there is none that is his peer." at the words romance and song there is a secondary emphasis; the voice is not dropped, it is kept suspended with the pause. a common failing among students is an inability to avoid a frequent absolute emphatic inflection when it is not in place. many are unable steadily to sustain a sentence till the real point is reached. they fail to keep the voice suspended when they make a pause. it is very important that a student should have a sure method of determining what the principal emphasis is. he should, as has already been said, follow, in rendering the thought of another, the method of the spontaneous expression of his own ideas. he should take into his mind the principal idea or ideas, before he speaks the words leading thereto. he should then, at every pause, keep the thought suspended, incomplete, till he reaches that principal idea; he should then make the absolute stop, with the effect of finality, afterwards running off in a properly related way, such words as serve to complete the form of expression. take the following sentence: "i never take up a paper full of congress squabbles, reported as if sunrise depended upon them, without thinking of that idle english nobleman at florence, who when his brother, just arrived from london, happened to mention the house of commons, languidly asked, ah! is that thing still going?" it is rather curious that very rarely will a student keep the thought of such a sentence suspended and connected until he arrives at the real point at the end. he will first say that he never takes up a paper, though of course he really does take up a paper. then he says he never takes up this kind of paper; and this he does not mean. so he goes on misleading his audience, instead of helping them properly to anticipate the form of statement and so be prepared for the point at the right moment. he should not, as a general rule, let his voice take an absolute drop at the places of secondary emphasis. in reference to the emphatic point in a larger division of the speech, and to the main or climactic points of the whole speech, the principles for emphasis in the sentence are applied in a larger way. and the way to make the point is, first of all, to think hard on what that point is, what is the end or purpose to be attained. if this does not bring the result--and very often it does not--then the mechanical means of producing emphasis should be studied and consciously applied--the increase, or perhaps the diminution, of force, the lengthening or shortening of tones on the words; a change in the general level of pitch; the use of the emphatic pause; and a lengthening of the emphatic inflection. a more impressive general effect must, in some way, be given to the parts of greater importance. indicating values and relations perhaps the most commonly criticized fault among beginners in speaking is that of monotony. monotony that arises from lack of inflection of voice or from lack of pointed-ness or emphasis in a sentence, will presumably be corrected in the earlier exercises. the monotony that is caused by giving to all sentences an equal value, saying all sentences, or a whole speech, in about the same force, rate, and general pitch, is one that may be considered from another point of view. one fault in the delivery of sentences--perhaps the most frequent one--is that of running them all off in about the same modulation. by modulation we mean the wavelike rise and fall of the voice that always occurs in some degree in speech,--sometimes called melody--and the change of key, or general pitch, in passing from one sentence, or part of a speech, to another. frequently, novices in speaking and in reading, will swing the voice upward in the first part of every sentence, give it perhaps another rise or two as the sentence proceeds, and swing it down, always in precisely the same way, at the end. the effect of this regular rising at the beginning, and this giving of a similar concluding cadence at the end, is to make it appear that each sentence stands quite independent of the others, that each is a detached statement; and when, besides, each sentence is given with about the same force and rate of speed, they all seem to be of about equal importance, all principal or none principal, but as much alike as rosalind's halfpence. sentences that have a close sequence as to thought should be so rendered that one seems to flow out from the other, without the regular marked rise at the beginning or the concluding cadence at the end. sentences, and parts of sentences, which are of less importance than others with which they are associated, should be made less prominent in delivery. often students are helped by the suggestion that a sentence, or a part of a sentence, or a group of sentences, it may be, be dropped into an undertone, or said as an aside, or rapidly passed over, or in some way put in the background--said, so to speak, parenthetically. other portions of the speech, or the sentence, the important ones, should, on the same principle, be made to stand out with marked effect. notice, in the following quotation, how the first and the last parts arc held together by the pitch or key and the modulation of the voice, and the middle part, the group of examples, is held together in a different key by being set in the background, as being illustrative or probative. "why, all these irish bulls are greek,--every one of them. take the irishman carrying around a brick as a specimen of the house he had to sell; take the irishman who shut his eyes, and looked into the glass to see how he would look when he was dead; take the irishman that bought a crow, alleging that crows were reported to live two hundred years, and he meant to set out and try it. well, those are all greek. a score or more of them, of the parallel character, come from athens." the speaker should cultivate a quick sensitiveness as to close unity and slight diversity, as to what is principal and what is subordinate, as to what is in the direct, main line of thought, and what is by the way, casual, or merely a connecting link. this sense of proportion, of close or remote relation, of directness and indirectness, the feeling for perspective, so-called, can be acquired only by continued practice, for sharpening the faculty of apprehension and appreciation. it is usually the last attainment in the student's work, but the neglect of it may result in a confirmed habit of monotony. the term transition is commonly used to denote a passing from one to another of the main divisions of the discourse. the making of this transition, though often neglected, is not difficult. the finishing of one part and the making of a new beginning on the next, usually with some change of standing position, as well as of voice, has an obvious method. the slighter transition, or variation, within a main division, and the avoidance of the slight transition where none should be made, require the keener, quicker insight. sentences will have many other kinds of variation in delivery according to the nature and value of the thought. some will flow on with high successive waves; some will be run almost straight on as in a monotone. some will be on a higher average tone, or in a higher key; others will be lower. some will have lengthened vowel sound, and will be more continuous or sustained, so that groups of successive words seem to run on one unbroken tone; others will be abrupt and irregular. some will be rapid, some slow; some light, others weighty; some affected by long pauses, others by no pause, and some will be done in a dry, matter-of- fact, or precise, or commonplace, or familiar manner, others will be touched with feeling, colored by imagination, glowing with persuasive warmth, elevated, dignified, or profound. a repetition of the selections to be learned, with full expression by voice and action, repetition again, and again, and again, until the sentiment of them becomes a living reality to the speaker, is the only way to acquire the ability to indicate to others the true proportions, the relative values, and the distinctive character, of what is to be said. expressing the feeling we are in the habit of distinguishing between what proceeds from mere thinking, what is, as we say, purely intellectual, and what arises more especially from feeling, what we call emotional. we mean, of course, that one or the other element predominates; and the distinction is a convenient one. the subject, the occasion, to a great extent the man, determine whether a speech is in the main dispassionate or impassioned, whether it is plain or ornate in statement, whether it is urgent or aggressive, or calm and rather impassive. it would be beyond our purpose to consider many of the variations and complexities of feeling that enter into vocal expression. we call attention to only a few of the simpler and more common vocal manifestations of feeling, counselling the student who is to deliver a selected speech, to adapt his speaking to the style of that speech. in so doing he will get a varied training, and at length will find his own most effective style. the speech which is matter-of-fact and commonplace only, has characteristically much short, sharp inflection of voice, with the rapidly varying intervals of pitch that we notice in one's everyday talking. as the utterance takes on force, it is likely to go in a more direct line of average pitch, with stronger inflection on specially emphatic words. as it rises to sentiment, the inflections are less marked, and in the case of a strain of high, nobler feeling, the voice moves on with some approach to the monotone. according as feeling is stronger and firmer, as in the expression of courage, determination, firm resolve, resistance, intense devotion, the voice is kept sustained, with pauses rather abrupt and decisive; if the feeling, though of high sentiment, is tranquil, without aggressiveness, the voice has more of the wavelike rise and fall, and at the pausing places the tone is gradually diminished, rather than abruptly broken off. in the case of quickly impulsive, passionate feeling, the speech is likely to be much varied in pitch, broken by frequent abrupt stops, and decisive inflections. in the case of the expression of tenderness or pathos, there is a lingering tone, with the quality and inflection of plaintiveness, qualified, in public speech, by such dignity and strength as is fitting. in all cases the quality of voice is of course the main thing, and this, not being technical or mechanical, must depend on the speaker's entering into the spirit of the piece and giving color, warmth, and depth to his tones. the spirit of gladness or triumph has usually the higher, brighter, ringing tone; that of gravity, solemnity, awe, the lower, darker, and less varied tone. in the case of the expression of irony, sarcasm, scorn, contempt, and kindred feelings, the circumflex inflection is the principal feature. this is the curious quirk or double turn in the voice, that is heard when one says, for example, "you're a _fine_ fellow," meaning, "you are anything but a fine fellow." in the earlier part of webster's reply to hayne are some of the finest examples of irony, grim or caustic humor, sarcasm, and lofty contempt. they need significant turns and plays of voice, but are often spoiled by being treated as high declamation. in the expression of the various kinds and degrees of feeling there may be a fully expressed force or a suppressed or restrained force. often the latter is the more natural and effective. this is intense, but not loud, though at times it may break through its restraint. it is most fitting when the hearers are near at hand, as in the case of a jury or judge in court, when the din of loudness would offend. the climax is a gradually increasing expression of feeling. it may be by a gradual raising of the voice in pitch; it may be by any sort of increasing effectiveness or moving power. it is rather difficult to manage, and may lead to some strained effort. the speaker should keep a steady, controlled movement, without too much haste, but rather a retarded and broadened utterance as the emphatic point is approached; and always the speaker should keep well within his powers, maintaining always some vocal reserve. the practice of emotional expression gives warmth, mellowness, sympathy and expansiveness to the voice, and must have considerable cultural value. showing the picture a difficult attainment in speaking is that of vividness. the student may see the picture in his own mind's eye, but his mode of expression does not reveal the fact to others. imagination in writing he may have, with no suggestion of it in the voice. too often it is erroneously taken for granted that the human voice, because it is human, will at any call, respond to all promptings of the mind. it will no more do so, of course, than the hand or the eye. it must be trained. often it is a case not merely of vocal response, but of mental awakening as well, and in that case the student must, if he can, learn to see visions and dream dreams. a way to begin the suiting of speech to imaginative ideas is to imitate; to make the voice sound like the thing to be suggested. some things are fast, some slow, some heavy, some light, some dark and dismal, some bright and joyous; some things are noisy, some still; some rattle, others roar; the sea is hoarse; the waves wash; the winds blow; the ocean is level, or it dashes high and breaks; happy things sing, and sad things mourn. all life and nature speak just as we speak. how easy it ought to be for us to speak just as nature speaks. and when our abstract notions are put in concrete expression, or presented as a picture, how easy it would seem, by these simple variations of voice, to speak the language of that picture, telling the length, breadth, action, color, values, spirit of it. that it is a task makes it worth while. it affords infinite variety, and endless delight. one necessary element in so-called word-painting is that of time. when a speaker expresses himself in pictures for the imagination he must give his hearers time to see these pictures, and to sufficiently see and appreciate the parts, or lines of them, and the significance of them. it is a common fault to hasten over the language of imagination as over the commonplace words. the speaker or reader had better be sure to see the image himself before, and indeed after, he speaks it. others will then be with him. although among most young speakers the tone of imagination is lacking, yet often young persons who become proficient vocally are fain greatly to overdo it, till the sound that is suited to the sense becomes sound for its own sake, and thereby obscures the sense. regard for proportion and fitness, in relation to the central idea or purpose, should control the feeling for color in the detail. expression by action it should always be borne in mind that gesture means the bearing or the action of the whole man. it does not mean simply movement of the arm and hand. the practice of gesture should be governed by this understanding of the term. a thought, an emotion, something that moves the man from within, will cause a change, it may be slight, or it may be very marked, in eye, face, body. this is gesture. this change or movement may, from the strength of the feeling that prompts it, extend to the arm and hand. but this latter movement, in arm and hand, is only the fuller manifestation of one's thought or feeling--the completion of the gesture, not the gesture itself. arm movement, when not preceded or supplemented by body movement, or body pose, is obtrusive action; it brings a member of the body into noticeable prominence, attracting the auditor's eye and taking his mind from the speaker's thought. better have no gesture than gesture of this kind. the student, then, should first learn to appreciate the force of ideas, to see and feel the full significance of what he would say, and indicate by some general movement of body and expression of face, the changing moods of mind. then the arm and hand may come--in not too conspicuous a way--to the aid of the body. when wendell phillips pointed to the portraits in faneuil hall and exclaimed: "i thought those pictured lips would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american,--the slanderer of the dead," it was not, we may be sure, the uplifted arm alone, but the pose of the man, the something about his whole being, which bespoke the spirit within him, and which was really the gesture. in less positive or striking degrees of action, the body movement will, of course, be very slight, at times almost imperceptible, but the principle always holds, and should be from the first taught. in gesture, the bodily man acts as a unit. the amount of gesture is, of course, determined by the temperament of the speaker, the nature of the speech, the character of the audience, and the occasion of the address. one speaker will, under certain conditions, gesticulate nearly all the time; another will, under the same conditions, seem seldom to move in any way. the two may be equally effective. a speech that is charged with lively emotion will usually be accompanied by action; a speech expressive of the profound feeling that subdues to gravity, or resignation, would be comparatively without action. the funeral oration by mark antony is full of action because it is really intended to excite the will of his audience; in a funeral address simply expressive of sorrow and appreciation, gesture would, as a rule, be out of place. a sharply contested debate may need action that punctuates and enforces; the pleasantry of after-dinner talk may need only the voice. so, one audience, not quick in grasping ideas, may need, both in language and action, much clear, sharp indication of the point by illustration, much stirring up by physical attack, so to speak, while another audience would be displeased by this unnecessary effort to be clear and expressive. yet again, given a certain speaker and a certain subject and a certain audience, it is obvious that the occasion will determine largely how the speaker will bear himself. the atmosphere of a college commencement will be different from that of a barbecue, and the speaker would, within the limits set by his own personality and his own dignity, adapt himself to the one or the other. the general law of appropriateness and good taste must determine the amount of gesture. for the purposes of this work there is probably very little, if any, value in a strict classification of gestures. it may, at times, be convenient to speak of one gesture as merely for emphasis, of another as indicating location, of another as giving illustration, of one as more subjective, expressing a thought that reflects back upon the speaker, or is said more in the way of self-communion, of another as objective, concerned only with outer objects or with ideas more apart from the person or the inward feeling of the speaker. but it can easily be shown that one idea, or one dominant feeling, may be expressed by many kinds of action, in fact, so far at least as prescribed movements are concerned, in directly opposite kinds, and gesture is so largely a matter of the individual, and is governed so much by mixed motive and varying circumstance, that the general public speaker will profit little by searching for its philosophic basis, and trying to practice according to any elaborated system. the observing of life, with the exercise of instinct, taste, sense, above all of honest purpose--these, with of course the help of competent criticism, will serve as sufficient practical guides in the cultivation of expressive action. some observations, or perhaps general principles, may be offered as helpful. when a speaker is concerned with driving ideas straight home to his audience, as in putting bare fact in a debate, his action will be more direct; it will move in straighter lines and be turned, like his thought, more directly upon his audience. as his statement is more exactly to a point, so his gesture becomes more pointed and definite. when the speaker is not talking to or at his audience, to move them to his will, but is rather voicing the ideas and feelings already possessed by them, and is in a non-aggressive mood, he is likely to use less of the direct and emphasis-giving gesture, and to employ principally the gesture that is merely illustrative of his ideas, more reposeful, less direct, less tense. to consider more in detail the principle that the man, and not the arm, is the gesture, a man should look what he is to speak. the eye should always have a relation to gesture. the look may be in the direction of the arm movement or in another direction. no practical rule can be given. it can only be said that the eye must play its part. observing actions in real life, we see that when one person points out an object to another, he looks now at the object, now at the person, as if to guide that person's look. when he hears a sound he may glance in the direction of it, but then look away to listen. often a suspended action, with a fixed look of the face, will serve to arrest the attention of auditors and fix it upon an idea. one should cultivate first the look, then the supporting or completing action. as to the movement of the arm and the form of the hand, one should be careful not to become stiff and precise by following exact rules. in general, it may be said that the beginning of the arm movement, being from the body, is in the upper arm; the finish of it is at the tips of the fingers, with the forefinger leading, or bringing the gesture to a point. there is generally a slightly flexible, rythmical movement of the arm and hand. this should not, as a rule, be very marked, and in specially energetic action is hardly observable. in this arm action there is an early preparatory movement, which indicates or suggests, what is coming. often a moment of suspense in the preparation enhances the effect of the finish, or stroke, of the gesture, which corresponds usually to the vocal emphasis. at the final pointing of the action, the hand is, for a moment or for moments, fixed, as the mind and the man are fixed, for the purpose of holding the attention of the auditor; then follows the recovery, so-called, from the gesture, or it may be, the passing to another gesture. and all the while, let it again be said, slight changes of bodily pose with proper adjustments of the feet, will make the harmonious, unified action. it should be remembered that, as in viewing a house or a picture we should be impressed by the main body and the general effect, rather than by any one feature, so on the same principle, no striking feature of a man's action should attract attention to itself. on the same principle, no part of the hand should be made conspicuous--the thumb or forefinger should not be too much stuck out, nor the other fingers, except in pointing, be very much curved in. generally, except in precise pointing, there is a graduated curving, not too nice, from the bent little finger to the straighter forefinger. as the gesture is concerned with thought more delicate, the action of the hand is lighter and tends more to the tips of the fingers; as it is more rugged and strong, the hand is held heavier. it is bad to carry the arm very far back, causing a strained look; to stretch the arms too straight out, or to confine the elbow to the side. the elbow is kept somewhat away even in the smallest gesture. while action should have nerve, it should not become nervous, that is, over- tense and rigid. it should be free and controlled, with good poise in the whole man. before leaving this subject, in its physical aspect, let us consider somewhat the matter of standing and moving on the platform. among imperfections as regards position, that kind of imperfection which takes the form of perfectly fixed feet, strictly upright figure, hands at the side, head erect, and eyes straight-of all bad kinds, this kind is the worst. this is often referred to as school declamation, or the speaking of a piece. we have discarded many old ideas of restriction in education. let us discard the strait-jacket in platform speaking. nobody else ever speaks as students are often compelled to speak. let them speak like boys--not like men even--much less like machines. there is of course a good and a bad way of standing and moving, but much is due to youth, to individuality, and to earnest intention, and a student should have free play in a large degree. in walking, the step should neither be too fast nor too slow, too long nor too short, too much on the heel or too much on the toe. a simple, straightforward way of getting there is all that is wanted. the arms are left to swing easily, but not too much; nor should one arm swing more than the other. the head, it will be noted, may occasionally rise and fall as one goes up or down steps or walks the platform. before beginning to speak, one should not obviously take a position and prepare. he should easily stop at his place, and, looking at his auditors, begin simply to say something to them. as to the feet, they will, of course, be variously placed or adjusted according to the pose of the body in the varying moods of the speech. in general, the body will rest more on one foot than on the other. in a position of ease, as usually at the beginning of a speech, one foot will bear most of the weight. in this case, this foot will normally be pointed nearly to the front; the other foot will be only very slightly in advance of this and will be turned more outward. the feet will not be close together; nor noticeably far apart. they need not--they had better not--as it is sometimes pictured in books, be so set that a line passing lengthwise through the freer foot will pass through the heel of the other foot. as a man becomes earnest in speaking, his posture will vary, and often he will stand almost equally on his two feet. in changing one's position, it is best to acquire the habit of moving the freer foot, the one lighter on the floor, first, thus avoiding a swaying, or toppling look of the body. in connection with the subject of standing, naturally comes the question of the arms in the condition of inaction. it is possibly well to train one's self, when learning to speak, to let the arms hang relaxed at the side, but speakers do not often so hold the arms. usually there is a desk near, and the speaker when at rest drops one hand upon this, or he lets one arm rest at the waist, or he brings the two hands together. any of these things may be done, if done simply, easily, without nervous tightening, or too frequent shifting. one thing, for practical reasons, should not be allowed, the too common habit of clasping the hands behind the back. it will become a fixed mannerism, and a bad one, for the hands are thus concealed, the shoulders and head may droop forward, and the hands may be so tightened together behind the back as to cause nervous tension in the body and in the voice. the hands should be in place ready for expressive action. the back is not such a place. nearly every movement that a man makes in speaking should have some fitting relation to what he is at the moment saying. these movements will then be varied. when certain repeated actions, without this proper relation, are acquired, they are called mannerisms. they have no meaning, and are obtrusive and annoying. repeated jerking or bobbing of the head, for a supposed emphasis; regularly turning the head from side to side, for addressing all the audience; nervous shaking of the head, as of one greatly in earnest; repeated, meaningless punching or pounding of the air, always in the same way; shifting of one foot regularly backward and forward; rising on the toes with each emphatic word,--although single movements similar to these often have appropriate place, none of these or others should be allowed to become fixed mannerisms, habitually recurring movements, without a purpose. we are sometimes told that certain manneristic ways are often a speaker's strength. probably this is at least half true. but eccentricities should not be cultivated or indulged. they will come. we should have as few as possible, or they won't count. one thing, however, should here be said. positive strength, with positive faults, is much better than spiritless inoffensiveness. one should not give all his attention to the avoiding of faults. in the application of gesture to the expression of ideas, one is helped, as has been said, by constantly heeding the general principle of suiting the form of the gesture to the nature of the thought, or of suiting the action to the word. inasmuch as gesture so generally takes the form of objects or actions, it is undoubtedly easier to begin with the more concrete in language, or with the discussion of tangible objects, and work from these to the more abstract and remotely imaginary--from the more, to the less, familiar. let the student indicate the location, or the height, or the width, or the form of an object. his action will probably be appropriate. let him apply similar, probably less definite, action to certain abstract ideas. let him pass to ideas more remote and vague, by action largely suggestive, not definite or literal. the most important, because the most fundamental, principle to be borne in mind is that gesture should be made to enforce, not the superficial, or incidental, ideas appearing in a statement, but the ideas which lie behind the form of expression and are the real basis, or inhere in the fundamental purpose, of the speaker's discourse. at the close of senator thurston's speech on intervention in behalf of cuba, there is picturesque language for impressing the contention that force is justified in a worthy cause. the speaker cites graphically examples of force at bunker hill, valley forge, shiloh, chattanooga, and lookout heights. the student is here very likely to be led astray by the fine opportunity to make gesture. he may vividly see and picture the snows of valley forge, marked with bloodstained feet, and the other scenes suggested, but forget about the central idea, the purpose behind all the vivid forms of expression. graphic, detailed gestures may have the effect of making the pictures in themselves the main object. the action here should be informal, unstudied, and merely remotely suggestive. the speaker should keep to his one central idea, and keep with his audience. otherwise the speech will be insincere and purposeless, perhaps absurd. the fundamental, not the superficial, should determine the action. young speakers almost invariably pick out words or phrases, suggesting the possibility of a gesture, and give exact illustration to them, as if the excellence of gesture were in itself an object, when really the thing primarily to be enforced is not these incidental features in the form of expression, but the underlying idea of the whole passage. it is as if the steeple were made out of proportion to the church, or a hat out of proportion to the man. this misconception of what gesture really means is doubtless, in large measure, the cause of making platform recitation often false and offensive. the remedy does not lie in omitting gesture altogether, as some seem to think, but in making gesture simple and true. finally, let the student remember that he goes to the platform, not to make a splendid speech and receive praise for a brilliant exhibition of his art, but that he goes there because the platform is a convenient place from which to tell the people something he has to say. let him think it nothing remarkable that he should be there; let him so bear himself, entering with simplicity, honesty, earnestness, and modesty, into his work, that no one will think much about how his work is done. spirited oratory, with the commanding presence, the sweeping action, and an overmastering force of utterance, may at times be called forth, but these are given to a man out of his subject and by the occasion; they are not to be assumed by him merely because he is before an audience, or as necessary features of speech-making. let the student speak, first and always, as a self-respecting, thinking man, earnest and strong, but self-controlled and sensible. platform practice the formal address the selections in the several sections for platform practice are to be used for applying, in appropriate combination, the principles heretofore worked out, one by one. the first group provides practice in the more formal style. the occasion of the formal address requires, in large degree, restraint and dignity. the thought is elevated; the mood serious, in some cases subdued, the form of expression exact and firm. the delivery should correspond. the tone should be, in some degree, ennobled; the movement deliberate, and comparatively even and measured; the modulation not marked by striking variations in pitch; the pauses rather regular, and the gesture always sparing, perhaps wholly omitted. the voice should be generally pure and fine; the enunciation should be finished and true. whatever action there may be should be restrained, well poised, deliberate, with some degree of grace. in general it should be felt that carelessness or looseness or aggressiveness or undue demonstrativeness would be out of harmony with the spirit of the occasion. good taste must be exercised at every step, and the audience should be addressed, from the outset, as in sympathy with the speaker and ready at once to approve. the spirit and manner of contention is out of place. in this style of discourse the liability to failure lies in the direction of dullness, monotony, lack of vitality and warmth. this is because the feeling is deep and still; is an undercurrent, strong but unseen. this restrained, repressed feeling is the most difficult fittingly to express. in this kind of speech some marring of just the right effect is difficult to avoid. simplicity, absolute genuineness, are the essential qualities. the ideas must be conveyed with power and significance, in due degree; but nothing too much is particularly the watchword regarding the outward features of the work. the public lecture in the public lecture the element of entertainment enters prominently. the audience, at first in a passive state, must be awakened, and taken on with the speaker. probably it must be instructed, perhaps amused. the speaker must make his own occasion. he has no help from the circumstance of predisposition among his auditors. he must compel, or he must win; he must charm or thrill; or he must do each in turn. animation, force, beauty, dramatic contrast, vividness, variety, are the qualities that will more or less serve, according to the style of the composition. aptness in the story or anecdote, facility in graphic illustration, readiness in expressing emotion, happiness in the imitative faculty, for touching off the eccentric in character or incident, are talents that come into play, and in the exercise of these, gesture of course has an important place. the lecture platform is perhaps the only field, with possibly the exception of what is properly the after-dinner speech, wherein public speaking may be viewed as strictly an art, something to be taken for its own sake, wherein excellence in the doing is principally the end in view. this means, generally, that individual talent, and training in all artistic requirements, count for more than the subject or any "accidents of office," in holding the auditor's interest. an animated and versatile style can be cultivated by striving to make effective the public lecture. the informal discussion informal discussion is the name chosen for the lecture or talk in the club or the classroom. it implies a rather small audience and familiar relations between audience and speaker. while the subject may be weighty, and the language may be necessarily of the literary or scientific sort, the style of speaking should be colloquial. it ought to bring the hearer pretty near to the speaker. if the subject and language are light, the speaking will be sprightly and comparatively swift. since the occasion for this kind of speaking is frequent, and the opportunity for it is likely to fall to almost any educated man, proficiency in it might well be made an object in the course of one's educational training. the end aimed at is the ability to talk well. this accomplishment is not so easy as it may seem. it marks, indeed, the stage of maturity in speech-making. since authoritative opinion from the speaker and interest in the subject on the part of the audience are prime elements in this form of discussion, little cultivation of form is usually given to this kind of speaking. the result is much complaining from auditors about inaudibleness, dullness, monotony, annoying mannerisms, or a too formal, academic tone that keeps the audience remote, a lack of what is called the human quality. a good talker from the desk not only has the reward of appreciation and gratitude, but is able to accomplish results in full proportion to all that he puts into the improvement of his vocal work. an agreeable tone, easy formation of words, clear, well-balanced emphasis, good phrasing, or grouping of words in the sentence, some vigor without continual pounding, easy, unstudied bodily movement without manneristic repetition of certain motions, in short, good form without any obtrusive appearance of form,--these are the qualities desired. argumentative speech in the case of the forensic, we come nearer to the practical in public speaking. the speaker aims, as a rule, to effect a definite purpose, and he concentrates his powers upon this immediate object. since the speech is for the most part an appeal to the reason, and therefore deals largely with fact and the logical relations of ideas, precision and clearness of statement are the chief qualities to be cultivated. but since the aim is to overcome opposition, and produce conviction, and so to impress and stir as to affect the will to a desired action, the element of force, and the moving quality of persuasion enters in as a reënforcement of the speaker's logic. generally the speech is very direct, and often it is intense. it has in greater degree than any other form the feature of aggressiveness. some form of attack is adopted, for the purpose of overthrowing the opposing force. that attack is followed up in a direct line of argument, and is carried out to a finish. in delivery the continuous line of pursuit thus followed often naturally leads to a kind of effective monotone style, wherein the speaker keeps an even force, or strikes blow after blow, or sends shot after shot. the characteristic feature of the forensic style is the climax--climax in brief successions of words, climax in the sentence, climax in giving sections of the speech, climax in the speech as a whole. special notice should be taken of the fact that, in earnest argument, sentences have, characteristically, a different run from that in ordinary expository speaking. whereas in the expository style the sentence flows, as a rule, easily forth, with the voice rising and falling, in an undulatory sort of way, and dropping restfully to a finish, in the heated forensic style, the sentence is given the effect of being sent straight forth, as if to a mark, with the last word made the telling one, and so kept well up in force and pitch. the accumulating force has the effect of sending the last word home, or of making it the one to clinch the statement. the dangers to be guarded against in debate are wearying monotony, over-hammering--too frequent, too hard, too uniform an emphasis--too much, or too continued heat, too much speed, especially in speaking against time, a loss of poise in the bearing, a halting or jumbling in speech, nervous tenseness in action, an overcontentious or bumptious spirit. bodily control, restraint, good temper, balance, are the saving qualities. a debater must remember that he need not be always in a heat. urbanity and graciousness have their place, and the relief afforded by humor is often welcome and effective. in no form of speaking, except that of dramatic recitation, is the liability to impairment of voice so great as it is in debating. one of the several excellent features of debating is that of the self- forgetfulness that comes with an earnest struggle to win. but perhaps a man cannot safely forget himself until he has learned to know himself. the intensity of debating often leads, in the case of a speaker vocally untrained, to a tightening of the throat in striving for force, to a stiffening of the tongue and lips for making incisive articulation, to a rigidness of the jaw from shutting down on words to give decisive emphasis. soon the voice has the juice squeezed out of it. the tone becomes harsh and choked; then ragged and weak. the only remedy is to go straight back and begin all over, just as a golfer usually does when he has gone on without instruction. the necessity of going back is often not realized till later in life; then the process is much harder, and perhaps can never be entirely effective. the teacher in the course of his experience meets many, many such cases. the time to learn the right way is at the beginning. among the selections here offered for forensic practice, examples in debate serve for the cultivation of the aggressiveness that comes from immediate opposition; examples in the political speech for acquiring the abandon and enthusiasm of the so-called popular style; in the legal plea for practice in suppressed force. in the case of the last of these, it is well that the audience be near to the speaker, as is the case in an address to a judge or jury. the idea is to be forcible without being loud and high; to cultivate a subdued tone that shall, at the same time, be vital and impressive. the importance of a manner of speaking that is not only clear and effective, but also agreeable, easy to listen to, is quite obvious when we consider the task of a judge or a jury, who have to sit for hours and try to carry in their minds the substance of all that has been said, weighing point against point, balancing one body of facts against another. a student can arrange nearly the same conditions as to space, and can, by exercise of imagination, enter into the spirit of a legal conflict. the after-dinner speech after-dinner speaking is another form that many men may have an opportunity to engage in. it can also be practiced under conditions resembling those of the actual occasion, that is, members of the class can be so seated that the speaking may become intimate in tone, and speeches can be selected that will serve for cultivating that distinctive, sociable quality of voice that, in itself, goes far in contributing to the comfort and delight of the after-dinner audience. the real after-dinner speech deals much in pleasantry. the tone of voice is characteristically unctuous. old fezziwig is described by dickens as calling out "in a comfortable, rich, fat, jovial, oily voice." something like this is perhaps the ideal after-dinner voice, although there is a dry humor as well as an unctuous, and each speaker will, after all, have his own way of making his hearers comfortable, happy, and attentive. ease and deliberation are first requisites. nervous intensity may not so much mar the effect of earnest debate. the social chat is spoiled by it. humor, as a rule, requires absolute restfulness. especially should a beginner guard himself against haste in making the point at the finish of a story. it does no harm to keep the hearer waiting a bit, in expectation. the effect may be thus enhanced, while the effect will be entirely lost if the point, and the true touch, are spoiled by uncontrolled haste. the way to gain this ease and control is not by stiffening up to master one's self, but by relaxing, letting go of one's self. practice in the speech of pleasantry may have great value in giving a man repose, in giving him that saving grace, an appreciation of the humorous, in affording him a means of relief or enlivenment to the serious speech. the occasional poem the occasional poem is so frequently brought forth in connection with speech-making that some points regarding metrical reading may be quite in place in a speaker's training. practice in verse reading is of use also because of the frequency of quoted lines from the poets in connection with the prose speech. to read a poem well one must become in spirit a poet. he must not only think, he must feel. he must exercise imagination. he must, we will say it again, see visions and dream dreams. what was said about vividness in the discussion of expressional effects applies generally to the reading of poetry. one will read much better if he has tried to write-- in verse as well as in prose. he will then know how to put himself in the place of the poet, and will not be so likely to mar the poet's verses by "reading them ill-favoredly." he will know the value of words that have been so far sought, and may not slur over them; he may feel the sound of a line formed to suggest a sound in nature. he will know that a meter has been carefully worked out, and that, in the reading, that meter is of the spirit of the poem; it is not to be disregarded. likewise he will appreciate the place of rhyme, and may not try so to cover it up as entirely to lose its effect. in humorous verse, especially, rhyme plays an effective part; and in all verse, alliteration, variations in melody, the lighter and the heavier touch, acceleration and retard in movement, the caesura, or pause in the line, and the happy effect of the occasional cadence, are features which one can come to appreciate and respect only with reading one's favorite poems many times, with spirit warm, with faculties alert. the making of the speech although the use of selected speeches is best for effective drill in delivery, yet a student's training for public speaking is of course not complete until he has had experience in applying his acquired skill to the presenting of his own thought. thinking and speaking should be made one operation. the principles of composition for the public speech belong to a separate work. a few hints only can be given here, and these will be concerned with the informal, offhand speech rather than with the formal address. the usual directions regarding the choosing of the subject, the collecting of material, and the arranging of it in the most effective order, with exceptions and variations, hold in all forms of the speech. the subject chosen should be one of special interest to the speaker, one on which it is known he can speak with some degree of authority, because of his personal study of it, or because of his having had exceptional personal relations with it. it must also be, because of the nature of it, or because of some special treatment, of particular interest to the audience to be addressed. either new, out-of-the-way subjects, or new, fresh phases of old subjects are usually interesting. the subject must be limited in its comprehensiveness to suit the time allowed for speaking, and the title of the speech should be so phrased as to indicate exactly what the subject, or the part of a subject, is to be. to this carefully limited and defined subject, the speaker should rigidly adhere. how to find a subject is generally a topic on which students are advised. though it is often a necessity to hunt for a suitable special topic on which to speak, the student should know that when he gets outside the classroom, he will find that he will not be invited to speak because he is ready at finding subjects and clever in speech. it is not strange, in view of the many advertisements that reach young men, offering methods of home training, or promising sure success from this or that special method of schooling, that they may come to believe that any one has only to learn to stand up boldly on a platform, and with voice and gesture exercise some mysterious sort of magical control over an audience, and his success as an orator is secure. they will find that their time and money have been wasted, so far as public speaking is concerned, unless, having at the start some native ability, they have secured, in addition, a kind of training that is fundamental. a man is wanted as a speaker primarily because he stands for something; because he has done some noteworthy work. his subjects for discussion arise out of his personal interests, and, to a large extent, his method of treatment will be determined by his relation to these subjects. a young man may well be advised, then, not simply how to choose and how to present a subject, but first to secure a good mental training, and then to find for himself an all-absorbing work to do. the wisdom that comes from a concentrated intellectual activity, and an interest in men's affairs, both directed to some unselfish end, is the essential qualification of the speaker. in considering the arrangement of a speech, the student will do well to ask himself first, not what is to be the beginning of it, but what is to be the end of it; what is the purpose of it; and what shall be the central idea; what impression, or what principal thought or thoughts, shall be left with the audience. when this is determined, then a way of working out this central idea or of working up to it--in a short speech, by a few points only--must be carefully and thoroughly planned. extemporaneous speaking is putting spontaneously into words what has previously been well thought out and well arranged. without this state of preparation, the way of wisdom is silence. the language of a speech is largely determined by the man's habit of mind, the nature of his subject, and the character of his audience. students often err in one of two directions, either by being too bookish in language or by allowing the other extreme of looseness, weak colloquialism in words, and formless monotony of sentence, with the endless repetition of the connective "and." language should be fresh, vital, varied. it should have some dignity. much reading, writing, and speaking are necessary to secure an adequate vocabulary, and a readiness in putting in firm form a variety of sentences. concreteness of expression and occasional illustration are more needed in speech than in writing, and the brief anecdote or story is welcome and useful if there is room for it, and if it comes unbidden, by virtue of its fitness and spontaneity, and is not drawn in by the ears for half- hearted service. the inevitable story at the opening of an after-dinner speech might often be spared. although a good story is in itself enjoyable, yet when a speaker feels that he must make one fit into the speech, whether or no, by applying it to himself or his subject or the occasion, the effect is often very unhappy. a man is best guided in these things simply by being true, by being sincere rather than artful. on this same principle, a student may need some advice with regard to his spirit and manner in giving expression to his own ideas before an audience. he need not, as students often seem to think they must, appear to have full knowledge or final judgment on the largest of subjects. it is more fitting that he should speak as a student, an inquirer, not as an authority. if his statements are guarded and qualified; if he speaks as one only inclined to an opinion when finality of judgment is obviously beyond his reach; if he directly refers, and defers, to opinions that must be better than his can be, his speech will have much more weight, and he will grow in strength of character by always being true to himself. it is a question whether students are not too often inspired to be bold and absolute, for the sake of apparent strength in speaking, rather than modest and judicious and sensible, for the sake of being strong as men. in the form of delivering one's thought to an audience, it is of the first importance that one should speak and not declaim. there is, of course, a way of talking on the platform that is merely negatively good, a way that is fitting enough in general style, but weak. there should be breadth, and strength, and reach. but this does not mean any necessity of sending forth pointless successive sentences over the heads of an audience. a college president recently said, "our boys declaim a good deal, though they're not so bad as they used to be. it seems to me," he added, "that the idea is to say something to your audience." that is what a teacher must be continually insisting on, that the student say something to somebody, not chant or declaim into space. and the student should be continually testing himself on this point, whether he is looking into the faces of his hearers and speaking, though on a larger scale, yet in the usual way of communicating ideas. it is not desirable that men should become overready speakers. methods of training in extemporaneous discussion that require speaking without thought, on anything or nothing that can be at the moment invented, are likely to be mischievous. thought suggests expression, and exact thought will find fit form. sound thinking is the main thing. practice for mere fluency tends to the habit of superficial thinking, and produces the wearisome, endless talker. in this connection emphasis may be laid upon the point of ending a speech when its purpose is accomplished, and that as soon as can be. many speeches are spoiled by the last third or quarter of them, when a point well made has lost its effect by being overenforced or obscured by a wordy conclusion. let the student study for rare thought and economy of speech. books on speaking have repeatedly insisted that after all has been said, the public speaker's word will be taken for what he is known to be worth as a man; that his utterances will have effect according as they are given out with soul-felt earnestness. this has already been touched upon here, and it is well that it should be often repeated. it may be well, however, also to consider quite carefully what part is played in men's efforts by the element of skill. of two equally worthy and equally earnest men, the man of the superior skill, acquired by persistent training in method, will be the stronger man, the man who will be of more service to his fellows. more than this, inasmuch as public men can seldom be perfectly known or judged as to character, and may often, for a time at least, deceive, it is quite possible that the unscrupulous man with great skill will, at some moment of crisis, make the worse appear to be the better cause. equally skilled men are therefore wanted to contend for the side of right. the man whose service to men depends largely upon his power of speech--in the pulpit, at the bar, or in non-professional capacity--must have, either from gift or from training, the speaker's full equipment, for matching himself against opposing strength. review exercises for convenience of practice, a few pages of brief exercises, exemplifying the foregoing principles, are given at the end of the book. by using each day one example in each group, and changing from time to time, the student will have sufficient variety to serve indefinitely. this vocal practice may be made a healthful and pleasurable daily exercise. part two technical training establishing the tone o scotia! from "the cotter's saturday night" by robert burns o scotia! my dear, my native soil! for whom my warmest wish to heaven is sent, long may thy hardy sons of rustic toil be blest with health, and peace, and sweet content! and oh! may heaven their simple lives prevent from luxury's contagion, weak and vile! then, howe'er crowns and coronets be rent, a virtuous populace may rise the while, and stand a wall of fire around their much-loved isle. o thou! who poured the patriotic tide, that streamed through wallace's undaunted heart, who dared to nobly stem tyrannic pride, or nobly die, the second glorious part, (the patriot's god, peculiarly thou art, his friend, inspirer, guardian and reward!) oh never, never, scotia's realm desert; but still the patriot, and the patriot bard, in bright succession raise, her ornament and guard! o rome! my country! from "childe harold's pilgrimage" by lord byron o rome! my country! city of the soul! the orphans of the heart must turn to thee, lone mother of dead empires! and control in their shut breasts, their petty misery. what are our woes and sufferance?--come and see the cypress, hear the owl, and plod your way o'er steps of broken thrones and temples, ye! whose agonies are evils of a day:-- a world is at our feet as fragile as our clay. the niobe of nations! there she stands, childless and crownless, in her voiceless woe; an empty urn within her withered hands, whose holy dust was scattered long ago;-- the scipios' tomb contains no ashes now; the very sepulchers lie tenantless of their heroic dwellers:--dost thou flow, old tiber! through a marble wilderness? rise, with thy yellow waves, and mantle her distress! ring out, wild bells! from "in memoriam" by alfred lord tennyson ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky, the flying cloud, the frosty light; the year is dying in the night; ring out, wild bells, and let him die. ring out the old, ring in the new, ring, happy bells, across the snow; the year is going, let him go; ring out the false, ring in the true. ring out the grief that saps the mind, for those that here we see no more; ring out the feud of rich and poor, ring in redress to all mankind. ring out a slowly dying cause, and ancient forms of party strife; ring in the nobler modes of life, with sweeter manners, purer laws. ring out the want, the care, the sin, the faithless coldness of the times; ring out, ring out my mournful rhymes, but ring the fuller minstrel in. ring out false pride in place and blood, the civic slander and the spite; ring in the love of truth and right, ring in the common love of good. roll on, thou deep! from "childe harold's pilgrimage" by lord byron roll on, thou deep and dark blue ocean, roll! ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain; man marks the earth with ruin--his control stops with the shore: upon the watery plain, the wrecks are all thy deed, nor doth remain a shadow of man's ravage, save his own, when for a moment, like a drop of rain, he sinks into thy depths with bubbling groan, without a grave, unknell'd, uncoffin'd, and unknown. the armaments, which thunderstrike the walls of rock-built cities, bidding nations quake, and monarchs tremble in their capitals; the oak leviathans, whose huge ribs make their clay creator the vain title take of lord of thee, and arbiter of war; these are thy toys, and, as the snowy flake, they melt into thy yeast of waves, which mar alike th' armada's pride or spoils of trafalgar. thy shores are empires, changed in all save thee: assyria, greece, rome, carthage,--what are they? thy waters wasted them while they were free, and many a tyrant since; their shores obey the stranger, slave, or savage; their decay has dried up realms to deserts: not so thou; unchangeable, save to thy wild waves play, time writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow; such as creation's dawn beheld, thou rollest now. and i have loved thee, ocean! and my joy of youthful sports was on thy breast to be borne, like thy bubbles, onward: from a boy i wanton'd with thy breakers--they to me were a delight; and if the freshening sea made them a terror--'twas a pleasing fear. thou, too, sail on! from "the building of the ship," by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by henry w. longfellow sail forth into the sea, o ship! through wind and wave, right onward steer! the moistened eye, the trembling lip, are not the signs of doubt or fear. sail forth into the sea of life, o gentle, loving, trusting wife, and safe from all adversity upon the bosom of that sea thy comings and thy goings be! for gentleness and love and trust prevail o'er angry wave and gust; and in the wreck of noble lives something immortal still survives! thou, too, sail on, o ship of state! sail on, o union, strong and great! humanity with all its fears, with all the hopes of future years, is hanging breathless on thy fate! we know what master laid thy keel, what workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, who made each mast, and sail, and rope, what anvils rang, what hammers beat, in what a forge and what a heat were shaped the anchors of thy hope! fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'tis of the wave and not the rock; 'tis but the flapping of the sail, and not a rent made by the gale! in spite of rock and tempest's roar, in spite of false lights on the shore, sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, our faith triumphant o'er our fears, are all with thee,--are all with thee! o tiber, father tiber! from "horatius" by lord macaulay "o tiber, father tiber! to whom the romans pray, a roman's life, a roman's arms, take thou in charge this day!" so he spake, and, speaking, sheathed the good sword by his side, and, with his harness on his back, plunged headlong in the tide. no sound of joy or sorrow was heard from either bank, but friends and foes in dumb surprise, with parted lips and straining eyes, stood gazing where he sank; and when above the surges they saw his crest appear, all rome sent forth a rapturous cry, and even the ranks of tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer. but fiercely ran the current, swollen high by months of rain, and fast his blood was flowing, and he was sore in pain, and heavy with his armor, and spent with changing blows; and oft they thought him sinking, but still again he rose. and now he feels the bottom;-- now on dry earth he stands; now round him throng the fathers to press his gory hands. and now, with shouts and clapping, and noise of weeping loud, he enters through the river gate, borne by the joyous crowd. marullus to the roman citizens from "julius cæsar" by william shakespeare _flavius_. why dost thou lead these men about the streets? _second citizen_. indeed, sir, we make holiday, to see cæsar, and to rejoice in his triumph. _marullus_. wherefore rejoice? what conquest brings he home? what tributaries follow him to rome, to grace in captive bonds his chariot-wheels? you blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things! o you hard hearts, you cruel men of rome, knew you not pompey? many a time and oft have you climb'd up to walls and battlements, to towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops, your infants in your arms, and there have sat the live-long day, with patient expectation to see great pompey pass the streets of rome; and when you saw his chariot but appear, have you not made an universal shout, that tiber trembled underneath her banks, to hear the replication of your sounds, made in her concave shores? and do you now put on your best attire? and do you now cull out a holiday? and do you now strew flowers in his way that comes in triumph over pompey's blood? be gone! run to your houses, fall upon your knees, pray to the gods to intermit the plague that needs must light on this ingratitude. the recessional from "collected verse," with the permission of a. p. watt and son, london, and doubleday, page and company, new york, publishers by rudyard kipling god of our fathers, known of old-- lord of our far-flung battle-line-- beneath whose awful hand we hold dominion over palm and pine-- lord god of hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget--lest we forget. the tumult and the shouting dies-- the captains and the kings depart-- still stands thine ancient sacrifice, an humble and a contrite heart. lord god of hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget--lest we forget. far-called our navies melt away-- on dune and headland sinks the fire, lo, all our pomp of yesterday is one with nineveh and tyre. judge of the nations, spare us yet, lest we forget--lest we forget. if, drunk with sight of power, we loose wild tongues that have not thee in awe-- such boasting as the gentiles use or lesser breeds without the law-- lord god of hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget--lest we forget. for heathen heart that puts her trust in reeking tube and iron shard-- all valiant dust that builds on dust, and guarding calls not thee to guard-- for frantic boast and foolish word, thy mercy on thy people, lord. the cradle of liberty from webster's reply to hayne, in the united states senate. little, brown and company, boston, publishers of "the great speeches and orations of daniel webster" by daniel webster mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium upon massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain forever. the bones of her sons, fallen in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia; and there they will lie forever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. if discord and disunion shall wound it; if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it; if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that union by which alone its existence is made sure,--it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. the impeachment of warren hastings delivered in the house of lords, february , by edmund burke my lords, i do not mean to go further than just to remind your lordships of this,--that mr. hastings's government was one whole system of oppression, of robbery of individuals, of spoliation of the public, and of suppression of the whole system of the english government, in order to vest in the worst of the natives all the power that could possibly exist in any government; in order to defeat the ends which all governments ought, in common, to have in view. in the name of the commons of england, i charge all this villainy upon warren hastings, in this last moment of my application to you. therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the commons of great britain, i impeach warren hastings of high crimes and misdemeanors. i impeach him in the name of the commons of great britain in parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has abused. i impeach him in the name of the commons of great britain, whose national character he has dishonored. i impeach him in the name of the people of india, whose laws, rights, and liberties he has subverted. i impeach him in the name of the people of india, whose property he has destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate. i impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed, in both sexes. and i impeach him in the name and by the virtue of those eternal laws of justice, which ought equally to pervade every age, condition, rank, and situation, in the world. bunker hill from the oration at the laying of the corner stone of the monument, june , . little, brown and company, boston, publishers of "the great speeches and orations of daniel webster" by daniel webster this uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited. these thousands of human faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and from the impulses of a common gratitude turned reverently to heaven in this spacious temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the purpose of our assembling have made a deep impression on our hearts. if, indeed, there be anything in local association fit to affect the mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agitate us here. we are among the sepulchers of our fathers. we are on ground distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. we are here, not to fix an uncertain date in our annals, nor to draw into notice an obscure and unknown spot. if our humble purpose had never been conceived, if we ourselves had never been born, the th of june, , would have been a day on which all subsequent history would have poured its light, and the eminence where we stand a point of attraction to the eyes of successive generations. but we are americans. we live in what may be called the early age of this great continent; and we know that our posterity, through all time, are here to enjoy and suffer the allotments of humanity. we see before us a probable train of great events; we know that our own fortunes have been happily cast, and it is natural, therefore, that we should be moved by the contemplation of occurrences which have guided our destiny before many of us were born, and settled the condition in which we should pass that portion of our existence which god allows to man on earth. the gettysburg address in dedication of the national cemetery at gettysburg, pa., nov. , by abraham lincoln fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battlefield of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. vocal flexibility cÆsar, the fighter from "the courtship of miles standish," by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works by henry w. longfellow "a wonderful man was this cæsar! you are a writer, and i am a fighter, but here is a fellow who could both write and fight, and in both was equally skillful!" straightway answered and spake john alden, the comely, the youthful: "yes, he was equally skilled, as you say, with his pen and his weapons. somewhere have i read, but where i forget, he could dictate seven letters at once, at the same time writing his memoirs." "truly," continued the captain, not heeding or hearing the other, "truly a wonderful man was caius julius cæsar! better be first, he said, in a little iberian village, than be second in rome, and i think he was right when he said it. twice was he married before he was twenty, and many times after; battles five hundred he fought, and a thousand cities he conquered; he, too, fought in flanders, as he himself has recorded; finally he was stabbed by his friend, the orator brutus! now, do you know what he did on a certain occasion in flanders, when the rear-guard of his army retreated, the front giving way too, and the immortal twelfth legion was crowded so closely together there was no room for their swords? why, he seized a shield from a soldier, put himself straight at the head of his troops, and commanded the captains, calling on each by his name, to order forward the ensigns; then to widen the ranks, and give more room for their weapons; so he won the day, the battle of something-or-other. that's what i always say; if you wish a thing to be well done, you must do it yourself, you must not leave it to others!" official duty by theodore roosevelt i want to talk to you of the attitude that should properly be observed by legislators, by executive officers, toward wealth, and the attitude that should be observed in return by men of means, and especially by corporations, toward the body politic and toward their fellow citizens. i utterly distrust the man of whom it is continually said: "oh, he's a good fellow, but, of course, in politics, he plays politics" it is about as bad for a man to profess, and for those that listen to him by their plaudits to insist upon his professing something which they know he cannot live up to, as it is for him to go below what he ought to do, because if he gets into the habit of lying to himself and to his audience as to what he intends to do, it is certain to eat away his moral fiber. he won't be able then to stand up to what he knows ought to be done. the temptation of the average politician is to promise everything to the reformers and then to do everything for the organization. i think i can say that, whatever i have promised on the stump or off the stump, either expressly or impliedly, to either organization or reformers, i have kept my promise; and i should keep it just as much if the reformers disapproved. a public man is bound to represent his constituents, but he is no less bound to cease to represent them when, on a great moral question, he feels that they are taking the wrong side. let him go out of politics rather than stay in at the cost of doing what his own conscience forbids him to do. look well to your speech from "self-cultivation in english," with the permission of the author, and of thomas y. crowell company, new york, publishers by george herbert palmer first, then, "look well to your speech." it is commonly supposed that when a man seeks literary power he goes to his room and plans an article for the press. but this is to begin literary culture at the wrong end. we speak a hundred times for every once we write. the busiest writer produces little more than a volume a year, not so much as his talk would amount to in a week. consequently through speech it is usually decided whether a man is to have command of his language or not. if he is slovenly in his ninety-nine cases of talking, he can seldom pull himself up to strength and exactitude in the hundredth case of writing. a person is made in one piece, and the same being runs through a multitude of performances. whether words are uttered on paper or to the air, the effect on the utterer is the same. vigor or feebleness results according as energy or slackness has been in command. i know that certain adaptations to a new field are often necessary. a good speaker may find awkwardnesses in himself when he comes to write, a good writer when he speaks. and certainly cases occur where a man exhibits distinct strength in one of the two, speaking or writing, and not in the other. but such cases are rare. as a rule, language once within our control can be employed for oral or for written purposes. and since the opportunities for oral practice enormously outbalance those for written, it is the oral which are chiefly significant in the development of literary power. we rightly say of the accomplished writer that he shows a mastery of his own tongue. fortunate it is, then, that self-cultivation in the use of english must chiefly come through speech; because we are always speaking, whatever else we do. in opportunities for acquiring a mastery of language, the poorest and busiest are at no large disadvantage as compared with the leisured rich. it is true the strong impulse which comes from the suggestion and approval of society may in some cases be absent; but this can be compensated by the sturdy purpose of the learner. a recognition of the beauty of well-ordered words, a strong desire, patience under discouragements, and promptness in counting every occasion as of consequence,--these are the simple agencies which sweep one on to power. watch your speech, then. hamlet to the players from "hamlet" by william shakespeare _hamlet_. speak the speech, i pray you, as i pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it as many of your players do, i had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines. nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as i may say, the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. o, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb- shows and noise. i could have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing termagant; it out-herods herod: pray you, avoid it. _i player_. i warrant your honor. _hamlet_. be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature; for any thing so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theater of others. o, there be players that i have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely, that, neither having the accent of christians nor the gait of christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that i have thought some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. bellario's letter from "the merchant of venice" by william shakespeare _duke_. this letter from bellario doth commend a young and learned doctor to our court. where is he? _nerissa_. he attendeth here hard by, to know your answer, whether you'll admit him. _duke_. with all my heart. some three or four of you go give him courteous conduct to this place. meantime the court shall hear bellario's letter. _clerk_ (reads). "your grace shall understand that at the receipt of your letter i am very sick; but in the instant that your messenger came, in loving visitation was with me a young doctor of rome; his name is balthasar. i acquainted him with the cause in controversy between the jew and antonio the merchant: we turned o'er many books together: he is furnished with my opinion; which, bettered with his own learning, the greatness whereof i cannot enough commend, comes with him, at my importunity, to fill up your grace's request in my stead. i beseech you, let his lack of years be no impediment to let him lack a reverend estimation; for i never knew so young a body with so old a head. i leave him to your gracious acceptance, whose trial shall better publish his commendation." casca, speaking of cÆsar from "julius cæsar" by william shakespeare _casca_. you pull'd me by the cloak; would you speak with me? _brutus_. ay, casca; tell us what hath chanc'd to-day, that cæsar looks so sad. _casca_. why, you were with him, were you not? _brutus_. i should not, then, ask casca what had chanc'd. _casca_. why, there was a crown offered him; and being offered him, he put it by with the back of his hand, thus; and then the people fell a-shouting. _brutus_. what was the second noise for? _casca_. why, for that too. _cassius_. they shouted thrice: what was the last cry for? _casca_. why, for that too. _brutus_. was the crown offered him thrice? _casca_. ay, marry, was't, and he put it by thrice, every time gentler than other; and at every putting-by mine honest neighbors shouted. _cassius_. who offered him the crown? _casca_. why, antony. _brutus_. tell us the manner of it, gentle casca. _casca_. i can as well be hanged as tell the manner of it: it was mere foolery; i did not mark it. i saw mark antony offer him a crown;--yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets;-- and, as i told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loth to lay his fingers off it. and then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by: and still as he refused it, the rabblement shouted, and clapped their chopped hands, and threw up their sweaty nightcaps, and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because cæsar refused the crown, that it had almost choked cæsar; for he swooned, and fell down at it: and for mine own part, i durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips, and receiving the bad air. squandering of the voice from "lectures on oratory" by henry ward beecher how much squandering there is of the voice! how little there is of the advantage that may come from conversational tones! how seldom does a man dare to acquit himself with pathos and fervor! and the men are themselves mechanical and methodical in the bad way who are most afraid of the artificial training that is given in the schools, and who so often show by the fruit of their labor that the want of oratory is the want of education. how remarkable is the sweetness of voice in the mother, in the father, in the household! the music of no chorded instruments brought together is, for sweetness, like the music of familiar affection when spoken by brother and sister, or by father and mother. conversation itself belongs to oratory. how many men there are who are weighty in argument, who have abundant resources, and who are almost boundless in their power at other times and in other places, but who, when in company among their kind, are exceedingly unapt in their methods. having none of the secret instruments by which the elements of nature may be touched, having no skill and no power in this direction, they stand as machines before living, sensitive men. a man may be a master before an instrument; only the instrument is dead; and he has the living hand; and out of that dead instrument what wondrous harmony springs forth at his touch! and if you can electrify an audience by the power of a living man on dead things, how much more should that audience be electrified when the chords are living and the man is alive, and he knows how to touch them with divine inspiration! the training of the gentleman from "personal power," by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by william j. tucker in this talk about the part which the college may take in the training of a gentleman, i have not dwelt, as you have noticed, upon forms or conventionalities. every gentleman respects form. respect for form can be taught, or at least inculcated, but not form itself. one comes to be at ease in society by going into society. manners come by observation. we imitate, we follow the better fashion of society, the better behavior of men. good breeding consists first in the attention of others in our behalf to certain necessary details, then in our attention to them. we come in time to draw close and nice distinctions. this little thing is right, that is not quite right. so we grow into the formal habits of a gentleman. "good manners are made up of constant and petty sacrifices," says emerson. it is well to keep this saying in mind as a qualification of another of his more familiar sayings: "give me a thought, and my hands and legs and voice and face will all go right. it is only when mind and character slumber that the dress can be seen." i like to see the well-bred man, to whom the details of social life have become a second nature. i like also to see the play of that first healthy instinct in a true man which scorns a mean act, which will not allow him to take part in the making of a mean custom, which for example, if he be a college fellow, will not suffer him to treat another fellow as a fag. i am entirely sure that that man is a gentleman. so then it is, in this world of books, of companionship, of sport, of struggle with some of us, of temptation also, and yet more of high incentives, we are all set to the task of coming out, and of helping one another to come out, as gentlemen. do not miss, i beseech you, the greatness of the task. do not miss its constancy. it is more than the incidental work of a college to train the efficient, the honorable, the unselfish man. a college-bred man must be able to show at all times and on all occasions the quality of his distinction. making the point brutus to the roman citizens from "julius cæsar" by william shakespeare be patient till the last. romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor, that you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses, that you may the better judge. if there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of cæsar's, to him i say, that brutus' love to cæsar was no less than his. if, then, that friend demand why brutus rose against cæsar, this is my answer,--not that i loved cæsar less, but that i loved rome more. had you rather cæsar were living, and die all slaves, than that cæsar were dead, to live all free men? as cæsar loved me, i weep for him; as he was fortunate i rejoice at it; as he was valiant, i honor him: but, as he was ambitious, i slew him. there is tears for his love; joy for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his ambition. who is here so base that would be a bondman? if any, speak; for him have i offended. who is here so rude that would not be a roman? if any, speak; for him have i offended. who is here so vile that will not love his country? if any, speak; for him have i offended. i have done no more to cæsar than you shall do to brutus. the question of his death is enrolled in the capitol; his glory not extenuated, wherein he was worthy; nor his offenses enforced, for which he suffered death. here comes his body, mourned by mark antony: who, though he had no hand in his death, shall receive the benefit of his dying, a place in the commonwealth; as which of you shall not? with this i depart,-- that, as i slew my best lover for the good of rome, i have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country to need my death. the precepts of polonius from "hamlet" by william shakespeare yet here, laertes! aboard, aboard, for shame! the wind sits in the shoulder of your sail, and you are stay'd for. there; my blessing with thee! and these few precepts in thy memory see thou character. give thy thoughts no tongue, nor any unproportion'd thought his act. be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar. those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; but do not dull thy palm with entertainment of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade. beware of entrance to a quarrel, but, being in, bear't that the opposed may beware of thee. give every man thy ear, but few thy voice; take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment. costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, but not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy; for the apparel oft proclaims the man, and they in france of the best rank and station are most select and generous, chief in that. neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. this above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. farewell; my blessing season this in thee! the high standard from the lord rector's address, university of edinburgh, by lord rosebery let us win in the competition of international well-being and prosperity. let us have a finer, better educated, better lodged, and better nourished race than exists elsewhere; better schools, better universities, better tribunals, ay, and better churches. in one phrase, let our standard be higher, not in the jargon of the education department, but in the acknowledgment of mankind. the standard of mankind is not so exalted but that a nobler can be imagined and attained. the dream of him who loved scotland best would lie not so much in the direction of antiquarian revival, as in the hope that his country might be pointed out as one that in spite of rocks, and rigor, and poverty, could yet teach the world by precept and example, could lead the van and point the moral, where greater nations and fairer states had failed. those who believe the scots to be so eminently vain a race, will say that already we are in our opinion the tenth legion of civilization. well, vanity is a centipede with corns on every foot: i will not tread where the ground is most dangerous. but if we are not foremost, we may at any rate become so. our fathers have declared unto us what was done in their days and in the old time before them: we know that we come of a strenuous stock. do you remember the words that young carlyle wrote to his brother nine years after he had left this university as a student, forty-three years before he returned as its rector?-- "i say, jack, thou and i must never falter. work, my boy, work unweariedly. i swear that all the thousand miseries of this hard fight, and ill-health, the most terrific of them all, shall never chain us down. by the river styx it shall not! two fellows from a nameless spot in annandale shall yet show the world the pluck that is in carlyles." let that be your spirit to-day. you are citizens of no mean city, members of no common state, heirs of no supine empire. you will many of you exercise influence over your fellow men: some will study and interpret our laws, and so become a power; others will again be in a position to solace and exalt, as destined to be doctors and clergymen, and so the physical and spiritual comforters of mankind. make the best of these opportunities. raise your country, raise your university, raise yourselves. on taxing the colonies delivered in the house of commons, march, by edmund burke reflect, sirs, that when you have fixed a quota of taxation for every colony, you have not provided for prompt and punctual payment. you must make new boston port bills, new restraining laws, new acts for dragging men to england for trial. you must send out new fleets, new armies. all is to begin again. from this day forward the empire is never to know an hour's tranquillity. an intestine fire will be kept alive in the bowels of the colonies, which one time or other must consume this whole empire. instead of a standing revenue, you will therefore have a perpetual quarrel. indeed, the noble lord who proposed this project seems himself to be of that opinion. his project was rather designed for breaking the union of the colonies than for establishing a revenue. but whatever his views may be, as i propose the peace and union of the colonies as the very foundation of my plan, it cannot accord with one whose foundation is perpetual discord. compare the two. this i offer to give you is plain and simple; the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes. this is mild; that harsh. this is found by experience effectual for its purposes; the other is a new project. this is universal; the other calculated for certain colonies only. this is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling people--gratuitous, unconditional, and not held out as a matter of bargain and sale. i have done my duty in proposing it to you. i have indeed tried you by a long discourse; but this is the misfortune of those to whose influence nothing will be conceded, and who must win every inch of their ground by argument. you have heard me with goodness. may you decide with wisdom! justifying the president from a speech in the senate, by john c. spooner some one asked the other day why the president did not bring about a cessation of hostilities. upon what basis could he have brought about a cessation of hostilities? should he have asked aguinaldo for an armistice? if so, upon what basis should he have requested it? what should he say to him? "please stop this fighting"? "what for," aguinaldo would say; "do you propose to retire?" "no." "do you propose to grant us independence?" "no, not now." "well, why, then, an armistice?" the president would doubtless be expected to reply: "some distinguished gentlemen in the united states, members of the united states senate, and others, have discovered a doubt about our right to be here at all, some question whether we have acquired the philippines, some question as to whether we have correctly read the declaration of independence; and i want an armistice until we can consult and determine finally whether we have acquired the philippines or not, whether we are violating the declaration of independence or not, whether we are trampling upon the constitution or not." that is practically the proposition. no, mr. president, men may say in criticism of the president what they choose. he has been grossly insulted in this chamber, and it appears upon the record. he has gone his way patiently, exercising the utmost forbearance, all his acts characterized by a desire to do precisely what the congress had placed upon him by its ratification of the treaty and its increase of the army. he has done it in a way to impress upon the filipinos, so far as language and action could do it, his desire, and the desire of our people, to do them good, to give them the largest possible measure of liberty. britain and america from an address in the house of commons, march, by john bright why should we fear a great nation on the american continent? some people fear that, should america become a great nation, she will be arrogant and aggressive. but that does not follow. the character of a nation does not depend altogether upon its size, but upon the intelligence, instruction, and morals of its people. you fancy the supremacy of the sea will pass away from you; and the noble lord, who has had much experience, and is supposed to be wiser on the subject than any other man in the house, will say that "rule britannia," that noble old song, may become obsolete. well, inasmuch as the supremacy of the seas means arrogance and the assumption of dictatorial power on the part of this country, the sooner that becomes obsolete the better. i do not believe that it is for the advantage of this country, or of any country in the world, that any one nation should pride itself upon what is termed the supremacy of the sea; and i hope the time is coming--i believe the hour is hastening--when we shall find that law and justice will guide the councils and will direct the policy of the christian nations of the world. nature will not be baffled because we are jealous of the united states--the decrees of providence will not be overthrown by aught we can do. the population of the united states is now not less than , , . when the next parliament of england has lived to the age which this has lived to, that population will be , , , and you may calculate the increase at the rate of rather more than , , of persons per year. who is to gainsay it? will constant snarling at a great republic alter this state of things, or swell us up in these islands to , , or , , , or bring them down to our , , ? honorable members and the country at large should consider these facts, and learn from them that it is the interest of the nations to be at one--and for us to be in perfect courtesy and amity with the great english nation on the other side of the atlantic. values and transitions king robert of sicily from "king robert of sicily," by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by henry w. longfellow days came and went; and now returned again to sicily the old saturnian reign; under the angel's governance benign the happy island danced with corn and wine. meanwhile king robert yielded to his fate, sullen and silent and disconsolate. dressed in the motley garb that jesters wear, with look bewildered and a vacant stare, close shaven above the ears, as monks are shorn, by courtiers mocked, by pages laughed to scorn, his only friend the ape, his only food what others left,--he still was unsubdued. and when the angel met him on his way, and half in earnest, half in jest, would say, sternly, though tenderly, that he might feel the velvet scabbard held a sword of steel, "art thou the king?" the passion of his woe burst from him in resistless overflow, and, lifting high his forehead, he would fling the haughty answer back, "i am, i am the king!" almost three years were ended; when there came ambassadors of great repute and name from valmond, emperor of allemaine, unto king robert, saying that pope urbane by letter summoned them forthwith to come on holy thursday to his city of rome. and lo! among the menials, in mock state, upon a piebald steed, with shambling gait, his cloak of fox-tails flapping in the wind, the solemn ape demurely perched behind, king robert rode, making huge merriment in all the country towns through which they went. the pope received them with great pomp and blare of bannered trumpets, on saint peter's square, giving his benediction and embrace fervent and full of apostolic grace. while with congratulations and with prayers he entertained the angel unawares, robert, the jester, bursting through the crowd, into their presence rushed, and cried aloud: "i am the king! look, and behold in me robert, your brother, king of sicily! this man who wears my semblance to your eyes, is an imposter in a king's disguise. do you not know me? does no voice within answer my cry, and say we are akin?" the pope in silence, but with troubled mien, gazed at the angel's countenance serene; the emperor, laughing, said, "it is strange sport to keep a madman for thy fool at court!" and the poor, baffled jester in disgrace was hustled back among the populace. laying the atlantic cable an extract from "masters of the situation," a lecture by james t. fields when i talk across an ocean of miles, with my friends on the other side of it, and feel that i may know any hour of the day if all goes well with them, i think with gratitude of the immense energy and perseverance of that one man, cyrus w. field, who spent so many years of his life in perfecting a communication second only in importance to the discovery of this country. think what that enthusiast accomplished by his untiring energy. he made fifty voyages across the atlantic. eight years more he encountered the odium of failure, but still kept plowing across the atlantic, flying from city to city, soliciting capital, holding meetings and forcing down this most colossal discouragement. at last day dawned again, and another cable was paid out--this time from the deck of the "great eastern." twelve hundred miles of it were laid down, and the ship was just lifting her head to a stiff breeze then springing up, when, without a moment's warning, the cable suddenly snapped short off, and plunged into the sea. nine days and nights they dragged the bottom of the sea for this lost treasure, and though they grappled it three times, they could not bring it to the surface. in five months another cable was shipped on board the "great eastern," and this time, by the blessing of heaven, the wires were stretched unharmed from continent to continent. then came that never- to-be-forgotten search, in four ships, for the lost cable. in the bow of one of these vessels stood cyrus field, day and night, in storm and fog, squall and calm, intensely watching the quiver of the grapnel that was dragging two miles down on the bottom of the deep. at length on the last night of august, a little before midnight, the spirit of this great man was rewarded. i shall here quote his own words, as none others could possibly convey so well the thrilling interest of that hour. he says: "all felt as if life and death hung on the issue. it was only when the cable was brought over the bow and onto the deck that men dared to breathe. even then they hardly believed their eyes. some crept toward it to feel of it to be sure it was there. then we carried it along to the electricians' room, to see if our long- sought treasure was dead or alive. a few minutes of suspense and a flash told of the lightning current again set free. then the feeling long pent up burst forth. some turned away their heads and wept. others broke into cheers, and the cry ran from man to man, and was heard down in the engine rooms, deck below deck, and from the boats on the water, and the other ships, while the rockets lighted up the darkness of the sea. then, with thankful hearts, we turned our faces again to the west. but soon the wind rose, and for thirty-six hours we were exposed to all the dangers of a storm on the atlantic. yet, in the very height and fury of the gale, as i sat in the electricians' room, a flash of light came up from the deep, which, having crossed to ireland, came back to me in mid-ocean, telling me that those so dear to me, whom i had left on the banks of the hudson, were well, and following us with their wishes and their prayers. this was like a whisper of god from the sea, bidding me keep heart and hope." and now, after all those thirteen years of almost superhuman struggle and that one moment of almost superhuman victory, i think we may safely include cyrus field among the masters of the situation. o'connell, the orator from "speeches and lectures," with the permission of lothrop, lee and shepard, boston, publishers. by wendell phillips broadly considered, o'connell's eloquence has never been equaled in modern times, certainly not in english speech. do you think i am partial? i will vouch john randolph of roanoke, the virginia slaveholder, who hated an irishman almost as much as he hated a yankee, himself an orator of no mean level. hearing o'connell, he exclaimed, "this is the man, these are the lips, the most eloquent that speak the english tongue in my day!" i think he was right. i remember the solemnity of webster, the grace of everett, the rhetoric of choate; i know the eloquence that lay hid in the iron logic of calhoun; i have melted beneath the magnetism of sergeant s. prentiss of mississippi, who wielded a power few men ever had; it has been my fortune to sit at the feet of the great speakers of the english tongue on the other side of the ocean; but i think all of them together never surpassed, and no one of them ever equaled o'connell. nature intended him for our demosthenes. never, since the great greek, has she sent forth one so lavishly gifted for his work as a tribune of the people. in the first place, he had a magnificent presence, impressive in bearing, massive, like that of jupiter. webster himself hardly outdid him in the majesty of his proportions. to be sure, he had not webster's craggy face, and precipice of brow, not his eyes glowing like anthracite coal. nor had he the lion roar of mirabeau. but his presence filled the eye. a small o'connell would hardly have been an o'connell at all. these physical advantages are half the battle. i remember russell lowell telling us that mr. webster came home from washington at the time the whig party thought of dissolution, a year or two before his death, and went down to faneuil hall to protest; drawing himself up to his loftiest proportion, his brow clothed with thunder, before the listening thousands, he said, "well, gentlemen, i am a whig, a massachusetts whig, a faneuil-hall whig, a revolutionary whig, a constitutional whig. if you break the whig party, sir, where am i to go?" and says lowell, "we held our breath, thinking where he _could_ go. if he had been five feet three, we should have said, 'who cares where you go?'" so it was with o'connell. there was something majestic in his presence before he spoke; and he added to it what webster had not, what clay might have lent--infinite grace, that magnetism that melts all hearts into one. i saw him at over sixty-six years of age; every attitude was beauty, every gesture grace. you could only think of a greyhound as you looked at him; it would have been delightful to watch him, if he had not spoken a word. then he had a voice that covered the gamut. the majesty of his indignation, fitly uttered in tones of superhuman power, made him able to "indict" a nation. carlyle says, "he is god's own anointed king whose single word melts all wills into his." this describes o'connell. emerson says, "there is no true eloquence unless there is a man behind the speech." daniel o'connell was listened to because all england and all ireland knew that there was a man behind the speech. i heard him once say, "i send my voice across the atlantic, careering like the thunderstorm against the breeze, to remind the bondman that the dawn of his redemption is already breaking." you seemed to hear the tones come echoing back to london from the rocky mountains. then, with the slightest possible irish brogue, he would tell a story, while all exeter hall shook with laughter. the next moment, tears in his voice like a scotch song, five thousand men wept. and all the while no effort. he seemed only breathing. "as effortless as woodland nooks send violets up, and paint them blue." justification for impeachment against warren hastings, house of lords, february, by edmund burke in the name of the commons of england, i charge all this villainy upon warren hastings, in this last moment of my application to you. my lords, what is it that we want here to a great act of national justice? do we want a cause, my lords? you have the cause of oppressed princes, of undone women of the first rank, of desolated provinces, and of wasted kingdoms. do you want a criminal, my lords? when was there so much iniquity ever laid to the charge of any one? no, my lords, you must not look to punish any other such delinquent from india. warren hastings has not left substance enough in india to nourish such another delinquent. my lords, is it a prosecutor you want? you have before you the commons of great britain as prosecutors; and i believe, my lords, that the sun, in his beneficent progress round the world, does not behold a more glorious sight than that of men, separated from a remote people by the material bounds and barriers of nature, united by the bonds of a social and moral community--all the commons of england resenting, as their own, the indignities and cruelties that are offered to all the people of india. do we want a tribunal? my lords, no example of antiquity, nothing in the modern world, nothing in the range of human imagination, can supply us with a tribunal like this. my lords, here we see virtually, in the mind's eye, that sacred majesty of the crown, under whose authority you sit and whose power you exercise. we have here all the branches of the royal family, in a situation between majesty and subjection, between the sovereign and the subject-- offering a pledge, in that situation, for the support of the rights of the crown and the liberties of the people, both of which extremities they touch. wendell phillips, the orator from "the orations and addresses of george william curtis," vol. iii. copyright, , by harper and brothers. by george william curtis it was not until lovejoy fell, while defending his press at alton, in november, , that an american citizen was killed by a raging mob for declaring, in a free state, the right of innocent men and women to their personal liberty. this tragedy, like the deadly blow at charles sumner in the senate chamber, twenty years afterward, awed the whole country with a sense of vast and momentous peril. never since the people of boston thronged faneuil hall on the day after the massacre in state street, had that ancient hall seen a more solemn and significant assembly. it was the more solemn, the more significant, because the excited multitude was no longer, as in the revolutionary day, inspired by one unanimous and overwhelming purpose to assert and maintain liberty of speech as the bulwark of all other liberty. it was an unwonted and foreboding scene. an evil spirit was in the air. when the seemly protest against the monstrous crime had been spoken, and the proper duty of the day was done, a voice was heard,--the voice of the high officer solemnly sworn to prosecute, in the name of massachusetts, every violation of law, declaring, in faneuil hall, sixty years after the battle of bunker hill, and amid a howling storm of applause, that an american citizen who was put to death by a mad crowd of his fellow citizens for defending his right of free speech, died as the fool dieth. boston has seen dark days, but never a moment so dark as that. seven years before, webster had said, in the famous words that massachusetts binds as frontlets between her eyes, "there are boston and concord, and lexington and bunker hill, and there they will remain forever." had they already vanished? was the spirit of the revolution quite extinct? in the very cradle of liberty did no son survive to awake its slumbering echoes? by the grace of god such a son there was. he had come with the multitude, and he had heard with sympathy and approval the speeches that condemned the wrong; but when the cruel voice justified the murderers of lovejoy, the heart of the young man burned within him. this speech, he said to himself, must be answered. as the malign strain proceeded, the boston boy, all on fire, with concord and lexington tugging at his heart, unconsciously murmured, "such a speech in faneuil hall must be answered in faneuil hall." "why not answer it yourself?" whispered a neighbor, who overheard him. "help me to the platform and i will,"--and pushing and struggling through the dense and threatening crowd, the young man reached the platform, was lifted upon it, and, advancing to speak, was greeted with a roar of hostile cries. but riding the whirlwind undismayed, as for many a year afterward he directed the same wild storm, he stood upon the platform in all the beauty and grace of imperial youth,--the greeks would have said a god descended,--and in words that touched the mind and heart and conscience of that vast multitude, as with fire from heaven, recalling boston to herself, he saved his native city and her cradle of liberty from the damning disgrace of stoning the first martyr in the great struggle for personal freedom. "mr. chairman," he said, "when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which placed the rioters, incendiaries, and murderers of alton, side by side with otis and hancock, and quincy and adams, i thought those pictured lips would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american--the slanderer of the dead." and even as he spoke the vision was fulfilled. once more its native music rang through faneuil hall. in the orator's own burning words, those pictured lips did break into immortal rebuke. in wendell phillips, glowing with holy indignation at the insult to america and to man, john adams and james otis, josiah quincy and samuel adams, though dead, yet spake. in the annals of american speech there had been no such scene since patrick henry's electrical warning to george the third. it was that greatest of oratorical triumphs when a supreme emotion, a sentiment which is to mold a people anew, lifted the orator to adequate expression. three such scenes are illustrious in our history: that of the speech of patrick henry at williamsburg, of wendell phillips in faneuil hall, of abraham lincoln in gettysburg,--three, and there is no fourth. on the disposal of public lands from reports of the webster-hayne debate in the united states senate, january, by robert y. hayne in the gentleman told the world that the public lands "ought not to be treated as a treasure." he now tells us that "they must be treated as so much treasure." what the deliberate opinion of the gentleman on this subject may be, belongs not to me to determine; but i do not think he can, with the shadow of justice or propriety, impugn my sentiments, while his own recorded opinions are identical with my own. when the gentleman refers to the conditions of the grants under which the united states have acquired these lands, and insists that, as they are declared to be "for the common benefit of all the states," they can only be treated as so much treasure, i think he has applied a rule of construction too narrow for the case. if, in the deeds of cession, it has been declared that the grants were intended "for the common benefit of all the states," it is clear, from other provisions, that they were not intended merely as so much property; for it is expressly declared that the object of the grants is the erection of new states; and the united states, in accepting this trust, bind themselves to facilitate the foundation of those states, to be admitted into the union with all the rights and privileges of the original states. this, sir, was the great end to which all parties looked, and it is by the fulfillment of this high trust that "the common benefit of all the states" is to be best promoted. sir, let me tell the gentleman that, in the part of the country in which i live, we do not measure political benefits by the money standard. we consider as more valuable than gold, liberty, principle, and justice. but, sir, if we are bound to act on the narrow principles contended for by the gentleman, i am wholly at a loss to conceive how he can reconcile his principles with his own practice. the lands are, it seems, to be treated "as so much treasure," and must be applied to the "common benefit of all the states." now, if this be so, whence does he derive the right to appropriate them for partial and local objects? how can the gentleman consent to vote away immense bodies of these lands for canals in indiana and illinois, to the louisville and portland canal, to kenyon college in ohio, to schools for the deaf and dumb, and other objects of a similar description? the declaration of independence from "speeches and presidential addresses," current literature publishing company, new york. by abraham lincoln i am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. you have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. i can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments i entertain have been drawn, so far as i have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in, and were given to the world from, this hall. i have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the declaration of independence. i have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that declaration. i have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. i have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. it was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the declaration of independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. this is the sentiment embodied in the declaration of independence. now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? if it can, i shall consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if i can help to save it. if it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. but if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, i was about to say i would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. there is no necessity for it. i am not in favor of such a course; and i may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. the government will not use force, unless force is used against it. my friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. i did not expect to be called on to say a word when i came here. i supposed i was merely to do something toward raising a flag. i may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. but i have said nothing but what i am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of almighty god, to die by. expressing the feeling northern greeting to southern veterans from "speeches and addresses," with the permission of the author and of houghton mifflin company, publishers. by henry cabot lodge i was a boy ten years old when the troops marched away to defend washington. i saw the troops, month after month, pour through the streets of boston. i saw shaw go forth at the head of his black regiment, and bartlett, shattered in body, but dauntless in soul, ride by to carry what was left of him once more to the battlefields of the republic. i saw andrew, standing bareheaded on the steps of the state house, bid the men godspeed. i cannot remember the words he said, but i can never forget the fervid eloquence which brought tears to the eyes and fire to the hearts of all who listened. to my boyish mind one thing alone was clear, that the soldiers, as they marched past, were all, in that supreme hour, heroes and patriots. other feelings have, in the progress of time, altered much, but amid many changes that simple belief of boyhood has never altered. and you, brave men who wore the gray, would be the first to hold me or any other son of the north in just contempt if i should say that now it was all over i thought the north was wrong and the result of the war a mistake. to the men who fought the battles of the confederacy we hold out our hands freely, frankly, and gladly. we have no bitter memories to revive, no reproaches to utter. differ in politics and in a thousand other ways we must and shall in all good nature, but never let us differ with each other on sectional or state lines, by race or creed. we welcome you, soldiers of virginia, as others more eloquent than i have said, to new england. we welcome you to old massachusetts. we welcome you to boston and to faneuil hall. in your presence here, and at the sound of your voices beneath this historic roof, the years roll back, and we see the figure and hear again the ringing tones of your great orator, patrick henry, declaring to the first continental congress, "the distinctions between virginians, pennsylvanians, new yorkers, and new englanders are no more. i am not a virginian, but an american." a distinguished frenchman, as he stood among the graves of arlington, said: "only a great people is capable of a great civil war." let us add with thankful hearts that only a great people is capable of a great reconciliation. side by side virginia and massachusetts led the colonies into the war for independence. side by side they founded the government of the united states. morgan and greene, lee and knox, moultrie and prescott, men of the south and men of the north, fought shoulder to shoulder, and wore the same uniform of buff and blue,--the uniform of washington. mere sentiment all this, some may say. but it is sentiment, true sentiment, that has moved the world. sentiment fought the war, and sentiment has reunited us. so i say that the sentiment manifested by your presence here, brethren of virginia, sitting side by side with those who wore the blue, tells us that if war should break again upon the country the sons of virginia and massachusetts would, as in the olden days, stand once more shoulder to shoulder, with no distinction in the colors that they wear. it is fraught with tidings of peace on earth, and you may read its meaning in the words on yonder picture, "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" matches and overmatches from webster's reply to hayne in the united states senate, january, , little, brown and company, boston, publishers. by daniel webster if, sir, the honorable member, _modestia gratia_, had chosen thus to defer to his friend and to pay him a compliment without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. i am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. but the tone and manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it, i am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. it had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. it was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether i deemed the member from missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. it seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language and an extraordinary tone for the discussions of this body. matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. this is a senate, a senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character and of absolute independence. we know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibitions of champions. i offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; i throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. but then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, i will give him an answer; and tell him that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, i yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of _his_ friend from south carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions i may choose to espouse, from debating whenever i may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever i may see fit to say on the floor of the senate. the coalition from the reply to hayne "the great speeches and orations of daniel webster," little, brown and company, boston, publishers. by daniel webster sir, i shall not allow myself, on this occasion, i hope on no occasion, to betray myself into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as i trust i never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may perhaps find that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. i commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. but, sir, the coalition! the coalition! aye, "the murdered coalition!" the gentleman asks if i were led or frighted into this debate by the specter of the coalition. "was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, "which haunted the member from massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of banquo, would never down?" "the murdered coalition!" sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration, is not original with the honorable member. it did not spring up in the senate. whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. he adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition. it is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed during an excited political canvass. it was a charge of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself wholly impossible to be true. no man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. yet it was of that class of falsehoods which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion already kindling into flame. doubtless it served in its day, and in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. it is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press. incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised. it is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency by attempting to elevate it and to introduce it into the senate. he cannot change it from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. on the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down to the place where it lies itself. in his own defense by robert emmet i am asked what i have to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced on me, according to law. i am charged with being an emissary of france. an emissary of france! and for what end? it is alleged that i wish to sell the independence of my country; and for what end? was this the object of my ambition? and is this the mode by which a tribunal of justice reconciles contradictions? no; i am no emissary; and my ambition was to hold a place among the deliverers of my country, not in power nor in profit, but in the glory of the achievement. sell my country's independence to france! and for what? was it for a change of masters? no, but for ambition. o my country! was it personal ambition that could influence me? had it been the soul of my actions, could i not by my education and fortune, by the rank and consideration of my family, have placed myself amongst the proudest of your oppressors? my country was my idol! to it i sacrificed every selfish, every endearing sentiment; and for it i now offer up my life. my lords, you are impatient for the sacrifice. be yet patient! i have but a few more words to say--i am going to my cold and silent grave--my lamp of life is nearly extinguished--my race is run--the grave opens to receive me, and i sink into its bosom. i have but one request to ask at my departure from this world: it is--the charity of its silence. let no man write my epitaph; for, as no man who knows my motives dares now vindicate them, let not prejudice or ignorance asperse them. let them and me rest in obscurity and peace, and my tomb remain uninscribed, until other times and other men can do justice to my character. when my country takes her place among the nations of the earth, then, and not till then, let my epitaph be written. i have done. on resistance to great britain from a speech in the provincial convention, virginia, march, by patrick henry i ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? has great britain any enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? no, sir, she has none. they are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. they are sent over to bind and to rivet upon us those chains which the british ministry have been so long forging. and what have we to oppose them? shall we try argument? sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. have we anything new to offer upon the subject? nothing. we have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? what terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? let us not, i beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. we have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne. in vain, after all these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. there is no longer any room for hope. if we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate these inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight; i repeat it, sir, we must fight! an appeal to arms, and to the god of hosts, is all that is left us! invective against louis bonaparte from a reprint in "a modern reader and speaker," by george ridde, duffield and company, new york, publishers. by victor hugo i have entered the lists with the actual ruler of europe, for it is well for the world that i should exhibit the picture. louis bonaparte is the intoxication of triumph. he is the incarnation of merry yet savage despotism. he is the mad plenitude of power seeking for limits, but finding them not, neither in men nor facts. louis bonaparte holds france; and he who holds france holds the world. he is master of the votes, master of consciences, master of the people; he names his successor, does away with eternity, and places the future in a sealed envelope. thirty eager newspaper correspondents inform the world that he has frowned, and every electric wire quivers if he raises his little finger. around him is heard the clanking of the saber and the roll of the drum. he is seated in the shadow of the eagles, begirt by ramparts and bayonets. free people tremble and conceal their liberty lest he should rob them of it. the great american republic even hesitates before him, and dares not withdraw her ambassador. europe awaits his invasion. he is able to do as he wishes, and he dreams of impossibilities. well, this master, this triumphant conqueror, this vanquisher, this dictator, this emperor, this all- powerful man, one lonely man, robbed and ruined, dares to rise up and attack. yes, i attack louis napoleon; i attack him openly, before all the world. i attack him before god and man. i attack him boldly and recklessly for love of the people and for love of france. he is going to be an emperor. let him be one; but let him remember that, though you may secure an empire, you cannot secure an easy conscience! this is the man by whom france is governed! governed, do i say?-- possessed in supreme and sovereign sway! and every day, and every morning, by his decrees, by his messages, by all the incredible drivel which he parades in the "moniteur," this emigrant, who knows not france, teaches france her lesson! and this ruffian tells france he has saved her! and from whom? from herself! before him, providence committed only follies; god was waiting for him to reduce everything to order; at last he has come! ii for thirty-six years there had been in france all sorts of pernicious things,--the tribune, a vociferous thing; the press, an obstreperous thing; thought, an insolent thing, and liberty, the most crying abuse of all. but he came, and for the tribune he has substituted the senate; for the press, the censorship; for thought, imbecility; and for liberty, the saber; and by the saber and the senate, by imbecility and censorship, france is saved. saved, bravo! and from whom, i repeat? from herself. for what was this france of ours, if you please? a horde of marauders and thieves, of anarchists, assassins, and demagogues. she had to be manacled, had this mad woman, france; and it is monsieur louis bonaparte who puts the handcuffs on her. now she is in a dungeon, on a diet of bread and water, punished, humiliated, garotted, safely cared for. be not disturbed; monsieur bonaparte, a policeman stationed at the Élysée, is answerable for her to europe. he makes it his business to be so; this wretched france is in the straitjacket, and if she stirs--ah, what is this spectacle before our eyes? is it a dream? is it a nightmare? on one side a nation, the first of nations, and on the other, a man, the last of men; and this is what this man does to this nation. what! he tramples her under his feet, he laughs in her face, he mocks and taunts her, he disowns, insults, and flouts her! what! he says, "i alone am worthy of consideration!" what! in this land of france where none would dare to slap the face of his fellow, this man can slap the face of the nation? oh, the abominable shame of it all! every time that monsieur bonaparte spits, every face must be wiped! and this can last! and you tell me it will last! no! no! by every drop in every vein, no! it shall not last! ah, if this did last, it would be in very truth because there would no longer be a god in heaven, nor a france on earth! showing the picture mount, the doge of venice! from the play, "foscari" by mary russell mitford _doge_. what! didst thou never hear of the old prediction that was verified when i became the doge? _zeno_. an old prediction! _doge_. some seventy years ago--it seems to me as fresh as yesterday--being then a lad no higher than my hand, idle as an heir, and all made up of gay and truant sports, i flew a kite, unmatched in shape or size, over the river--we were at our house upon the brenta then; it soared aloft, driven by light vigorous breezes from the sea soared buoyantly, till the diminished toy grew smaller than the falcon when she stoops to dart upon her prey. i sent for cord, servant on servant hurrying, till the kite shrank to the size of a beetle: still i called for cord, and sent to summon father, mother, my little sisters, my old halting nurse,-- i would have had the whole world to survey me and my wondrous kite. it still soared on, and i stood bending back in ecstasy, my eyes on that small point, clapping my hands, and shouting, and half envying it the flight that made it a companion of the stars, when close beside me a deep voice exclaimed-- aye, mount! mount! mount!--i started back, and saw a tall and aged woman, one of the wild peculiar people whom wild hungary sends roving through every land. she drew her cloak about her, turned her black eyes up to heaven, and thus pursued: aye, like his fortunes, mount, the future doge of venice! and before for very wonder any one could speak she disappeared. _zeno_. strange! hast thou never seen that woman since? _doge_. i never saw her more. the revenge from "tennyson's poetical works," published by houghton mifflin company, boston. by alfred lord tennyson "shall we fight or shall we fly? good sir richard, tell us now, for to fight is but to die! there'll be little of us left by the time this sun be set." and sir richard said again: "we be all good englishmen. let us bang these dogs of seville, the children of the devil, for i never turned my back upon don or devil yet." sir richard spoke and he laughed, and we roar'd a hurrah, and so the little _revenge_ ran on sheer into the heart of the foe, with her hundred fighters on deck, and her ninety sick below; for half of their fleet to the right and half to the left were seen. and the little _revenge_ ran on thro' the long sea lane between. and while now the great _san philip_ hung above us like a cloud whence the thunderbolt will fall long and loud, four galleons drew away from the spanish fleet that day, and two upon the larboard and two upon the starboard lay, and the battle-thunder broke from them all. and the sun went down, and the stars came out, far over the summer sea, but never a moment ceased the fight of the one and the fifty-three. ship after ship, the whole night long, their high-built galleons came, ship after ship, the whole night long, with her battle-thunder and flame; ship after ship, the whole night long, drew back with her dead and her shame, for some were sunk, and many were shatter'd, and so could fight us no more-- god of battles, was ever a battle like this in the world before? for he said: "fight on! fight on!" tho' his vessel was all but a wreck; and it chanced that, when half of the summer night was gone, with a grisly wound to be dressed, he had left the deck, but a bullet struck him that was dressing it suddenly dead, and himself he was wounded again, in the side and the head, and he said: "fight on! fight on!" and the night went down, and the sun smiled out far over the summer sea, and the spanish fleet with broken sides lay round us all in a ring; but they dared not touch us again, for they feared that we still could sting, so they watched what the end would be. and we had not fought them in vain, but in perilous plight were we, seeing forty of our poor hundred were slain and half of the rest of us maimed for life in the crash of the cannonades and the desperate strife; and the sick men down in the hold were most of them stark and cold, and the pikes were all broken and bent, and the powder was all of it spent; and the masts and the rigging were lying over the side; but sir richard cried in his english pride, "we have fought such a fight for a day and a night as may never be fought again! we have won great glory, my men! and a day less or more at sea or ashore, we die--does it matter when? sink me the ship, master gunner--sink her, split her in twain! fall into the hands of god, not into the hands of spain!" a vision of war from a memorial day address, with the permission of c. p. farrell, new york, publisher and owner of the ingersoll copyrighted books. by robert g. ingersoll the past rises before me like a dream. again we are in the great struggle for national life. we hear the sounds of preparation; the music of boisterous drums; the silver voices of heroic bugles. we see thousands of assemblages, and hear the appeals of orators. we see the pale cheeks of women, and the flushed faces of men; and in those assemblages we see all the dead whose dust we have covered with flowers. we lose sight of them no more. we are with them when they enlist in the great army of freedom. we see them part with those they love. some are walking for the last time in quiet, woody places with the maidens they adore. we hear the whisperings and the sweet vows of eternal love as they lingeringly part forever. others are bending over cradles, kissing babes that are asleep. some are receiving the blessings of old men. some are parting with mothers who hold them and press them to their hearts again and again and say nothing. kisses and tears, tears and kisses--divine mingling of agony and joy! and some are talking with wives, and endeavoring with brave words, spoken in the old tones, to drive from their hearts the awful fear. we see them part. we see the wife standing in the door with the babe in her arms--standing in the sunlight, sobbing. at the turn in the road a hand waves--she answers by holding high in her loving arms the child. he is gone, and forever. we see them all as they march proudly away under the flaunting flags, keeping time to the grand, wild music of war,--marching down the streets of the great cities, through the towns and across the prairies, down to the fields of glory, to do and to die for the eternal right. a vision of the future rises:-- i see our country filled with happy homes, with firesides of content-- the foremost of all the earth. i see a world where thrones have crumbled and kings are dust. the aristocracy of idleness has perished from the earth. i see a world without a slave. man at last is free. nature's forces have by science been enslaved. lightning and light, wind and wave, frost and flame, and all the secret-subtle powers of earth and air are the tireless toilers for the human race. i see a world at peace, adorned with every form of art, with music's myriad voices thrilled, while lips are rich with words of love and truth; a world in which no exile sighs, no prisoner mourns; a world on which the gibbet's shadow does not fall; a world where labor reaps its full reward, where work and worth go hand in hand, where the poor girl trying to win bread with the needle--the needle that has been called "the asp for the breast of the poor"--is not driven to the desperate choice of crime or death, of suicide or shame. i see a world without the beggar's outstretched palm, the miser's heartless, stony stare, the piteous wail of want, the livid lips of lies, the cruel eyes of scorn. i see a race without disease of flesh or brain,--shapely and fair,--the married harmony of form and function,--and, as i look, life lengthens, joy deepens, love canopies the earth; and over all, in the great dome, shines the eternal star of human hope. sunset near jerusalem from an article in the _century magazine_, june, , with the permission of the century company and of the author. by corwin knapp linson to our northern eyes the intense brilliancy of the tropical and semi- tropical sky comes as a revelation. sometimes at noon it is painfully dazzling; but the evening is a vision of prismatic light holding carnival in the air, wherein milton's "twilight gray" has no part. unless the sky is held in the relentless grip of a winter storm, the orient holds no gray in its evening tones; these are translucent and glowing from the setting of the sun until the stars appear. in greece we are dreamers in that subtle atmosphere, and in egypt visionaries under the spell of an ethereal loveliness where the filigree patterning of white dome and minaret and interlacing palm and feathery pepper tree leaves little wonder in the mind that the ornamentation of their architecture is so ravishing in its tracery. outside the walls of jerusalem on the north there is a point on a knoll which commands the venerable city that david took for his own. from here you can watch the variable glow of color spread over the whole breadth of country, from the ground at one's feet to the distant purple hilltops of bethlehem. the fluid air seems to swim, as if laden with incense. the rocks underfoot are of all tones of lavender in shadow, and of tender, warm gleams in the light, casting vivid violet shadows athwart the mottled orange of the ground. down in the little valley just below us a tiny vineyard nestles in the half-light; the gray road trails outside; and beyond rise the walls, serene and stately, catching on their highest towers the last rays of the sun. the pointed shaft of the german church lifts a gray-green finger tipped with rose into the ambient air. the sable dome of the holy sepulcher yields a little to the subtle influence, and shows a softer and more becoming purple. all the unlovely traits and the squalor of the city are lost, so delicately tender is the mass of buildings painted against the background of distance. it had been one of those days in march when the clouds of "the latter rains" had been blowing from the west. as the day drew near its close, the heavy mists assembled in great masses of ominous gray and blue, golden-edged against the turquoise sky. with such speed did they move that they seemed suddenly to leap from the horizon, and the vast dome of the heaven became filled with weird, flying monsters racing overhead. the violence of the wind tore the blue into fragments, so that what only a moment since was a colossal weight of cloud threatening to ingulf the universe, was now like a great host marshaled in splendid array, flying banners of crimson, whose ranks were ever changing, until they scattered in disordered flight across the face of the sky. as the lowering sun neared the horizon, the color grew more and more vivid, until the whole heaven was aflame with a whirlwind of scarlet and gold and crimson, of violet and blue and emerald, flecked with copper and bronze and shreds of smoky clouds in shadow, a tempestuous riot of color so wild and extraordinary as to hold one spellbound. had not david beheld a similar sky when he wrote:-- o lord my god, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor and majesty. who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh winds his messengers; his ministers a flaming fire. a return in triumph from a speech before the new england society of new york, december, by t. de witt talmage i never so realized what this country was and is as on the day when i first saw some of these gentlemen of the army and navy. it was when at the close of the war our armies came back and marched in review before the president's stand at washington. i do not care whether a man was a republican or a democrat, a northern man or a southern man, if he had any emotion of nature, he could not look upon it without weeping. god knew that the day was stupendous, and he cleared the heaven of cloud and mist and chill, and sprung the blue sky as the triumphal arch for the returning warriors to pass under. from arlington heights the spring foliage shook out its welcome, as the hosts came over the hills, and the sparkling waters of the potomac tossed their gold to the feet of the battalions as they came to the long bridge and in almost interminable line passed over. the capitol never seemed so majestic as on that morning: snowy white, looking down upon the tides of men that came surging down, billow after billow. passing in silence, yet i heard in every step the thunder of conflicts through which they had waded, and seemed to see dripping from their smoke-blackened flags the blood of our country's martyrs. for the best part of two days we stood and watched the filing on of what seemed endless battalions, brigade after brigade, division after division, host after host, rank beyond rank; ever moving, ever passing; marching, marching; tramp, tramp, tramp-- thousands after thousands, battery front, arms shouldered, columns solid, shoulder to shoulder, wheel to wheel, charger to charger, nostril to nostril. commanders on horses with their manes entwined with roses, and necks enchained with garlands, fractious at the shouts that ran along the line, increasing from the clapping of children clothed in white, standing on the steps of the capitol, to the tumultuous vociferation of hundreds of thousands of enraptured multitudes, crying "huzza! huzza!" gleaming muskets, thundering parks of artillery, rumbling pontoon wagons, ambulances from whose wheels seemed to sound out the groans of the crushed and the dying that they had carried. these men came from balmy minnesota, those from illinois prairies. these were often hummed to sleep by the pines of oregon, those were new england lumbermen. those came out of the coal-shafts of pennsylvania. side by side in one great cause, consecrated through fire and storm and darkness, brothers in peril, on their way home from chancellorsville and kenesaw mountain and fredericksburg, in lines that seemed infinite they passed on. we gazed and wept and wondered, lifting up our heads to see if the end had come, but no! looking from one end of that long avenue to the other, we saw them yet in solid column, battery front, host beyond host, wheel to wheel, charger to charger, nostril to nostril, coming as it were from under the capitol. forward! forward! their bayonets, caught in the sun, glimmered and flashed and blazed, till they seemed like one long river of silver, ever and anon changed into a river of fire. no end of the procession, no rest for the eyes. we turned our heads from the scene, unable longer to look. we felt disposed to stop our ears, but still we heard it, marching, marching; tramp, tramp, tramp. but hush,--uncover every head! here they pass, the remnant of ten men of a full regiment. silence! widowhood and orphanage look on and wring their hands. but wheel into line, all ye people! north, south, east, west--all decades, all centuries, all millenniums! forward, the whole line! huzza! huzza! a return in defeat from "the new south," with the permission of henry w. grady, junior by henry w. grady dr. talmage has drawn for you, with a master hand, the picture of your returning armies. he has told you how, in the pomp and circumstance of war, they came back to you, marching with proud and victorious tread, reading their glory in a nation's eyes! will you bear with me while i tell you of another army that sought its home at the close of the late war? an army that marched home in defeat and not in victory--in pathos and not in splendor, but in glory that equaled yours, and to hearts as loving as ever welcomed heroes home. let me picture to you the footsore confederate soldier, as, buttoning up in his faded gray jacket the parole which was to bear testimony to his children of his fidelity and faith, he turned his face southward from appomattox in april, . think of him, as ragged, half-starved, heavy-hearted, enfeebled by want and wounds, having fought to exhaustion, he surrenders his gun, wrings the hands of his comrades in silence, and, lifting his tear-stained and pallid face for the last time to the graves that dot the old virginia hills, pulls his gray cap over his brow and begins the slow and painful journey. what does he find?--let me ask you who went to your homes eager to find, in the welcome you had justly earned, full payment for four years' sacrifice--what does he find when, having followed the battle-stained cross against overwhelming odds, dreading death not half so much as surrender, he reaches the home he left so prosperous and beautiful? he finds his house in ruins, his farm devastated, his slaves free, his stock killed, his barn empty, his trade destroyed, his money worthless; his social system, feudal in its magnificence, swept away; his people without law or legal status; his comrades slain, and the burdens of others heavy on his shoulders. crushed by defeat, his very traditions gone; without money, credit, employment, material training; and besides all this, confronted with the gravest problem that ever met human intelligence--the establishing of a status for the vast body of his liberated slaves. what does he do--this hero in gray, with a heart of gold? does he sit down in sullenness and despair? not for a day. surely god, who had stripped him of his prosperity, inspired him in his adversity. as ruin was never before so overwhelming, never was restoration swifter. the soldier stepped from the trenches into the furrow; horses that had charged federal guns marched before the plow, and the fields that ran red with human blood in april were green with the harvest in june; women reared in luxury cut up their dresses and made breeches for their husbands, and, with a patience and heroism that fit women always as a garment, gave their hands to work. there was little bitterness in all this. cheerfulness and frankness prevailed. i want to say to general sherman--who is considered an able man in our parts, though some people think he is kind of careless about fire--that from the ashes he left us in we have raised a brave and beautiful city; that somehow or other we have caught the sunshine in the bricks and mortar of our homes, and have builded therein not one ignoble prejudice or memory. but in all this what have we accomplished? what is the sum of our work? we have found that in the general summary the free negro counts more than he did as a slave. we have planted the schoolhouse on the hilltop and made it free to white and black. we have sowed towns and cities in the place of theories, and put business above politics. above all, we know that we have achieved in these "piping times of peace" a fuller independence for the south than that which our fathers sought to win in the forum by their eloquence, or compel on the field by their swords. expression by action in our forefathers' day from a speech before the new england society of new york, december, by t. de witt talmage i must not introduce a new habit into these new england dinners, and confine myself to the one theme. for eighty-one years your speakers have been accustomed to make the toast announced the point from which they start, but to which they never return. so i shall not stick to my text, but only be particular to have all i say my own, and not make the mistake of a minister whose sermon was a patchwork from a variety of authors, to whom he gave no credit. there was an intoxicated wag in the audience who had read about everything, and he announced the authors as the minister went on. the clergyman gave an extract without any credit to the author, and the man in the audience cried out: "that's jeremy taylor." the speaker went on and gave an extract from another author without credit for it, and the man in the audience said: "that is john wesley." the minister gave an extract from another without credit for it, and the man in the audience said: "that is george whitefield." when the minister lost his patience and cried out, "shut up, you old fool!" the man in the audience replied: "that is your own." well, what about this forefathers' day? in brooklyn they say the landing of the pilgrims was december the st; in new york you say it was december the d. you are both right. not through the specious and artful reasoning you have sometimes indulged in, but by a little historical incident that seems to have escaped your attention. you see, the forefathers landed in the morning of december the st, but about noon that day a pack of hungry wolves swept down the bleak american beach looking for a new england dinner and a band of savages out for a tomahawk picnic hove in sight, and the pilgrim fathers thought it best for safety and warmth to go on board the mayflower and pass the night. and during the night there came up a strong wind blowing off shore that swept the mayflower from its moorings clear out to sea, and there was a prospect that our forefathers, having escaped oppression in foreign lands, would yet go down under an oceanic tempest. but the next day they fortunately got control of their ship and steered her in, and the second time the forefathers stepped ashore. brooklyn celebrated the first landing; new york the second landing. so i say hail! hail! to both celebrations, for one day, anyhow, could not do justice to such a subject; and i only wish i could have kissed the blarney stone of america, which is plymouth rock, so that i might have done justice to this subject. ah, gentlemen, that mayflower was the ark that floated the deluge of oppression, and plymouth rock was the ararat on which it landed. but let me say that these forefathers were of no more importance than the foremothers. as i understand it, there were eight of them--that is, four fathers and four mothers--from whom all these illustrious new englanders descended. now i was not born in new england, but though not born in new england, in my boyhood i had a new england schoolmaster, whom i shall never forget. he taught us our a, b, c's. "what is that?" "i don't know, sir." "that's a" (with a slap). "what is that?" "i don't know, sir." (with a slap)--"that is b." i tell you, a boy that learned his letters in that way never forgot them; and if the boy was particularly dull, then this new england schoolmaster would take him over his knee, and then the boy got his information from both directions. but all these things aside, no one sitting at these tables has higher admiration for the pilgrim fathers than i have--the men who believed in two great doctrines, which are the foundation of every religion that is worth anything: namely, the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man--these men of backbone and endowed with that great and magnificent attribute of stick-to-it-iveness. cassius against cÆsar from "julius cæsar" by william shakespeare i know that virtue to be in you, brutus, as well as i do know your outward favor. well, honor is the subject of my story.-- i cannot tell what you and other men think of this life; but, for my single self, i had as lief not be as live to be in awe of such a thing as i myself. i was born free as cæsar; so were you: we both have fed as well; and we can both endure the winter's cold as well as he: for once, upon a raw and gusty day, the troubled tiber chafing with her shores, cæsar said to me, "dar'st thou, cassius, now leap in with me into this angry flood, and swim to yonder point?" upon the word, accoutred as i was, i plunged in, and bade him follow: so, indeed, he did. the torrent roar'd, and we did buffet it with lusty sinews, throwing it aside and stemming it with hearts of controversy; but ere we could arrive the point propos'd, cæsar cried, "help me, cassius, or i sink!" i, as aeneas, our great ancestor, did from the flames of troy upon his shoulder the old anchises bear, so from the waves of tiber did i the tired cæsar. and this man is now become a god; and cassius is a wretched creature, and must bend his body, if cæsar carelessly but nod on him. he had a fever when he was in spain, and, when the fit was on him, i did mark how he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake: his coward lips did from their color fly; and that same eye, whose bend doth awe the world, did lose his luster: i did hear him groan: ay, and that tongue of his, that bade the romans mark him, and write his speeches in their books, alas, it cried, "give me some drink, titinius," as a sick girl. ye gods, it doth amaze me a man of such a feeble temper should so get the start of the majestic world, and bear the palm alone. ii why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonourable graves. men at some time are masters of their fates; the fault, dear brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. brutus and cæsar: what should be in that "cæsar"? why should that name be sounded more than yours? write them together, yours is as fair a name; sound them, it doth become the mouth as well; weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em, brutus will start a spirit as soon as cæsar. now, in the names of all the gods at once, upon what meat doth this our cæsar feed, that he is grown so great? age, thou art shamed! rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods! when went there by an age, since the great flood, but it was fam'd with more than with one man? when could they say till now, that talked of rome, that her wide walls encompass'd but one man? now is it rome indeed, and room enough, when there is in it but one only man. o, you and i have heard our fathers say, there was a brutus once that would have brook'd the eternal devil to keep his state in rome as easily as a king. the spirit of the south from "the new south," with the permission of henry w. grady junior by henry w. grady the new south is enamored of her new work. her soul is stirred with the breath of a new life. the light of a grander day is falling fair on her face. she is thrilling with the consciousness of growing power and prosperity. as she stands upright, full-statured and equal among the people of the earth, breathing the keen air and looking out upon the expanding horizon, she understands that her emancipation came because in the inscrutable wisdom of god her honest purpose was crossed and her brave armies were beaten. this is said in no spirit of time-serving or apology. the south has nothing for which to apologize. she believes that the late struggle between the states was war and not rebellion, revolution and not conspiracy, and that her convictions were as honest as yours. i should be unjust to the dauntless spirit of the south and to my own convictions if i did not make this plain in this presence. the south has nothing to take back. in my native town of athens is a monument that crowns its central hills--a plain, white shaft. deep cut into its shining side is a name dear to me above the names of men, that of a brave and simple man who died in brave and simple faith. not for all the glories of new england--from plymouth rock all the way--would i exchange the heritage he left me in his soldier's death. to the foot of that shaft i shall send my children's children to reverence him who ennobled their name with his heroic blood. but, sir, speaking from the shadow of that memory, which i honor as i do nothing else on earth, i say that the cause in which he suffered and for which he gave his life was adjudged by higher and fuller wisdom than his or mine, and i am glad that the omniscient god held the balance of battle in his almighty hand, and that human slavery was swept forever from american soil--the american union saved from the wreck of war. this message, mr. president, comes to you from consecrated ground. every foot of the soil about the city in which i live is sacred as a battle ground of the republic. every hill that invests it is hallowed to you by the blood of your brothers, sacred soil to all of us, rich with memories that make us purer and stronger and better, speaking an eloquent witness in its white peace and prosperity to the indissoluble union of american states and the imperishable brotherhood of the american people. now what answer has new england to this message? will she permit the prejudices of war to remain in the hearts of the conquerors, when it has died in the hearts of the conquered? will she transmit this prejudice to the next generation, that in their hearts, which never felt the generous ardor of conflict, it may perpetuate itself? will she withhold, save in strained courtesy, the hand which straight from his soldier's heart grant offered to lee at appomattox? will she make the vision of a restored and happy people, which gathered above the couch of your dying captain, [footnote: general ulysses s. grant.] filling his heart with grace, touching his lips with praise and glorifying his path to the grave; will she make this vision on which the last sigh of his expiring soul breathed a benediction, a cheat and a delusion? if she does, the south, never abject in asking for comradeship, must accept with dignity a refusal; but if she does not, if she accepts in frankness and sincerity this message of good will and friendship, then will the prophecy of webster, delivered in this very society forty years ago amid tremendous applause, be verified in its fullest and final sense, when he said: "standing hand to hand and clasping hands, we should remain united as we have been for sixty years, citizens of the same country, members of the same government, united, all united now and united forever. there have been difficulties, contentions, and controversies, but i tell you that in my judgment,-- "'those opposed eyes, which like the meteors of a troubled heaven, all of one nature, of one substance bred, did lately meet in th' intestine shock, shall now, in mutual well-beseeming ranks, march all one way.'" something rankling here from the reply to hayne, in the united states senate, january, . little, brown and company, boston, publishers of "the great speeches and orations of daniel webster" by daniel webster the gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling _here_ which he wished to relieve. it would not, mr. president, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. but he may have been unconscious of it. at any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. but still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something _here_, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. in this respect, sir, i have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. there is nothing _here_, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. there is nothing, either originating _here_, or now received _here_ by the gentleman's shot. nothing originating here, for i had not the slightest feeling of unkindness towards the honorable member. some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which i could have wished might have been otherwise; but i had used philosophy and forgotten them. i paid the honorable member the attention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, though surprised, and i must even say astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare. through the whole of the few remarks i made in answer, i avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which i thought possible to be construed into disrespect. and, sir, while there is thus nothing originating _here_ which i wished at any time or now wish to discharge, i must repeat also, that nothing has been received _here_ which _rankles_, or in any way gives me annoyance. i will not accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; i will not say that he poisoned his arrows. but whether his shafts were or were not dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. if he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. but the gentleman inquires why _he_ was made the object of such a reply. why was _he_ singled out? if an attack has been made on the east, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from missouri. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to hear it; and because, also, i chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, i thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. i did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. i found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. faith in the people by john bright our opponents have charged us with being the promoters of a dangerous excitement. they have the effrontery to say that i am the friend of public disorder. i am one of the people. surely, if there be one thing in a free country more clear than another, it is, that any one of the people may speak openly to the people. if i speak to the people of their rights, and indicate to them the way to secure them,--if i speak of their danger to the monopolists of power,--am i not a wise counsellor, both to the people and to their rulers? suppose i stood at the foot of vesuvius, or aetna, and, seeing a hamlet or a homestead planted on its slope, i said to the dwellers in that hamlet, or in that homestead, "you see that vapor which ascends from the summit of the mountain. that vapor may become a dense, black smoke, that will obscure the sky. you see the trickling of lava from the crevices in the side of the mountain. that trickling of lava may become a river of fire. you hear that muttering in the bowels of the mountain. that muttering may become a bellowing thunder, the voice of violent convulsion, that may shake half a continent. you know that at your feet is the grave of great cities, for which there is no resurrection, as histories tell us that dynasties and aristocracies have passed away, and their names have been known no more forever." if i say this to the dwellers upon the slope of the mountain, and if there comes hereafter a catastrophe which makes the world to shudder, am i responsible for that catastrophe? i did not build the mountain, or fill it with explosive materials. i merely warned the men that were in danger. so, now, it is not i that am stimulating men to the violent pursuit of their acknowledged constitutional rights. the class which has hitherto ruled in this country has failed miserably. it revels in power and wealth, whilst at its feet, a terrible peril for its future, lies the multitude which it has neglected. if a class has failed, let us try the nation. that is our faith, that is our purpose, that is our cry. let us try the nation. this it is which has called together these countless numbers of the people to demand a change; and from these gatherings, sublime in their vastness and their resolution, i think i see, as it were, above the hilltops of time, the glimmerings of the dawn of a better and a nobler day for the country and the people that i love so well. the french against hayti from a lecture, "toussaint l'ouverture," with the permission of lothrop, lee and shepard, boston, publishers by wendell phillips you remember when bonaparte returned from elba, and louis xviii sent an army against him, bonaparte descended from his carriage, opened his coat, offering his breast to their muskets, and saying, "frenchmen, it is the emperor!" and they ranged themselves behind him, his soldiers shouting, "vive l'empereur!" that was in . twelve years before, toussaint, finding that four of his regiments had deserted and gone to leclerc, drew his sword, flung it on the grass, went across the field to them, folded his arms, and said, "children, can you point a bayonet at me?" the blacks fell on their knees, praying his pardon. it was against such a man that napoleon sent his army, giving to general leclerc, the husband of his beautiful sister pauline, thirty thousand of his best troops, with orders to reintroduce slavery. among these soldiers came all of toussaint's old mulatto rivals and foes. holland lent sixty ships. england promised by special message to be neutral; and you know neutrality means sneering at freedom, and sending arms to tyrants. england promised neutrality, and the black looked out on the whole civilized world marshaled against him. america, full of slaves, of course was hostile. only the yankee sold him poor muskets at a very high price. mounting his horse, and riding to the eastern end of the island, samana, he looked out on a sight such as no native had ever seen before. sixty ships of the line, crowded by the best soldiers of europe, rounded the point. they were soldiers who had never yet met an equal, whose tread, like cæsar's, had shaken europe,--soldiers who had scaled the pyramids, and planted the french banners on the walls of rome. he looked a moment, counted the flotilla, let the reins fall on the neck of his horse, and turning to christophe, exclaimed: "all france is come to hayti; they can only come to make us slaves; and we are lost!" he then recognized the only mistake of his life,--his confidence in bonaparte, which had led him to disband his army. returning to the hills, he issued the only proclamation which bears his name and breathes vengeance: "my children, france comes to make us slaves. god gave us liberty; france has no right to take it away. burn the cities, destroy the harvests, tear up the roads with cannon, poison the wells, show the white man the hell he comes to make";--and he was obeyed. when the great william of orange saw louis xiv cover holland with troops, he said, "break down the dikes, give holland back to ocean"; and europe said, "sublime!" when alexander saw the armies of france descend upon russia, he said, "burn moscow, starve back the invaders"; and europe said, "sublime!" this black saw all europe marshaled to crush him, and gave to his people the same heroic example of defiance. the necessity of force from a speech in the united states senate, march , by john m. thurston i counseled silence and moderation from this floor when the passion of the nation seemed at white heat over the destruction of the _maine_; but it seems to me the time for action has now come. no greater reason for it can exist to-morrow than exists to-day. every hour's delay only adds another chapter to the awful story of misery and death. only one power can intervene--the united states of america. ours is the one great nation of the new world, the mother of american republics. she holds a position of trust and responsibility toward the peoples and affairs of the whole western hemisphere. it was her glorious example which inspired the patriots of cuba to raise the flag of liberty in her eternal hills. we cannot refuse to accept this responsibility which the god of the universe has placed upon us as the one great power in the new world. we must act! what shall our action be? some say, the acknowledgment of the belligerency of the revolutionists. the hour and the opportunity for that have passed away. others say, let us by resolution or official proclamation recognize the independence of the cubans. it is too late for even such recognition to be of great avail. others say, annexation to the united states. god forbid! i would oppose annexation with my latest breath. the people of cuba are not our people; they cannot assimilate with us; and beyond all that, i am utterly and unalterably opposed to any departure from the declared policy of the fathers, which would start this republic for the first time upon a career of conquest and dominion utterly at variance with the avowed purposes and the manifest destiny of popular government. there is only one action possible, if any is taken; that is, intervention for the independence of the island. we cannot intervene and save cuba without the exercise of force, and force means war; war means blood. the lowly nazarene on the shores of galilee preached the divine doctrine of love, "peace on earth, good will toward men." not peace on earth at the expense of liberty and humanity. not good will toward men who despoil, enslave, degrade, and starve to death their fellow-men. i believe in the doctrine of christ. i believe in the doctrine of peace; but men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace. when has a battle for humanity and liberty ever been won except by force? what barricade of wrong, injustice, and oppression has ever been carried except by force? force compelled the signature of unwilling royalty to the great magna charta; force put life into the declaration of independence and made effective the emancipation proclamation; force waved the flag of revolution over bunker hill and marked the snows of valley forge with bloodstained feet; force held the broken line of shiloh, climbed the flame-swept hill at chattanooga, and stormed the clouds on lookout heights; force marched with sherman to the sea, rode with sheridan in the valley of the shenandoah, and gave grant victory at appomattox; force saved the union, kept the stars in the flag, made "niggers" men. the time for god's force has come again. let the impassioned lips of american patriots once more take up the song:-- in the beauty of the lilies christ was born across the sea, with a glory in his bosom that transfigured you and me. as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, for god is marching on. others may hesitate, others may procrastinate, others may plead for further diplomatic negotiation, which means delay, but for me, i am ready to act now, and for my action, i am ready to answer to my conscience, my country, and my god. against war with mexico from a speech to the united states senate, february , by thomas corwin the president has said he does not expect to hold mexican territory by conquest. why, then, conquer it? why waste thousands of lives and millions of money fortifying towns and creating governments, if, at the end of the war, you retire from the graves of your soldiers and the desolated country of your foes, only to get money from mexico for the expense of all your toil and sacrifice? who ever heard, since christianity was propagated among men, of a nation taxing its people, enlisting its young men, and marching off two thousand miles to fight a people merely to be paid for it in money? what is this but hunting a market for blood, selling the lives of your young men, marching them in regiments to be slaughtered and paid for like oxen and brute beasts? sir, this is, when stripped naked, that atrocious idea first promulgated in the president's message, and now advocated here, of fighting on till we can get our indemnity for the past as well as the present slaughter. we have chastised mexico, and if it were worth while to do so, we have, i dare say, satisfied the world that we can fight. sir, i have read in some account of your battle of monterey, of a lovely mexican girl, who, with the benevolence of an angel in her bosom and the robust courage of a hero in her heart, was busily engaged during the bloody conflict, amid the crash of falling houses, the groans of the dying, and the wild shriek of battle, in carrying water to slake the burning thirst of the wounded of either host. while bending over a wounded american soldier, a cannonball struck her and blew her to atoms! sir, i do not charge my brave, generous-hearted countrymen who fought that fight with this. no, no! we who send them-- we who know what scenes like this, which might send tears of sorrow "down pluto's iron cheek," are the invariable, inevitable attendants on war--we are accountable for this. and this--this is the way we are to be made known to europe. this--this is to be the undying renown of free, republican america! "she has stormed a city--killed many of its inhabitants of both sexes--she has room"! so it will read. sir, if this were our only history, then may god of his mercy grant that its volume may speedily come to a close. why is it, sir, that we, the united states, a people of yesterday compared with the older nations of the world, should be waging war for territory--for "room?" look at your country, extending from the alleghany mountains to the pacific ocean, capable itself of sustaining in comfort a larger population than will be in the whole union for one hundred years to come. over this vast expanse of territory your population is now so sparse that i believe we provided, at the last session, a regiment of mounted men to guard the mail from the frontier of missouri to the mouth of the columbia; and yet you persist in the ridiculous assertion, "i want room." one would imagine, from the frequent reiteration of the complaint, that you had a bursting, teeming population, whose energy was paralyzed, whose enterprise was crushed, for want of space. why should we be so weak or wicked as to offer this idle apology for ravaging a neighboring republic? it will impose on no one at home or abroad. do we not know, mr. president, that it is a law never to be repealed that falsehood shall be short-lived? was it not ordained of old that truth only shall abide for ever? whatever we may say to-day, or whatever we may write in our books, the stern tribunal of history will review it all, detect falsehood, and bring us to judgment before that posterity which shall bless or curse us, as we may act now, wisely or otherwise. we may hide in the grave (which awaits us all) in vain; we may hope there, like the foolish bird that hides its head in the sand, in the vain belief that its body is not seen; yet even there this preposterous excuse of want of "room" shall be laid bare and the quick- coming future will decide that it was a hypocritical pretense under which we sought to conceal the avarice which prompted us to covet and to seize by force that which was not ours. the murder of lovejoy from "speeches and lectures," with the permission of lothrop, lee and shepard, boston, publishers. by wendell phillips mr. chairman: we have met for the freest discussion of these resolutions, and the events which gave rise to them. i hope i shall be permitted to express my surprise at the sentiments of the last speaker,--surprise not only at such sentiments from such a man, but at the applause they have received within these walls. a comparison has been drawn between the events of the revolution and the tragedy at alton. we have heard it asserted here, in faneuil hall, that great britain had a right to tax the colonies, and we have heard the mob at alton, the drunken murderers of lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw the tea overboard! fellow citizens, is this faneuil hall doctrine? the mob at alton were met to wrest from a citizen his just rights,--met to resist the laws. we have been told that our fathers did the same; and the glorious mantle of revolutionary precedent has been thrown over the mobs of our day. to make out their title to such defense, the gentleman says that the british parliament had a _right_ to tax these colonies. it is manifest that, without this, his parallel falls to the ground; for lovejoy had stationed himself within constitutional bulwarks. he was not only defending the freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in arms with the sanction of the civil authority. the men who assailed him went against and over the laws. the _mob_, as the gentleman terms it,--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvelously patient generation!--the "orderly mob" which assembled in the old south to destroy the tea were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal exactions. shame on the american who calls the tea tax and stamp act _laws!_ our fathers resisted, not the king's prerogative, but the king's usurpation. to find any other account, you must read our revolutionary history upside down. our state archives are loaded with arguments of john adams to prove the taxes laid by the british parliament unconstitutional,--beyond its power. it was not till this was made out that the men of new england rushed to arms. the arguments of the council chamber and the house of representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest. to draw the conduct of our ancestors into a precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted, is an insult to their memory. the difference between the excitements of those days and our own, which the gentleman in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this: the man of that day went for the right, as secured by the laws. they were the people rising to sustain the laws and constitution of the province. the rioters of our day go for their own wills, right or wrong. sir, when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of alton side by side with otis and hancock, with quincy and adams, i thought those pictured lips [pointing to the portraits in the hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american,--the slanderer of the dead. the gentleman said that he should sink into insignificance if he dared to gainsay the principles of these resolutions. sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on soil consecrated by the prayers of puritans and the blood of patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him up. i am glad, sir, to see this crowded house. it is good for us to be here. when liberty is in danger, faneuil hall has the right, it is her duty, to strike the keynote for these united states. depicting character a tale of the plains from "hunting the grizzly," with the permission of g. p. putnam's sons, new york and london, publishers. by theodore roosevelt one of my valued friends in the mountains, and one of the best hunters with whom i ever traveled, was a man who had a peculiarly light-hearted way of looking at conventional social obligations. though in some ways a true backwoods donatello, he was a man of much shrewdness and of great courage and resolution. moreover, he possessed what only a few men do possess, the capacity to tell the truth. he saw facts as they were, and could tell them as they were, and he never told an untruth unless for very weighty reasons. he was preeminently a philosopher, of a happy, skeptical turn of mind. he had no prejudices. on one occasion when we were out together we killed a bear, and after skinning it, took a bath in a lake. i noticed he had a scar on the side of his foot, and asked him how he got it, to which he responded, with indifference:-- "oh, that? why, a man shoo tin' at me to make me dance, that was all." i expressed some curiosity in the matter, and he went on: "well, the way of it was this: it was when i was keeping a saloon in new mexico, and there was a man there by the name of fowler, and there was a reward on him of three thousand dollars--" "put on him by the state?" "no, put on by his wife," said my friend; "and there was this--" "hold on," i interrupted; "put on by his wife, did you say?" "yes, by his wife. him and her had been keepin' a faro bank, you see, and they quarreled about it, so she just put a reward on him, and so--" "excuse me," i said, "but do you mean to say that this reward was put on publicly?" to which my friend answered with an air of gentlemanly boredom at being interrupted to gratify my thirst for irrelevant detail:-- "oh, no, not publicly. she just mentioned it to six or eight intimate personal friends." "go on," i responded, somewhat overcome by this instance of the primitive simplicity with which new mexican matrimonial disputes were managed, and he continued:-- "well, two men come ridin' in to see me to borrow my guns. my guns was colt's self-cockers. it was a new thing then, and they was the only ones in town. these come to me, and 'simpson,' says they, 'we want to borrow your guns; we are goin' to kill fowler.' "'hold on for a moment,' said i, 'i am willin' to lend you them guns, but i ain't goin' to know what you'r' goin' to do with them, no, sir; but of course you can have the guns.'" here my friend's face lightened pleasantly, and he continued:-- "well, you may easily believe i felt surprised next day when fowler come ridin' in, and, says he, 'simpson, here's your guns!' he had shot them two men! 'well, fowler,' says i, 'if i had known them men was after you, i'd never have let them have the guns nohow,' says i. that wasn't true, for i did know it, but there was no cause to tell him that." i murmured my approval of such prudence, and simpson continued, his eyes gradually brightening with the light of agreeable reminiscence:-- "well, they up and they took fowler before the justice of peace. the justice of the peace was a turk." "now, simpson, what do you mean by that?" i interrupted. "well, he come from turkey," said simpson, and i again sank back, wondering briefly what particular variety of mediterranean outcast had drifted down to mexico to be made a justice of the peace. simpson laughed and continued: "that fowler was a funny fellow. the turk, he committed fowler, and fowler, he riz up and knocked him down and tromped all over him and made him let him go!" "that was an appeal to a higher law," i observed. simpson assented cheerily, and continued:-- "well, that turk, he got nervous for fear fowler was goin' to kill him, and so he comes to me and offers me twenty-five dollars a day to protect him from fowler; and i went to fowler, and 'fowler,' says i, 'that turk's offered me twenty-five dollars a day to protect him from you. now, i ain't goin' to get shot for no twenty-five dollars a day, and if you are goin' to kill the turk, just say so and go and do it; but if you ain't goin' to kill the turk, there's no reason why i shouldn't earn that twenty-five dollars a day!' and fowler, says he, 'i ain't goin' to touch the turk; you just go right ahead and protect him.'" so simpson "protected" the turk from the imaginary danger of fowler, for about a week, at twenty-five dollars a day. then one evening he happened to go out and meet fowler, "and," said he, "the moment i saw him i know he felt mean, for he begun to shoot at my feet," which certainly did seem to offer presumptive evidence of meanness. simpson continued:-- "i didn't have no gun, so i just had to stand there and take it until something distracted his attention, and i went off home to get my gun and kill him, but i wanted to do it perfectly lawful; so i went up to the mayor (he was playin' poker with one of the judges), and says i to him, 'mr. mayor,' says i, 'i am goin' to shoot fowler.' and the mayor he riz out of his chair and he took me by the hand, and says he, 'mr. simpson, if you do i will stand by you'; and the judge he says, 'i'll go on your bond.'" fortified by this cordial approval of the executive and judicial branches of the government, mr. simpson started on his quest. meanwhile, however, fowler had cut up another prominent citizen, and they already had him in jail. the friends of law and order, feeling some little distrust as to the permanency of their own zeal for righteousness, thought it best to settle the matter before there was time for cooling, and accordingly, headed by simpson, the mayor, the judge, the turk, and other prominent citizens of the town, they broke into the jail and hanged fowler. the point in the hanging which especially tickled my friend's fancy as he lingered over the reminiscence was one that was rather too ghastly to appeal to our own sense of humor. in the turk's mind there still rankled the memory of fowler's very unprofessional conduct while figuring before him as a criminal. said simpson, with a merry twinkle of the eye: "do you know, that turk, he was a right funny fellow too after all. just as the boys were going to string up fowler, says he, 'boys, stop; one moment, gentlemen,--mr. fowler, good-by,' and he blew a kiss to him!" gunga din from "departmental ditties," with the permission of a. p. watt and son, london, and doubleday, page and company, new york. by rudyard kipling you may talk o' gin and beer when you're quartered safe out 'ere, an' you're sent to penny-fights an' aldershot it; but when it comes to slaughter you will do your work on water, an' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it. now in injia's sunny clime, where i used to spend my time a-servin' of 'er majesty the queen, of all them blackfaced crew the finest man i knew was our regimental bhisti, gunga din. he was "din! din! din! you limping lump o' brick-dust, gunga din! hi! slippery hitherao! water, get it! panee lao! [footnote: bring water swiftly.] you squidgy-nosed old idol, gunga din." the uniform 'e wore was nothin' much before, an' rather less than 'arf o' that be'ind, for a piece o' twisty rag an' a goatskin water-bag was all the field-equipment 'e could find. when the sweatin' troop-train lay in a sidin' through the day, where the 'eat would make your bloomin' eyebrows crawl, we shouted "harry by!" [footnote: o brother] till our throats were bricky-dry, then we wopped 'im 'cause 'e couldn't serve us all. it was "din! din! din! you 'eathen, where the mischief 'ave you been? you put some juldee in it or i'll marrow you this minute, [footnote: hit you] if you don't fill up my helmet, gunga din!" 'e would dot an' carry one till the longest day was done; an' 'e didn't seem to know the use o' fear. if we charged or broke or cut, you could bet your bloomin' nut, 'e'd be waitin' fifty paces right flank rear. with 'is mussick [footnote: water skin] on 'is back, 'e would skip with our attack, an' watch us till the bugles made "retire," an' for all 'is dirty 'ide 'e was white, clear white, inside when 'e went to tend the wounded under fire! it was "din! din! din!" with the bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green. when the cartridges ran out, you could hear the front-files shout, "hi! ammunition-mules an' gunga din!" i sha'n't forgit the night when i dropped be'ind the fight with a bullet where my belt-plate should 'a' been. i was chokin' mad with thirst, an' the man that spied me first was our good old grinnin', gruntin' gunga din. 'e lifted up my 'ead, an' he plugged me where i bled, an' 'e guv me 'arf-a-pint o' water-green: it was crawlin' and it stunk, but of all the drinks i've drunk, i'm gratefullest to one from gunga din. it was "din! din! din!" 'ere's a beggar with a bullet through 'is spleen; 'e's chawin' up the ground, an' 'e's kickin' all around: "for gawd's sake git the water, gunga din!" 'e carried me away to where a dooli lay, an' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean. 'e put me safe inside, an' just before 'e died: "i 'ope you liked your drink," sez gunga din. so i'll meet 'im later on at the place where 'e is gone-- where it's always double drill and no canteen; 'e'll be squattin' on the coals, givin' drink to poor damned souls, an' i'll get a swig in hell from gunga din! yes, din! din! din! you lazarushian-leather gunga din! though i've belted you and flayed you, by the living gawd that made you, you're a better man than i am, gunga din! address of sergeant buzfuz from "the pickwick papers" by charles dickens sergeant buzfuz rose with all the majesty and dignity which the grave nature of the proceedings demanded, and having whispered to dodson, and conferred briefly with fogg, pulled his gown over his shoulders, settled his wig, and addressed the jury. sergeant buzfuz began by saying that never, in the whole course of his professional experience,--never, from the very first moment of his applying himself to the study and practice of the law, had he approached a case with such a heavy sense of the responsibility imposed upon him,--a responsibility he could never have supported, were he not buoyed up and sustained by a conviction, so strong that it amounted to positive certainty, that the cause of truth and justice, or, in other words, the cause of his much-injured and most oppressed client, _must_ prevail with the high-minded and intelligent dozen of men whom he now saw in that box before him. counsel always begin in this way, because it puts the jury on the best terms with themselves, and makes them think what sharp fellows they must be. a visible effect was produced immediately; several jurymen beginning to take voluminous notes. "the plaintiff is a widow; yes, gentlemen, a widow. the late mr. bardell, after enjoying, for many years, the esteem and confidence of his sovereign, as one of the guardians of his royal revenues, glided almost imperceptibly from the world, to seek elsewhere for that repose and peace which a custom-house can never afford." this was a pathetic description of the decease of mr. bardell, who had been knocked on the head with a quart-pot in a public-house cellar. "of this man pickwick i will say little; the subject presents but few attractions; and i, gentlemen, am not the man, nor are you, gentlemen, the men, to delight in the contemplation of revolting heartlessness and of systematic villainy." here mr. pickwick, who had been writhing in silence, gave a violent start, as if some vague idea of assaulting sergeant buzfuz, in the august presence of justice and law, suggested itself to his mind. "i say systematic villainy, gentlemen," said sergeant buzfuz, looking through mr. pickwick, and talking _at_ him, "and when i say systematic villainy, let me tell the defendant, pickwick,--if he be in court, as i am informed he is,--that it would have been more decent in him, more becoming, in better judgment, and in better taste, if he had stopped away. "i shall show you, gentlemen, that for two years pickwick continued to reside without interruption or intermission at mrs. bardell's house. i shall show you that, on many occasions, he gave halfpence, and on some occasions even sixpences, to her little boy; and i shall prove to you, by a witness whose testimony it will be impossible for my learned friend to weaken or controvert, that on one occasion he patted the boy on the head, and, after inquiring whether he had won any _alley tors_ or _commoneys_ lately (both of which i understand to be a particular species of marbles much prized by the youth of this town), made use of this remarkable expression: 'how should you like to have another father?' i shall prove to you, gentlemen, on the testimony of three of his own friends,--most unwilling witnesses, gentlemen,--most unwilling witnesses,--that on that morning he was discovered by them holding the plaintiff in his arms, and soothing her agitation by his caresses and endearments. "and now, gentlemen, but one word more. two letters have passed between these parties,--letters which are admitted to be in the handwriting of the defendant. let me read the first:--'garraway's, twelve o'clock. dear mrs. b.--chops and tomato sauce. yours, pickwick.' gentlemen, what does this mean? chops! gracious heavens! and tomato sauce! gentlemen, is the happiness of a sensitive and confiding female to be trifled away by such shallow artifices as these? the next has no date whatever, which is in itself suspicious. 'dear mrs. b., i shall not be at home till to-morrow. slow coach.' and then follows this very remarkable expression. 'don't trouble yourself about the warming-pan.' why, gentlemen, who _does_ trouble himself about a warming-pan? why is mrs. bardell so earnestly entreated not to agitate herself about this warming-pan, unless it is, as i assert it to be, a mere cover for hidden fire,--a mere substitute for some endearing word or promise, agreeably to a preconcerted system of correspondence, artfully contrived by pickwick with a view to his contemplated desertion, and which i am not in a condition to explain? "enough of this. my client's hopes and prospects are ruined. but pickwick, gentlemen,--pickwick, the ruthless destroyer of this domestic oasis in the desert of goswell street,--pickwick, who has choked up the well, and thrown ashes on the sward,--pickwick, who comes before you to-day with his heartless tomato sauce and warming-pans,--pickwick still rears his head with unblushing effrontery, and gazes without a sigh on the ruin he has made. damages, gentlemen, heavy damages, are the only punishment with which you can visit him, the only recompense you can award to my client. and for those damages she now appeals to an enlightened, a high-minded, a right-feeling, a conscientious, a dispassionate, a sympathizing, a contemplative jury of her civilized countrymen." a natural philosopher by maccabe ladies and gentlemen: i see so many foine-lookin' people sittin' before me that if you'll excuse me i'll be after takin' a seat meself. you don't know me, i'm thinking, as some of yees 'ud be noddin' to me afore this. i'm a walkin' pedestrian, a travelin' philosopher. terry o'mulligan's me name. i'm from dublin, where many philosophers before me was raised and bred. oh, philosophy is a foine study! i don't know anything about it, but it's a foine study! before i kirn over i attended an important meetin' of philosophers in dublin, and the discussin' and talkin' you'd hear there about the world 'ud warm the very heart of socrates or aristotle himself. well, there was a great many _imminent_ and learned _min_ there at the meetin', and i was there too, and while we was in the very thickest of a heated argument, one comes to me and says he, "do you know what we're talkin' about?" "i do," says i, "but i don't understand yees." "could ye explain the sun's motion around the earth?" says he. "i could," says i, "but i'd not know could you understand or not." "well," says he, "we'll see," says he. sure'n i didn't know anything, how to get out of it then, so i piled in, "for," says i to myself, "never let on to any one that you don't know anything, but make them believe that you do know all about it." so says i to him, takin' up me shillalah this way (holding a very crooked stick perpendicular), "we'll take that for the straight line of the earth's equator"--how's that for gehography? (to the audience). ah, that was straight till the other day i bent it in an argument. "wery good," says he. "well," says i, "now the sun rises in the east" (placing the disengaged hand at the eastern end of the stick). well, he couldn't deny that. "and when he gets up he darts his rosy beams through the mornin' gleams." do you moind the poetry there? (to the audience with a smile). "and he keeps on risin' and risin' till he reaches his meriden." "what's that?" says he. "his dinner-toime," says i; "sure'n that's my latin for dinner-toime, and when he gets his dinner he sinks to rest behind the glorious hills of the west." oh, begorra, there's more poetry! i fail it creepin' out all over me. "there," says i, well satisfied with myself, "will that do for ye?" "you haven't got done with him yet," says he. "done with him," says i, kinder mad like; "what more do you want me to do with him? didn't i bring him from the east to the west? what more do you want?" "oh," says he, "you'll have to bring him back again to the east to rise next mornin'." by saint patrick! and wasn't i near betrayin' me ignorance, sure'n i thought there was a large family of suns, and they rise one after the other. but i gathered meself quick, and, says i to him, "well," says i, "i'm surprised you axed me that simple question. i thought any man 'ud know," says i, "when the sun sinks to rest in the west--when the sun--" says i. "you said that before," says he. "well, i want to press it stronger upon you," says i. "when the sun sinks to rest in the east--no--west, why he--why he waits till it grows dark, and then he goes _back in the noight toime_!" response to a toast from "a charity dinner" by litchfield moseley "milors and gentlemans!" commences the frenchman, elevating his eyebrows and shrugging his shoulders. "milors and gentlemans--you excellent chairman, m. le baron de mount-stuart, he have say to me, 'make de toast.' den i say to him dat i have no toast to make; but he nudge my elbow ver soft, and say dat dere is von toast dat nobody but von frenchman can make proper; and, derefore, wid your kind permission, i vill make de toast. 'de brevete is de sole of de feet,' as you great philosophere, dr. johnson, do say, in dat amusing little vork of his, de pronouncing dictionnaire; and, derefore, i vill not say ver moch to de point. ven i vas a boy, about so moch tall, and used for to promenade de streets of marseilles et of rouen, vid no feet to put onto my shoe, i nevare to have expose dat dis day vould to have arrive. i vas to begin de vorld as von garçon--or, vat you call in dis countrie, von vaitaire in a café--vere i vork ver hard, vid no habillemens at all to put onto myself, and ver little food to eat, excep' von old blue blouse vat vas give to me by de proprietaire, just for to keep myself fit to be showed at; but, tank goodness, tings dey have change ver moch for me since dat time, and i have rose myself, seulement par mon industrie et perseverance. ah! mes amis! ven i hear to myself de flowing speech, de oration magnifique of you lor' maire, monsieur gobbledown, i feel dat it is von great privilege for von étrangé to sit at de same table, and to eat de same food, as dat grand, dat majestique man, who are de terreur of de voleurs and de brigands of de metropolis; and who is also, i for to suppose, a halterman and de chef of you common scoundrel. milors and gentlemans, i feel dat i can perspire to no greatare honneur dan to be von common scoundrelman myself; but, hélas! dat plaisir are not for me, as i are not freeman of your great cité, not von liveryman servant of von of you compagnies joint-stock. but i must not forget de toast. milors and gentlemans! de immortal shakispeare he have write, 'de ting of beauty are de joy for nevermore.' it is de ladies who are de toast. vat is more entrancing dan de charmante smile, de soft voice, der vinking eye of de beautiful lady! it is de ladies who do sweeten de cares of life. it is de ladies who are de guiding stars of our existence. it is de ladies who do cheer but not inebriate, and, derefore, vid all homage to de dear sex, de toast dat i have to propose is, "de ladies! god bless dem all!" partridge at the play from "tom jones" by henry fielding in the first row of the first gallery did mr. jones, mrs. miller, her youngest daughter, and partridge, take their places. partridge immediately declared it was the finest place he had ever been in. when the first music was played, he said, "it was a wonder how so many fiddlers could play at one time, without putting one another out." while the fellow was lighting the upper candles, he cried out to mrs. miller, "look, look, madam, the very picture of the man in the end of the common-prayer book before the gunpowder-treason service." nor could he help observing, with a sigh, when all the candles were lighted, "that here were candles enough burnt in one night, to keep an honest poor family for a whole twelvemonth." as soon as the play, which was hamlet, prince of denmark, began, partridge was all attention, nor did he break silence till the entrance of the ghost; upon which he asked jones, "what man that was in the strange dress; something," said he, "like what i have seen in a picture. sure it is not armor, is it?" jones answered, "that is the ghost." to which partridge replied with a smile, "persuade me to that, sir, if you can. ... no, no, sir, ghosts don't appear in such dresses as that, neither." in this mistake, which caused much laughter in the neighborhood of partridge, he was suffered to continue, till the scene between the ghost and hamlet, when partridge gave that credit to mr. garrick, which he had denied to jones, and fell into so violent a trembling, that his knees knocked against each other. jones asked him what was the matter, and whether he was afraid of the warrior upon the stage? "o la! sir," said he, "i perceive now it is what you told me. ... nay, you may call me coward if you will; but if that little man there upon the stage is not frightened, i never saw any man frightened in my life. ay, ay: go along with you: ay, to be sure! who's fool then? will you? lud have mercy upon such foolhardiness!--whatever happens, it is good enough for you.--follow you? i'd follow the devil as soon. nay, perhaps it is the devil--for they say he can put on what likeness he pleases.--oh! here he is again.--no farther! no, you have gone far enough already; farther than i'd have gone for all the king's dominions." jones offered to speak, but partridge cried, "hush, hush! dear sir, don't you hear him?" and during the whole speech of the ghost, he sat with his eyes fixed partly on the ghost and partly on hamlet, and with his mouth open; the same passions which succeeded each other in hamlet, succeeding likewise in him. during the second act, partridge made very few remarks. he greatly admired the fineness of the dresses; nor could he help observing upon the king's countenance. "well," said he, "how people may be deceived by faces! _nulla fides fronti_ is, i find, a true saying. who would think, by looking into the king's face, that he had ever committed a murder?" he then inquired after the ghost; but jones, who intended he should be surprised, gave him no other satisfaction than "that he might possibly see him again soon, and in a flash of fire." partridge sat in a fearful expectation of this; and now, when the ghost made his next appearance, partridge cried out, "there, sir, now; what say you now? is he frightened now or no? as much frightened as you think me, and, to be sure, nobody can help some fears. i would not be in so bad a condition as what's his name, squire hamlet, is there, for all the world. bless me! what's become of the spirit! as i am a living soul, i thought i saw him sink into the earth." "indeed, you saw right," answered jones, "well, well," cries partridge, "i know it is only a play: and besides, if there was any thing in all this, madam miller would not laugh so; for as to you, sir, you would not be afraid, i believe, if the devil was here in person.--there, there--aye, no wonder you are in such a passion; shake the vile wicked wretch to pieces. if she was my own mother, i would serve her so. to be sure all duty to a mother is forfeited by such wicked doings.--aye, go about your business, i hate the sight of you." little more worth remembering occurred during the play, at the end of which jones asked him which of the players he had liked best? to this he answered, with some appearance of indignation at the question, "the king, without doubt." "indeed, mr. partridge," says mrs. miller, "you are not of the same opinion with the town; for they are all agreed, that hamlet is acted by the best player who ever was on the stage." "he the best player!" cries partridge, with a contemptuous sneer, "why, i could act as well as he myself. i am sure, if i had seen a ghost, i should have looked in the very same manner, and done just as ne did. and then, to be sure, in that scene, as you called it, between him and his mother, where you told me he acted so fine, why, lord help me, any man, that is, any good man, that had such a mother, would have done exactly the same. i know you are only joking with me; but indeed, madam, though i was never at a play in london, yet i have seen acting before in the country; and the king for my money; he speaks all his words distinctly, half as loud again as the other.--anybody may see he is an actor." a man's a man for a' that by robert burns is there for honest poverty that hings his head, an' a' that? the coward slave, we pass him by-- we dare be poor for a' that. for a' that, an' a' that, our toils obscure, an' a' that, the rank is but the guinea's stamp, the man's the gowd [footnote: gold] for a' that! what tho' on hamely [footnote: homely, plain] fare we dine, wear hoddin [footnote: homespun] gray, an' a' that; gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine-- a man's a man, for a' that. for a' that, an' a' that, their tinsel show, an' a' that, the honest man, though e'er sae poor, is king o' men for a' that! ye see yon birkie [footnote: fellow], ca'd a lord, wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that; tho' hundreds worship at his word, he's but a coof [footnote: fool (pronounce like german _o_ or _oe_)] for a' that; for a' that, an' a' that, his riband, star, an' a' that; the man of independent mind, he looks an' laughs at a' that. a prince can mak a belted knight, a marquis, duke, an' a' that; but an honest man's aboon [footnote: above] his might-- gude faith, he maunna fa' [footnote: must not claim (to make the honest man)] that! for a' that, an' a' that, their dignities, an' a' that, the pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth, are higher ranks than a' that. then let us pray that come it may, as come it will for a' that, that sense an' worth, o'er a' the earth, shall bear the gree, [footnote: prize] an' a' that. for a' that, an' a' that, it's comin' yet, for a' that-- that man to man, the warld o'er, shall brothers be for a' that. artemus ward's lecture from "complete works of artemus ward" with the permission of the g. w. dillingham company, new york, publishers. by charles farrar brown (artemus ward) i don't expect to do great things here--but i have thought that if i could make money enough to buy me a passage to new zealand i should feel that i had not lived in vain. i don't want to live in vain. i'd rather live in texas--or here. if you should be dissatisfied with anything here to-night--i will admit you all free in new zealand--if you will come to me there for the orders. any respectable cannibal will tell you where i live. this shows that i have a forgiving spirit. i really don't care for money. i only travel round to see the world and to exhibit my clothes. these clothes i have on have been a great success in america. how often do large fortunes ruin young men! i should like to be ruined, but i can get on very well as i am. i am not an artist. i don't paint myself--though perhaps if i were a middle-aged single lady i should--yet i have a passion for pictures.--i have had a great many pictures--photographs--taken of myself. some of them are very pretty--rather sweet to look at for a short time--and as i said before, i like them. i've always loved pictures. i could draw on wood at a very tender age. when a mere child i once drew a small cartload of raw turnips over a wooden bridge.--the people of the village noticed me. i drew their attention. they said i had a future before me. up to that time i had an idea it was behind me. time passed on. it always does, by the way. you may possibly have noticed that time passes on.--it is a kind of way time has. i became a man. i haven't distinguished myself at all as an artist--but i have always been more or less mixed up with art. i have an uncle who takes photographs--and i have a servant who--takes anything he can get his hands on. when i was in rome--rome in new york state, i mean--a distinguished sculpist wanted to sculp me. but i said "no." i saw through the designing man. my model once in his hands--he would have flooded the market with my busts--and i couldn't stand it to see everybody going round with a bust of me. everybody would want one of course--and wherever i should go i should meet the educated classes with my bust, taking it home to their families. this would be more than my modesty could stand--and i should have to return home--where my creditors are. i like art. i admire dramatic art--although i failed as an actor. it was in my schoolboy days that i failed as an actor.--the play was "the ruins of pompeii."--i played the ruins. it was not a very successful performance--but it was better than the "burning mountain." he was not good. he was a bad vesuvius. the remembrance often makes me ask--"where are the boys of my youth?" i assure you this is not a conundrum. some are amongst you here--some in america--some are in jail. hence arises a most touching question--"where are the girls of my youth?" some are married--some would like to be. oh, my maria! alas! she married another. they frequently do. i hope she is happy--because i am.--some people are not happy. i have noticed that. a gentleman friend of mine came to me one day with tears in his eyes. i said, "why these weeps?" he said he had a mortgage on his farm--and wanted to borrow $ . i lent him the money--and he went away. some time afterward he returned with more tears. he said he must leave me forever. i ventured to remind him of the $ he borrowed. he was much cut up. i thought i would not be hard upon him--so told him i would throw off $ . he brightened--shook my hand--and said,--"old friend-- i won't allow you to outdo me in liberality--i'll throw off the other hundred." i like music.--i can't sing. as a singist i am not a success. i am saddest when i sing. so are those who hear me. they are sadder even than i am. i met a man in oregon who hadn't any teeth--not a tooth in his head-- yet that man could play on the bass drum better than any man i ever met. he kept a hotel. they have queer hotels in oregon. i remember one where they gave me a bag of oats for a pillow--i had nightmares of course. in the morning the landlord said,--"how do you feel--old hoss-- hay?"--i told him i felt my oats. as a manager i was always rather more successful than as an actor. some years ago i engaged a celebrated living american skeleton for a tour through australia. he was the thinnest man i ever saw. he was a splendid skeleton. he didn't weigh anything scarcely--and i said to myself--the people of australia will flock to see this tremendous cu- riosity. it is a long voyage--as you know--from new york to melbourne-- and to my utter surprise the skeleton had no sooner got out to sea than he commenced eating in the most horrible manner. he had never been on the ocean before--and he said it agreed with him--i thought so!--i never saw a man eat so much in my life. beef, mutton, pork--he swallowed them all like a shark--and between meals he was often discovered behind barrels eating hard-boiled eggs. the result was that, when we reached melbourne, this infamous skeleton weighed sixty-four pounds more than i did! i thought i was ruined--but i wasn't. i took him on to california-- another very long sea voyage--and when i got him to san francisco i exhibited him as a fat man. this story hasn't anything to do with my entertainment, i know--but one of the principal features of my entertainment is that it contains so many things that don't have anything to do with it. jim bludso, of the prairie belle by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's work. by john hay wall, no! i can't tell whar he lives, because he don't live, you see; leastways, he's got out of the habit of livin' like you and me. whar have you been for the last three year that you haven't heard folks tell how jimmy bludso passed in his checks the night of the "prairie belle"? he weren't no saint,--them engineers is all pretty much alike,-- one wife in natchez-under-the-hill and another one here, in pike; a keerless man in his talk was jim, and an awkward hand in a row, but he never flunked, and he never lied,-- i reckon he never knowed how. and this was all the religion he had,-- to treat his engine well; never be passed on the river; to mind the pilot's bell; and if ever the "prairie belle" took fire,-- a thousand times he swore, he'd hold her nozzle agin the bank till the last soul got ashore. all boats has their day on the mississip, and her day come at last,-- the "movastar" was a better boat, but the "belle" she _wouldn't_ be passed. and so she come tearin' along that night-- the oldest craft on the line-- with a nigger squat on her safety valve, and her furnace crammed, rosin and pine. the fire bust out as she cleared the bar, and burnt a hole in the night, and quick as a flash she turned, and made for that willer-bank on the right. there was runnin' and cursing but jim yelled out, over all the infernal roar, "i'll hold her nozzle agin the bank till the last galoot's ashore." through the hot, black breath of the burnin' boat jim bludso's voice was heard, and they all had trust in his cussedness, and knowed he would keep his word. and, sure's you're born, they all got off afore the smokestacks fell,-- and bludso's ghost went up alone in the smoke of the "prairie belle." he weren't no saint,--but at jedgment i'd run my chance with jim, 'longside of some pious gentlemen that wouldn't shake hands with him. he seen his duty, a dead-sure thing,-- and he went for it thar and then; and christ ain't agoing to be too hard on a man that died for men. the trial of abner barrow from "the boy orator of zepata city" in "the exiles and other stories." copyrighted, , harper and brothers. reprinted with permission. by richard harding davis abe barrow had been closely associated with the early history of zepata; he had killed in his day several of the zepata citizens. his fight with thompson had been a fair fight--as those said who remembered it--and thompson was a man they could well spare; but the case against barrow had been prepared by the new and youthful district attorney, and the people were satisfied and grateful. harry harvey, "the boy orator of zepata city," as he was called, turned slowly on his heels, and swept the court room carelessly with a glance of his clever black eyes. the moment was his. "this man," he said, and as he spoke even the wind in the corridors hushed for the moment, "is no part or parcel of zepata city of to-day. he comes to us a relic of the past--a past that was full of hardships and glorious efforts in the face of daily disappointments, embitterments and rebuffs. but the part _this_ man played in that past lives only in the court records of that day. this man, abe barrow, enjoys, and has enjoyed, a reputation as a 'bad man,' a desperate and brutal ruffian. free him to-day, and you set a premium on such reputations; acquit him of this crime, and you encourage others to like evil. let him go, and he will walk the streets with a swagger, and boast that you were afraid to touch him--_afraid_, gentlemen--and children and women will point after him as the man who has sent nine others into eternity, and who yet walks the streets a free man. and he will become, in the eyes of the young and the weak, a hero and a god. "for the last ten years, your honor, this man, abner barrow, has been serving a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary; i ask you to send him back there again for the remainder of his life. abe barrow is out of date. this rip van winkle of the past returns to find a city where he left a prairie town; a bank where he spun his roulette-wheel; this magnificent courthouse instead of a vigilance committee! he is there, in the prisoner's pen, a convicted murderer and an unconvicted assassin, the last of his race,--the bullies and bad men of the border,--a thing to be forgotten and put away forever from the sight of men. and i ask you, gentlemen, to put him away where he will not hear the voice of man nor children's laughter, nor see a woman's smile. bury him with the bitter past, with the lawlessness that has gone--that has gone, thank god--and which must not return." the district attorney sat down suddenly, and was conscious of nothing until the foreman pronounced the prisoner at the bar guilty of murder in the second degree. judge truax leaned across his desk and said, simply, that it lay in his power to sentence the prisoner to not less than two years' confinement in the state penitentiary, or for the remainder of his life. "before i deliver sentence on you, abner barrow," he said with an old man's kind severity, "is there anything you have to say on your own behalf?" barrow's face was white with the prison tan, and pinched and hollow- eyed and worn. when he spoke his voice had the huskiness which comes from non-use, and cracked and broke like a child's. "i don't know, judge," he said, "that i have anything to say in my own behalf. i guess what the gentleman said about me is all there is to say. i _am_ a back number, i _am_ out of date; i _was_ a loafer and a blackguard. he told you i had no part or parcel in this city, or in this world; that i belonged to the past; that i ought to be dead. now that's not so. i have just one thing that belongs to this city, and to this world--and to me; one thing that i couldn't take to jail with me, and i'll have to leave behind me when i go back to it. i mean my wife. you, sir, remember her, sir, when i married her twelve years ago. she gave up everything a woman ought to have, to come to me. she thought she was going to be happy with me; that's why she come, i guess. maybe she was happy for about two weeks. after that first two weeks her life, sir, was a hell, and i made it a hell. respectable women wouldn't speak to her because she was my wife--and she had no children. that was her life. she lived alone over the dance-hall, and sometimes when i was drunk--i beat her. "at the end of two years i killed welsh, and they sent me to the pen for ten years, and she was free. she could have gone back to her folks and got a divorce if she'd wanted to, and never seen me again. it was an escape most women'd gone down on their knees and thanked their maker for. "but what did this woman do--my wife, the woman i misused and beat and dragged down in the mud with me? she was too mighty proud to go back to her people, or to the friends who shook her when she was in trouble; and she sold out the place, and bought a ranch with the money, and worked it by herself, worked it day and night, until in ten years she had made herself an old woman, as you see she is to-day. "and for what? to get _me_ free again; to bring _me_ things to eat in jail, and picture papers, and tobacco--when she was living on bacon and potatoes, and drinking alkali water--working to pay for a lawyer to fight for _me_--to pay for the _best_ lawyer. "and what i want to ask of you, sir, is to let me have two years out of jail to show her how i feel about it. it's all i've thought of when i was in jail, to be able to see her sitting in her own kitchen with her hands folded, and me working and sweating in the fields for her, working till every bone ached, trying to make it up to her. "and i can't, i can't! it's too late! it's too late! don't send me back for life! give me a few years to work for her--to show her what i feel here, what i never felt for her before. look at her, gentlemen, look how worn she is, and poorly, and look at her hands, and you men must feel how i feel--i don't ask you for myself. i don't want to go free on my own account. my god! judge, don't bury me alive, as that man asked you to. give me this last chance. let me prove that what i'm saying is true." judge truax looked at the papers on his desk for some seconds, and raised his head, coughing as he did so. "it lies--it lies at the discretion of this court to sentence the prisoner to a term of imprisonment of two years, or for an indefinite period, or for life. owing to--on account of certain circumstances which were--have arisen--this sentence is suspended. this court stands adjourned." part three platform practice the speech of formal occasion the benefits of a college education from an address by the president to the students of harvard university, at the announcement of academic distinctions, by abbott lawrence lowell this meeting is held not merely to honor the men who have won prizes, attained high rank, or achieved distinction in studies. in a larger sense it is a tribute paid by the university to the ideals of scholarship. it is a public confession of faith in the aims for which the university was established. we may, therefore, not inappropriately consider here the nature and significance of scholarship. without attempting an exhaustive catalogue of the benefits of education, we may note three distinct objects of college study. the first is the development of the mental powers with a view to their use in any subsequent career. in its broadest sense this may be called training for citizenship, for we must remember that good citizenship does not consist exclusively in rendering public service in political and philanthropic matters. it includes also conducting an industrial or professional career so as not to leave the public welfare out of sight. popular government is exacting. it implies that in some form every man shall voluntarily consecrate a part of his time and force to the state, and the better the citizen, the greater the effort he will make. on the function of colleges in fitting men for citizenship and for active work, much emphasis has been laid of late. yet it is not the only aim of college studies. another object is cultivation of the mind, refinement of taste, a development of the qualities that distinguish the civilized man from the barbarian. nor does the value of these things lie in personal satisfaction alone. there is a culture that is selfish and exclusive, that is self-centered and conceited. the intellectual snob is quite as repellant as any other. but this is true of the moral distortion of all good qualities. the culture that narrows the sympathies, instead of enlarging them, has surely missed the object that should give its chief worth and dignity. the culture that reveals beauty in all its forms, that refines the sensibilities, and expands the mental horizon, that, without a sense of superiority, desires to share these things with others, and makes the lives of all men better worth living, is like the glow of fire in a cold room. it is a form of social service of a high order. a third benefit of college education is the contact it affords with the work of creative imagination. the highest type of scholar is the creative scholar, just as the highest type of citizen is the statesman. the greatest figures in history, as almost every one will admit, are the thinkers and the rulers of men. people will always differ in the relative value they ascribe to these two supreme forms of human power. but if one may indulge in apocalyptic visions, i should prefer in another world to be worthy of the friendship of aristotle rather than of alexander, of shakespeare or newton than of napoleon or frederick the great. when i spoke of the benefit of college life in training for citizenship, and in imparting culture, i was obviously dealing with things which lie within the reach of every student; but in speaking of creative scholarship you may think that i am appealing only to the few men who have the rare gift of creative genius. but happily the progress of the world is not in the exclusive custody of the occasional men of genius. great originality is, indeed, rare; but on a smaller scale it is not uncommon, and the same principles apply to the production of all creative work. the great scholar and the lesser intellectual lights differ in brilliancy, but the same process must be followed to bring them to their highest splendor. nor is it the genius alone, or even the man of talent, who can enjoy and aid productive thought. it is not given to all men to possess creative scholarship themselves; but most men by following its footsteps can learn to respect it and feel its charm; and for any man who passes through college without doing so, college education has been in one of its most vital elements a failure. if he has not recognized the glowing imagination, the lofty ideals, the patience and the modesty, that characterize the true scholar, his time here has been spent, not perhaps without profit, but without inspiration. all productive work is largely dependent upon appreciation by the community. the great painters of italy would have been sterile had not the citizens of florence been eager to carry cimabue's masterpiece in triumph through the streets. kant would never have written among a people who despised philosophy; and the discoveries of our own day would have been impossible in an unscientific age. every man who has learned to respect creative scholarship can enter into its spirit, and by respecting it he helps to foster it. what the college gives from "girls and education," a commencement address, bryn mawr college, , by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by le baron russell briggs one of the best gifts that a college can bestow is the power of taking a new point of view through putting ourselves into another's place. to many students this comes hard, but come it must, as they hope to be saved. to the american world the name of charles eliot norton stands for all that is fastidious, even for what is over-fastidious; but charles eliot norton's collection of verse and prose called "the heart of oak books" shows a catholicity which few of his critics could approach, a refined literary hospitality not less noteworthy than the refined human hospitality of his christmas eve at shady hill. as an old man this interpreter of dante saw and hailed with delight the genius of mr. kipling. if you leave college without catholicity of taste, something is wrong either with the college or with you. as in literature, so in life. the greatest teachers--even christ himself--have taught nothing greater than the power of seeing with the eyes of another soul. "browning," said a woman who loves poetry, "seems to me not so much man as god." for browning, beyond all men in the past century, beyond nearly all men of all time, could throw himself into the person of another. "god be thanked, the meanest of his creatures boasts two soul-sides, one to face the world with, one to show a woman when he loves her," said this same great poet, writing to his wife. but browning has as many soul-sides as humanity. hence it has been truly called a new life, like conversion, or marriage, or the mystery of a great sorrow,--a change and a bracing change in our outlook on the whole world, to discover browning. the college should be our browning, revealing the motive power of every life, the poetry of good and bad. it is only the "little folk of little soul" who come out of college as the initiated members of an exclusive set. justify yourself and your college years by your catholic democracy. it is the duty of the college not to train only, but to inspire; to inspire not to learning only, but to a disciplined appreciation of the best in literature, in art, and in life, to a catholic taste, to a universal sympathy. it is the duty of the student to take the inspiration, to be not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but to justify four years of delight, by scholarship at once accurate and sympathetic, by a finer culture, by a leadership without self-seeking or pride, by a whole-souled democracy. how simple and how old it all is! yet it is not so simple that any one man or woman has done it to perfection; nor so old that any one part of it fails to offer fresh problems and fresh stimulus to the most ambitious of you all. nothing is harder than to take freely and eagerly the best that is offered us, and never turn away to the pursuit of false gods. now the best that is offered in college is the inspiration to learn, and having learned, to do:-- "friends of the great, the high, the perilous years, upon the brink of mighty things we stand-- of golden harvests and of silver tears, and griefs and pleasures that like grains of sand gleam in the hourglass, yield their place and die." so said the college poet. "art without an ideal," said a great woman, "is neither nature nor art. the question involves the whole difference between phidias and mme. tussaud." let us never forget that the chief business of college teachers and college taught is the giving and receiving of ideals, and that the ideal is a burning and a shining light, not now only, or now and a year or two more, but for all time. what else is the patriot's love of country, the philosopher's love of truth, the poet's love of beauty, the teacher's love of learning, the good man's love of an honest life, than keeping the ideal, not merely to look at, but to see by? in its light, and only in its light, the greatest things are done. thus the ideal is not merely the most beautiful thing in the world; it is the source of all high efficiency. in every change, in every joy or sorrow that the coming years may bring, do you who graduate to-day remember that nothing is so practical as a noble ideal steadily and bravely pursued, and that now, as of old, it is the wise men who see and follow the guiding star. memorial day address from "after-dinner and other speeches," with the permission of the author. by john d. long in memory of the dead, in honor of the living, for inspiration to our children, we gather to-day to deck the graves of our patriots with flowers, to pledge commonwealth and town and citizen to fresh recognition of the surviving soldier, and to picture yet again the romance, the reality, the glory, the sacrifice of his service. as if it were but yesterday, you recall him. he had but turned twenty. the exquisite tint of youthful health was in his cheek. his pure heart shone from frank, outspeaking eyes. his fair hair clustered from beneath his cap. he had pulled a stout oar in the college race, or walked the most graceful athlete on the village green. he had just entered on the vocation of his life. the doorway of his home at this season of the year was brilliant in the dewy morn with the clambering vine and fragrant flower, as in and out he went, the beloved of mother and sisters, and the ideal of a new england youth:-- "in face and shoulders like a god he was; for o'er him had the goddess breathed the charm of youthful locks, the ruddy glow of youth, a generous gladness in his eyes: such grace as carver's hand to ivory gives, or when silver or parian stone in yellow gold is set." and when the drum beat, when the first martyr's blood sprinkled the stones of baltimore, he took his place in the ranks and went forward. you remember his ingenuous and glowing letters to his mother, written as if his pen were dipped in his very heart. how novel seemed to him the routine of service, the life of camp and march! how eager the wish to meet the enemy and strike his first blow for the good cause! what pride at the promotion that came and put its chevron on his arm or its strap upon his shoulder! they took him prisoner. he wasted in libby and grew gaunt and haggard with the horror of his sufferings and with pity for the greater horror of the sufferings of his comrades who fainted and died at his side. he tunneled the earth and escaped. hungry and weak, in terror of recapture, he followed by night the pathway of the railroad. he slept in thickets and sank in swamps. he saw the glitter of horsemen who pursued him. he knew the bloodhound was on his track. he reached the line; and, with his hand grasping at freedom, they caught and took him back to his captivity. he was exchanged at last; and you remember, when he came home on a short furlough, how manly and war-worn he had grown. but he soon returned to the ranks and to the welcome of his comrades. they recall him now alike with tears and pride. in the rifle pits around petersburg you heard his steady voice and firm command. some one who saw him then fancied that he seemed that day like one who forefelt the end. but there was no flinching as he charged. he had just turned to give a cheer when the fatal ball struck him. there was a convulsion of the upward hand. his eyes, pleading and loyal, turned their last glance to the flag. his lips parted. he fell dead, and at nightfall lay with his face to the stars. home they brought him, fairer than adonis over whom the goddess of beauty wept. they buried him in the village churchyard under the green turf. year by year his comrades and his kin, nearer than comrades, scatter his grave with flowers. do you ask who he was? he was in every regiment and every company. he went out from every massachusetts village. he sleeps in every massachusetts burying ground. recall romance, recite the names of heroes of legend and song, but there is none that is his peer. william mckinley from an address in the united states senate by john hay for the third time the congress of the united states are assembled to commemorate the life and the death of a president slain by the hand of an assassin. the attention of the future historian will be attracted to the features which reappear with startling sameness in all three of these awful crimes: the uselessness, the utter lack of consequence of the act; the obscurity, the insignificance of the criminal; the blamelessness--so far as in our sphere of existence the best of men may be held blameless--of the victim. not one of our murdered presidents had an enemy in the world; they were all of such preeminent purity of life that no pretext could be given for the attack of passional crime; they were all men of democratic instincts, who could never have offended the most jealous advocates of equality; they were of kindly and generous nature, to whom wrong or injustice was impossible; of moderate fortune, whose slender means nobody could envy. they were men of austere virtue, of tender heart, of eminent abilities, which they had devoted with single minds to the good of the republic. if ever men walked before god and man without blame, it was these three rulers of our people. the only temptation to attack their lives offered was their gentle radiance--to eyes hating the light that was offense enough. the obvious elements which enter into the fame of a public man are few and by no means recondite. the man who fills a great station in a period of change, who leads his country successfully through a time of crisis; who, by his power of persuading and controlling others, has been able to command the best thought of his age, so as to leave his country in a moral or material condition in advance of where he found it,--such a man's position in history is secure. if, in addition to this, his written or spoken words possess the subtle qualities which carry them far and lodge them in men's hearts; and, more than all, if his utterances and actions, while informed with a lofty morality, are yet tinged with the glow of human sympathy,--the fame of such a man will shine like a beacon through the mists of ages--an object of reverence, of imitation, and of love. it should be to us an occasion of solemn pride that in the three great crises of our history such a man was not denied us. the moral value to a nation of a renown such as washington's and lincoln's and mckinley's is beyond all computation. no loftier ideal can be held up to the emulation of ingenuous youth. with such examples we cannot be wholly ignoble. grateful as we may be for what they did, let us be still more grateful for what they were. while our daily being, our public policies, still feel the influence of their work, let us pray that in our spirits their lives may be voluble, calling us upward and onward. there is not one of us but feels prouder of his native land because the august figure of washington presided over its beginnings; no one but vows it a tenderer love because lincoln poured out his blood for it; no one but must feel his devotion for his country renewed and kindled when he remembers how mckinley loved, revered, and served it, showed in his life how a citizen should live, and in his last hour taught us how a gentleman could die. robert e. lee from an address at the unveiling of a statue of general lee, at washington and lee university, by john w. daniel mounted in the field and at the head of his troops, a glimpse of lee was an inspiration. his figure was as distinctive as that of napoleon. the black slouch hat, the cavalry boots, the dark cape, the plain gray coat without an ornament but the three stars on the collar, the calm, victorious face, the splendid, manly figure on the gray war horse,--he looked every inch the true knight--the grand, invincible champion of a great principle. the men who wrested victory from his little band stood wonder-stricken and abashed when they saw how few were those who dared oppose them, and generous admiration burst into spontaneous tribute to the splendid leader who bore defeat with the quiet resignation of a hero. the men who fought under him never revered or loved him more than on the day he sheathed his sword. had he but said the word, they would have died for honor. it was because he said the word that they resolved to live for duty. plato congratulated himself, first, that he was born a man; second, that he had the happiness of being a greek; and third, that he was a contemporary of sophocles. and in this audience to-day, and here and there the wide world over, is many an one who wore the gray, who rejoices that he was born a man to do a man's part for his suffering country; that he had the glory of being a confederate; and who feels a justly proud and glowing consciousness in his bosom when he says unto himself: "i was a follower of robert e. lee. i was a soldier in the army of northern virginia." as president of washington and lee university, general lee exhibited qualities not less worthy and heroic than those displayed on the broad and open theater of conflict when the eyes of nations watched his every action. in the quiet walks of academic life, far removed from "war or battle's sound," came into view the towering grandeur, the massive splendor, and the loving-kindness of his character. there he revealed in manifold gracious hospitalities, tender charities, and patient, worthy counsels, how deep and pure and inexhaustible were the fountains of his virtues. and loving hearts delight to recall, as loving lips will ever delight to tell, the thousand little things he did which sent forth lines of light to irradiate the gloom of the conquered land and to lift up the hopes and cheer the works of his people. come we then to-day in loyal love to sanctify our memories, to purify our hopes, to make strong all good intent by communion with the spirit of him who, being dead, yet speaketh. let us crown his tomb with the oak, the emblem of his strength, and with the laurel, the emblem of his glory. and as we seem to gaze once more on him we loved and hailed as chief, the tranquil face is clothed with heaven's light, and the mute lips seem eloquent with the message that in life he spoke, "there is a true glory and a true honor; the glory of duty done, the honor of the integrity of principle." farewell address to the united states senate by henry clay from , the period of my entrance upon this noble theater, with short intervals, to the present time, i have been engaged in the public councils, at home or abroad. of the services rendered during that long and arduous period of my life it does not become me to speak; history, if she deign to notice me, and posterity, if the recollection of my humble actions shall be transmitted to posterity, are the best, the truest, and the most impartial judges. i have not escaped the fate of other public men, nor failed to incur censure and detraction of the bitterest, most unrelenting, and most malignant character. but i have not meanwhile been unsustained. everywhere throughout the extent of this great continent i have had cordial, warmhearted, faithful, and devoted friends, who have known me, loved me, and appreciated my motives. in the course of a long and arduous public service, especially during the last eleven years in which i have held a seat in the senate, from the same ardor and enthusiasm of character, i have no doubt, in the heat of debate, and in an honest endeavor to maintain my opinions against adverse opinions alike honestly entertained, as to the best course to be adopted for the public welfare, i may have often inadvertently and unintentionally, in moments of excited debate, made use of language that has been offensive, and susceptible of injurious interpretation towards my brother senators. if there be any here who retain wounded feelings of injury or dissatisfaction produced on such occasions, i beg to assure them that i now offer the most ample apology for any departure on my part from the established rules of parliamentary decorum and courtesy. on the other hand, i assure senators, one and all, without exception and without reserve, that i retire from this chamber without carrying with me a single feeling of resentment or dissatisfaction toward the senate or any one of its members. in retiring, as i am about to do, forever, from the senate, suffer me to express my heartfelt wishes that all the great and patriotic objects of the wise framers of our constitution may be fulfilled; that the high destiny designed for it may be fully answered; and that its deliberations, now and hereafter, may eventuate in securing the prosperity of our beloved country, in maintaining its rights and honor abroad, and upholding its interests at home. i retire, i know, at a period of infinite distress and embarrassment. i wish i could take my leave of you under more favorable auspices; but, without meaning at this time to say whether on any or on whom reproaches for the sad condition of the country should fall, i appeal to the senate and to the world to bear testimony to my earnest and continued exertions to avert it, and to the truth that no blame can justly attach to me. may the most precious blessings of heaven rest upon the whole senate and each member of it, and may the labors of every one redound to the benefit of the nation and the advancement of his own fame and renown. and when you shall retire to the bosom of your constituents, may you receive that most cheering and gratifying of all human rewards--their cordial greeting of "well done, good and faithful servant." and now, mr. president, and senators, i bid you all a long, a lasting, and a friendly farewell. the death of garfield from an address before both houses of congress, february, by james g. blaine surely, if happiness can ever come from the honors or triumphs of this world, on that quiet july morning james a. garfield may well have been a happy man. no foreboding of evil haunted him, no slightest premonition of danger clouded his sky. his terrible fate was upon him in an instant. one moment he stood erect, strong, confident in the years stretching peacefully out before him. the next he lay wounded, bleeding, helpless, doomed to weary weeks of torture, to silence and the grave. great in life, he was surpassingly great in death. for no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness and wickedness, by the red hand of murder he was thrust from the full tide of this world's interest, from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories, into the visible presence of death. and he did not quail. not alone for the one short moment in which, stunned and dazed, he could give up life, hardly aware of its relinquishment, but through days of deadly languor, through weeks of agony that was not less agony because silently borne, with clear sight and calm courage he looked into his open grave. what blight and ruin met his anguished eyes whose lips may tell--what brilliant broken plans, what baffled high ambitions, what sundering of strong, warm, manhood's friendships, what bitter rending of sweet household ties! behind him a proud, expectant nation; a great host of sustaining friends; a cherished and happy mother wearing the full, rich honors of her early toil and tears; the wife of his youth, whose whole life lay in his; the little boys not yet emerged from childhood's day of frolic; the fair young daughter; the sturdy sons just springing into closest companionship, claiming every day, and every day rewarding, a father's love and care; and in his heart the eager, rejoicing power to meet all demand. before him desolation and great darkness! and his soul was not shaken. his countrymen were thrilled with instant, profound, and universal sympathy. masterful in his mortal weakness, he became the center of a nation's love, enshrined in the prayers of a world. but all the love and all the sympathy could not share with him his suffering. he trod the winepress alone. with unfaltering front he faced death. with unfailing tenderness he took leave of life. above the demoniac hiss of the assassin's bullet he heard the voice of god. with simple resignation he bowed to the divine decree. as the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned. the stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness. gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the longed-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as god should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of its manifold voices. with wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing wonders--on its far sails whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening arching low to the horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. let us think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt and parting soul may know. let us believe that in the silence of the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a farther shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning. the second inaugural address delivered from the steps of the capitol at washington, . by abraham lincoln fellow countrymen,--at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at first. then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued seemed very fitting and proper. now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. the progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, i trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. with high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. all dreaded it, all sought to avoid it. while the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it with war-- seeking to dissolve the union and divide the effects by negotiation. both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. one eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but localized in the southern part of it. these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease when, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. both read the same bible, and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid against the other. it may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just god's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. the prayer of both could not be answered. that of neither has been answered fully. the almighty has his own purposes. woe unto the world because of offenses, for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. if we shall suppose that american slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of god, must needs come, but which having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both north and south this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern there any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living god always ascribe to him? fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. yet if god wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be repaid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. the death of prince albert from an address in the house of commons, february, by benjamin disraeli no person can be insensible to the fact that the house meets to-night under circumstances very much changed from those which have attended our assembling for many years. of late years--indeed, for more than twenty years past--whatever may have been our personal rivalries, and whatever our party strife, there was at least one sentiment in which we all coincided, and that was a sentiment of admiring gratitude to that throne whose wisdom and whose goodness had so often softened the acerbities of our free public life, and had at all times so majestically represented the matured intelligence of an enlightened people. sir, all that is changed. he is gone who was "the comfort and support" of that throne. it has been said that there is nothing which england so much appreciates as the fulfillment of duty. the prince whom we have lost not only was eminent for the fulfillment of duty, but it was the fulfillment of the highest duty under the most difficult circumstances. prince albert was the consort of his sovereign--he was the father of one who might be his sovereign--he was the prime councillor of a realm, the political constitution of which did not even recognize his political existence. sir, it is sometimes deplored by those who admired and loved him that he was thwarted occasionally in his undertakings, and that he was not duly appreciated. but these are not circumstances for regret, but for congratulation. they prove the leading and original mind which has so long and so advantageously labored for this country. had he not encountered these obstacles, had he not been subject to this occasional distrust and misconception, it would only have shown that he was a man of ordinary mold and temper. those who improve must change, those who change must necessarily disturb and alarm men's prejudices. what he had to encounter was only a demonstration that he was a man superior to his age, and therefore admirably adapted for the work of progress. there is one other point, and one only, on which i will presume for a moment to dwell, and it is not for the sake of you, sir, or those who now hear me, or of the generation to which we belong, but it is that those who come after us may not misunderstand the nature of this illustrious man. prince albert was not a mere patron; he was not one of those who by their gold or by their smiles reward excellence or stimulate exertion. his contributions to the cause of state were far more powerful and far more precious. he gave to it his thought, his time, his toil; he gave to it his life. on both sides and in all parts of the house i see many gentlemen who occasionally have acted with the prince at those council boards where they conferred and consulted upon the great undertakings with which he was connected. i ask them, without fear of a denial, whether he was not the leading spirit, whether his was not the mind which foresaw the difficulty, his not the resources that supplied the remedy; whether his was not the courage which sustained them under apparently overpowering difficulties; whether every one who worked with him did not feel that he was the real originator of those plans of improvement which they assisted in carrying into effect? but what avail these words? this house to-night has been asked to condole with the crown upon this great calamity. no easy office. to condole, in general, is the office of those who, without the pale of sorrow, still feel for the sorrowing. but in this instance the country is as heart-stricken as its queen. yet in the mutual sensibility of a sovereign and a people there is something ennobling--something which elevates the spirit beyond the level of mere earthly sorrow. the counties, the cities, the corporations of the realm--those illustrious associations of learning and science and art and skill, of which he was the brightest ornament and the inspiring spirit, have bowed before the throne. it does not become the parliament of the country to be silent. the expression of our feelings may be late, but even in that lateness may be observed some propriety. to-night the two houses sanction the expression of the public sorrow, and ratify, as it were, the record of a nation's woe. an appreciation of mr. gladstone from an address in the house of commons by arthur j. balfour i feel myself unequal even to dealing with what is, perhaps, more strictly germane to this address--i mean, mr. gladstone as a politician, as a minister, as a leader of public thought, as an eminent servant of the queen; and if i venture to say anything, it is rather of mr. gladstone, the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly, which, so far, the world has seen. sir, i think it is the language of sober and unexaggerated truth to say that there is no gift which would enable a man to move, to influence, to adorn an assembly like this that mr. gladstone did not possess in a supereminent degree. debaters as ready there may have been, orators as finished. it may have been given to others to sway as skillfully this assembly, or to appeal with as much directness and force to the simpler instincts of the great masses in the country; but, sir, it has been given to no man to combine all these great gifts as they were combined in the person of mr. gladstone. from the conversational discussion appropriate to our work in committees, to the most sustained eloquence befitting some great argument, and some great historic occasion, every weapon of parliamentary warfare was wielded by him with the success and ease of a perfect, absolute, and complete mastery. i would not venture myself to pronounce an opinion as to whether he was most excellent in the exposition of a somewhat complicated budget of finance or legislation, or whether he showed it most in the heat of extemporary debate. at least this we may say, that from the humbler arts of ridicule or invective to the subtlest dialectic, the most persuasive eloquence, the most cogent appeals to everything that was highest and best in the audience that he was addressing, every instrument which could find place in the armory of a member of this house, he had at his command without premeditation, without forethought, at the moment and in the form which appeared best suited to carry out his purpose. it may, perhaps, be asked whether i have nothing to say about mr. gladstone's place in history, about the judgment we ought to pass upon the great part which he has played in the history of his country and the history of the world during the many years in which he held a foremost place in this assembly. these questions are legitimate questions. but they are not to be discussed by me to-day. nor, indeed, do i think that the final answer can be given to them--the final judgment pronounced--in the course of this generation. but one service he did--in my opinion incalculable--which is altogether apart from the judgment which we may be disposed to pass on the particular opinions, the particular views, or the particular lines of policy which mr. gladstone may from time to time have adopted. sir, he added a dignity and he added a weight to the deliberations of this house by his genius which i think it is impossible adequately to express. it is not enough, in my opinion, to keep up simply a level, though it be a high level, of probity and of patriotism. the mere virtue of civic honesty is not sufficient to preserve this assembly from the fate which has overcome so many other assemblies, the products of democratic forces. more than this is required, more than this was given to us by mr. gladstone. those who seek to raise in the public estimation the level of our proceedings will be the most ready to admit the infinite value of those services, and realize how much the public prosperity is involved in the maintenance of the work of public life. sir, that is a view which, it seems to me, places the services of mr. gladstone to this assembly, which he loved so well, and of which he was so great a member, in as clear a light and on as firm a basis as it is possible to place them. william e. gladstone from an address in the house of lords, may, by lord rosebery my lords, this is, as has been pointed out, an unique occasion. mr. gladstone always expressed a hope that there might be an interval left to him between the end of his political and of his natural life. that period was given to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the sphere of politics. those four years have been with him a special preparation for his death, but have they not also been a preparation for his death with the nation at large? had he died in the plenitude of his power as prime minister, would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced opposition to allow to pass to him, without a word of dissent, the honors which are now universally conceded? hushed for the moment are the voices of criticism; hushed are the controversies in which he took part; hushed for the moment is the very sound of party conflict. i venture to think that this is a notable fact in our history. it was not so with the elder pitt. it was not so with the younger pitt. it was not so with the elder pitt--in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivaled services, and of his enfeebled old age. it was not so with the younger pitt--in spite of his long control of the country and his absolute and absorbed devotion to the state. i think that we should remember this as creditable not merely to the man, but to the nation. my lords, there is one deeply melancholy feature of mr. gladstone's death--by far the most melancholy--to which i think none of my noble friends have referred. i think that all our thoughts must be turned, now that mr. gladstone is gone, to that solitary and pathetic figure who, for sixty years, shared all the sorrows and all the joys of mr. gladstone's life; who received his every confidence and every aspiration; who shared his triumphs with and cheered him under his defeats; who, by her tender vigilance, i firmly believe, sustained and prolonged his years. i think that the occasion ought not to pass without letting mrs. gladstone know that she is in all our thoughts to- day. and yet, my lords--putting that one figure aside--to me, at any rate, this is not an occasion for absolute and entire and unreserved lamentation. were it, indeed, possible so to protract the inexorable limits of human life that we might have hoped that future years, and even future generations, might see mr. gladstone's face and hear his matchless voice, and receive the lessons of his unrivaled experience-- we might, perhaps, grieve to-day as those who have no hope. but that is not the case. he had long exceeded the span of mortal life; and his latter months had been months of unspeakable pain and distress. he is now in that rest for which he sought and prayed, and which was to give him relief from an existence which had become a burden to him. surely this should not be an occasion entirely for grief; when a life prolonged to such a limit, so full of honor, so crowned with glory, had come to its termination. the nation lives that produced him. the nation that produced him may yet produce others like him; and, in the meantime, it is rich in his memory, rich in his life, and rich, above all, in his animating and inspiring example. nor do i think that we should regard this heritage as limited to our own country or to our own race. it seems to me that, if we may judge from the papers of to-day, that it is shared by, that it is the possession of, all civilized mankind, and that generations still to come, through many long years, will look for encouragement in labor, for fortitude in adversity, for the example of a sublime christianity, with constant hope and constant encouragement, to the pure, the splendid, the dauntless figure of william ewart gladstone. the soldier's creed from a centennial address at the united states military academy at west point, with the author's permission. by horace porter as we stand here to-day a hundred years of history pass in review before us. the present permanent academy was founded in . the class that year contained two cadets. during the ten years following the average number was twenty. we might say of the cadets of those days what curran said of the books in his library--"not numerous, but select." and now a word to the corps of cadets, the departure of whose graduating class marks the close of the first century of the academy's life. the boy is father to the man. the present is the mold in which the future is cast. the dominant characteristics of the cadet are seen in the future general. you have learned here how to command, and a still more useful lesson, how to obey. you have been taught obedience to the civil, as well as to the military, code, for in this land the military is always subordinate to the civil law. not the least valuable part of your education is your service in the cadet ranks, performing the duties of a private soldier. that alone can acquaint you with the feelings and the capabilities of the soldiers you will command. it teaches you just how long a man can carry a musket in one position without overfatigue, just how hard it is to keep awake on sentry duty after an exhausting day's march. you will never forget this part of your training. when marshal lannes's grenadiers had been repulsed in an assault upon the walls of a fortified city, and hesitated to renew the attack, lannes seized a scaling ladder and, rushing forward, cried: "before i was a marshal i was a grenadier, and i have not forgotten my training." inspired by his example, the grenadiers carried the walls and captured everything before them. courage is the soldier's cardinal virtue. you will seldom go amiss in following general grant's instructions to his commanders, "when in doubt move to the front." a generous country has with fostering care equipped you for your career. it is entitled to your undivided allegiance. in closing, let me mention, by way of illustration, a most touching and instructive scene which i once witnessed at the annual meeting in the great hall of the sorbonne in paris for the purpose of awarding medals of honor to those who had performed acts of conspicuous bravery in saving human life at sea. a bright-eyed boy of scarcely fourteen summers was called to the platform. the story was recounted of how one winter's night when a fierce tempest was raging on the rude normandy coast, he saw signals of distress at sea and started with his father, the captain of a small vessel, and the mate to attempt a rescue. by dint of almost superhuman effort the crew of a sinking ship was safely taken aboard. a wave then washed the father from the deck. the boy plunged into the seething waves to save him, but the attempt was in vain, and the father perished. the lad struggled back to the vessel to find that the mate had also been washed overboard. then lashing himself fast, he took the wheel and guided the boat, with its precious cargo of human souls, through the howling storm safely into port. the minister of public instruction, after paying a touching tribute to the boy's courage in a voice broken with emotion, pinned the medal on his breast, placed in his hands a diploma of honor, and then, seizing the brave lad in his arms, imprinted a kiss on each cheek. for a moment the boy seemed dazed, not knowing which way to turn, as he stood there with the tears streaming down his bronzed cheeks while every one in that vast hall wept in sympathy. suddenly his eyes turned toward his old peasant mother, she to whom he owed his birth and his training, as she sat at the back of the platform with bended form and wearing her widow's cap. he rushed to her, took the medal from his breast, and, casting it and his diploma into her lap, threw himself on his knees at her feet. men of west point, in the honorable career which you have chosen, whatever laurels you may win, always be ready to lay them at the feet of your country to which you owe your birth and your education. competition in college from an address at columbia university, june, by abbott lawrence lowell we have seen that the sifting out of young men capable of scholarship is receiving to-day less attention than it deserves; and that this applies not only to recruiting future leaders of thought, but also to prevailing upon every young man to develop the intellectual powers he may possess. we have seen also that, while the graduate school can train scholars, it cannot create love of scholarship. that work must be done in undergraduate days. we have found reasons to believe that during the whole period of training, mental and physical, which reaches its culmination in college, competition is not only a proper but an essential factor; and we have observed the results that have been achieved at oxford and cambridge by its use. in this country, on the other hand, several causes, foremost among them the elective system, have almost banished competition in scholarship from our colleges; while the inadequate character of our tests, and the corporate nature of self-interest in these latter times, raise serious difficulties in making it effective. nevertheless, i have faith that these obstacles can be overcome, and that we can raise intellectual achievement in college to its rightful place in public estimation. we are told that it is idle to expect young men to do strenuous work before they feel the impending pressure of earning a livelihood; that they naturally love ease and self- indulgence, and can be aroused from lethargy only by discipline, or by contact with the hard facts of a struggle with the world. if i believed that, i would not be president of a college for a moment. it is not true. a normal young man longs for nothing so much as to devote himself to a cause that calls forth his enthusiasm, and the greater the sacrifice involved, the more eagerly will he grasp it. if we were at war and our students were told that two regiments were seeking recruits, one of which would be stationed at fortress monroe, well- housed and fed, living in luxury, without risk of death or wounds, while the other would go to the front, be starved and harassed by fatiguing marches under a broiling sun, amid pestilence, with men falling from its ranks killed or suffering mutilation, not a single man would volunteer for the first regiment, but the second would be quickly filled. who is it that makes football a dangerous and painful sport? is it the faculty or the players themselves? a young man wants to test himself on every side, in strength, in quickness, in skill, in courage, in endurance; and he will go through much to prove his merit. he wants to test himself, provided he has faith that the test is true, and that the quality tried is one that makes for manliness; otherwise he will have none of it. now we have not convinced him that high scholarship is a manly thing worthy of his devotion, or that our examinations are faithful tests of intellectual power; and in so far as we have failed in this we have come short of what we ought to do. universities stand for the eternal worth of thought, for the preeminence of the prophet and the seer; but instead of being thrilled by the eager search for truth, our classes too often sit listless on the bench. it is not because the lecturer is dull, but because the pupils do not prize the end enough to relish the drudgery required for skill in any great pursuit, or indeed in any sport. to make them see the greatness of that end, how fully it deserves the price that must be paid for it, how richly it rewards the man who may compete for it, we must learn--and herein lies the secret--we must learn the precious art of touching their imagination. a master of the situation from a lecture, entitled "masters of the situation" by james t. fields there was once a noble ship full of eager passengers, freighted with a rich cargo, steaming at full speed from england to america. two thirds of a prosperous voyage thus far were over, as in our mess we were beginning to talk of home. fore and aft the songs of good cheer and hearty merriment rose from deck to cabin. "as if the beauteous ship enjoyed the beauty of the sea, she lifteth up her stately head, and saileth joyfully, a lovely path before her lies, a lovely path behind; she sails amid the loveliness like a thing of heart and mind." suddenly, a dense fog came, shrouding the horizon, but as this was a common occurrence in the latitude we were sailing, it was hardly mentioned in our talk that afternoon. there are always croakers on board ship, if the weather changes however slightly, but the _britannia_ was free, that voyage, of such unwelcome passengers. a happier company never sailed upon an autumn sea! the storytellers are busy with their yarns to audiences of delighted listeners in sheltered places; the ladies are lying about on couches, and shawls, reading or singing; children in merry companies are taking hands and racing up and down the decks,--when a quick cry from the lookout, a rush of officers and men, and we are grinding on a ledge of rocks off cape race! one of those strong currents, always mysterious, and sometimes impossible to foresee, had set us into shore out of our course, and the ship was blindly beating on a dreary coast of sharp and craggy rocks. i heard the order given, "every one on deck!" and knew what that meant--the masts were in danger of falling. looking over the side, we saw bits of the keel, great pieces of plank, floating out into the deep water. a hundred pallid faces were huddled together near the stern of the ship where we were told to go and wait. i remember somebody said that a little child, the playfellow of passengers and crew, could not be found, and that some of us started to find him; and that when we returned him to his mother she spake never a word, but seemed dumb with terror at the prospect of separation and shipwreck, and that other specter so ghastly when encountered at sea. suddenly we heard a voice up in the fog in the direction of the wheelhouse, ringing like a clarion above the roar of the waves, and the clashing sounds on shipboard, and it had in it an assuring, not a fearful tone. as the orders came distinctly and deliberately through the captain's trumpet, to "ship the cargo," to "back her," to "keep her steady," we felt somehow that the commander up there in the thick mist on the wheelhouse knew what he was about, and that through his skill and courage, by the blessing of heaven, we should all be rescued. the man who saved us so far as human aid ever saves drowning mortals, was one fully competent to command a ship; and when, after weary days of anxious suspense, the vessel leaking badly, and the fires in danger of being put out, we arrived safely in halifax, old mr. cunard, agent of the line, on hearing from the mail officer that the steamer had struck on the rocks and had been saved only by the captain's presence of mind and courage, simply replied, "just what might have been expected in such a disaster; captain harrison is always master of the situation." now, no man ever became master of the situation by accident or indolence. i believe with shelley, that the almighty has given men and women arms long enough to reach the stars if they will only put them out! it was an admirable saying of the duke of wellington, "that no general ever blundered into a great victory." st. hilaire said, "i ignore the existence of a blind chance, accident, and haphazard results." "he happened to succeed," is a foolish, unmeaning phrase. no man happens to succeed. wit and humor reprinted from "american wit and humor," copyrighted in "modern eloquence," geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by minot j. savage wit may take many forms, but it resides essentially in the thought or the imagination. in its highest forms it does not deal in things but with ideas. it is the shock of pleased surprise which results from the perception of unexpected likeness between things that differ or of an unexpected difference between things that are alike. or it is where utterly incongruous things are apparently combined in the expression of one idea. wit may be bitter or kindly or entirely neutral so far as the feelings are concerned. when extremes of feeling, one way or the other, are concerned, then it takes on other names which will be considered by themselves. but not to stop any longer with definition, it is almost pure wit when some one said of an endless talker that he had "occasional brilliant flashes of silence." so of the saying of mr. henry clapp. you know it is said of shakespeare, "he is not for a day, but for all time." speaking of the bore who calls when you are busy and never goes, mr. clapp said, "he is not for a time, but for all day." and what could be more deliciously perfect than the following: senator beck of kentucky was an everlasting talker. one day a friend remarked to senator hoar, "i should think beck would wear his brain all out talking so much." whereupon mr. hoar replied, "oh, that doesn't affect him any: he rests his mind when he is talking." this has, indeed, a touch of sarcasm; but it is as near the pure gold of wit as you often get. or, take this. there being two houses both of which are insisted on as the real birthplace of the great philosopher and statesman, mark twain gravely informs us that "franklin was twins, having been born simultaneously in two different houses in boston." one of the finest specimens of clear-cut wit is the saying of the hon. carroll d. wright. referring to the common saying, he once keenly remarked: "i know it is said that figures won't lie, but, unfortunately, liars will figure." in contradistinction from wit, humor deals with incidents, characters, situations. true humor is altogether kindly; for, while it points out and pictures the weaknesses and foibles of humanity, it feels no contempt and leaves no sting. it has its root in sympathy and blossoms out in toleration. it would take too long at this point in my lecture to quote complete specimens of humor; for that would mean spreading out before you detailed scenes or full descriptions. but fortunately it is not necessary. cervantes, shakespeare, charles lamb, dickens, and a host of others will readily occur to you. but what could be better of its kind than this? general joe johnston was one day riding leisurely behind his army on the march. food had been scarce and rations limited. he spied a straggler in the brush beside the road. he called out sharply, "what are you doing here?" being caught out of the ranks was a serious offense, but the soldier was equal to the emergency. so to the general's question he replied, "pickin' 'simmons." the persimmon, as you know, has the quality of puckering the mouth, as a certain kind of wild cherry used to mine when i was a boy. "what are you picking 'simmons for?" sharply rejoined the general. then came the humorous reply that disarmed all of the officer's anger and appealed to his sympathy, while it hinted all "the boys" were suffering for the cause. "well, the fact of it is, general, i'm trying to shrink up my stomach to the size of my rations, so i won't starve to death." a message to garcia from an article in the philistine, with the permission of the author by elbert hubbard when war broke out between spain and the united states, it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the insurgents. garcia was somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of cuba--no one knew where. no mail or telegraph message could reach him. the president must secure his cooperation, and quickly. what to do! some one said to the president, "there's a fellow by the name of rowan will find garcia for you if anybody can." rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to garcia. how "the fellow by the name of rowan" took the letter, sealed it up in an oilskin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to garcia, are things i have no special desire now to tell in detail. the point i wish to make is this: mckinley gave rowan a letter to be delivered to garcia; rowan took the letter and did not ask, "where is he at?" by the eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. it is not book learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies; do the thing--"carry a message to garcia!" general garcia is dead now, but there are other garcias. no man who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well-nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man--the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it. slipshod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, and half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, god in his goodness performs a miracle, and sends him an angel of light for an assistant. and this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure socialism so far into the future. if men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of the effort is for all? my heart goes out to the man who does his work when the "boss" is away as well as when he is at home. and the man, who, when given a letter for garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets "laid off," nor has to go on a strike for higher wages. civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. anything such a man asks shall be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. he is wanted in every city, town, and village--in every office, shop, store, and factory. the world cries out for such; he is needed, and needed badly-the man who can carry a message to garcia. shakespeare's "mark antony" anonymous a roman, an orator, and a triumvir, a conqueror when all rome seemed armed against him only to have his glory "false played" by a woman "unto an enemy's triumph,"--such is shakespeare's story of mark antony. passion alternates with passion, purpose with purpose, good with evil, and strength with weakness, until his whole nature seems changed, and we find the same and yet another man. in "julius cæsar" antony is seen at his best. he is the one triumphant figure of the play. cæsar falls. brutus and cassius are in turn victorious and defeated, but antony is everywhere a conqueror. antony weeping over cæsar's body, antony offering his breast to the daggers which have killed his master, is as plainly the sovereign power of the moment as when over cæsar's corpse he forces by his magnetic oratory the prejudiced populace to call down curses on the heads of the conspirators. cæsar's spirit still lives in antony,--a spirit that dares face the conspirators with swords still red with cæsar's blood and bid them, whilst their purple hands do reek and smoke, fulfill their pleasure,--a spirit that over the dead body of cæsar takes the hand of each and yet exclaims:-- "had i as many eyes as thou hast wounds, weeping as fast as they stream forth thy blood, it would become me better than to close in terms of friendship with thine enemies." permission is granted antony to speak a farewell word over the body of cæsar in the crowded market place. before the populace, hostile and prejudiced, antony stands as the friend of cæsar. slowly, surely, making his approach step by step, with consummate tact he steals away their hearts and paves the way for his own victory. the honorable men gradually turn to villains of the blackest dye. cæsar's mantle, which but a moment before had called forth bitter curses, now brings tears to every roman's eye. the populace fast yields to his eloquence. he conquers every vestige of distrust as he says:-- "i am no orator, as brutus is; but, as you know me all, a plain, blunt man, that love my friend; and that they know full well that gave me public leave to speak of him." and now the matchless orator throws off his disguise. with resistless vehemence he pours forth a flood of eloquence which bears the fickle mob like straws before its tide:-- "i tell you that which you yourselves do know; show you sweet cæsar's wounds, poor, poor dumb mouths, and bid them speak for me; but were i brutus, and brutus antony, there were an antony would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue in every wound of cæsar, that would move the stones of rome to rise and mutiny." the effect is magical. the rage of the populace is quickened to a white heat; and, baffled, beaten by a plain, blunt man, the terror-stricken conspirators ride like madness through the gates of rome. andr. and hale from "orations and after-dinner speeches," the cassell publishing company, new york, publishers. by chauncey m. depew andré's story is the one overmastering romance of the revolution. american and english literature is full of eloquence and poetry in tribute to his memory and sympathy for his fate. after the lapse of a hundred years, there is no abatement of absorbing interest. what had this young man done to merit immortality? the mission whose tragic issue lifted him out of the oblivion of other minor british officers, in its inception was free from peril or daring, and its objects and purposes were utterly infamous. had he succeeded by the desecration of the honorable uses of passes and flags of truce, his name would have been held in everlasting execration. in his failure the infant republic escaped the dagger with which he was feeling for its heart, and the crime was drowned in tears for his untimely end. his youth and beauty, the brightness of his life, the calm courage in the gloom of his death, his early love and disappointment, surrounded him with a halo of poetry and pity which have secured for him what he most sought and could never have won in battles and sieges,--a fame and recognition which have outlived that of all the generals under whom he served. are kings only grateful, and do not republics forget? is fame a travesty, and the judgment of mankind a farce? america had a parallel case in captain nathan hale. of the same age as andré, he, after graduation at yale college with high honors, enlisted in the patriot cause at the beginning of the contest, and secured the love and confidence of all about him. when none else would go upon a most important and perilous mission, he volunteered, and was captured by the british. while andré received every kindness, courtesy, and attention, and was fed from washington's table, hale was thrust into a noisome dungeon in the sugarhouse. while andré was tried by a board of officers and had ample time and every facility for defense, hale was summarily ordered to execution the next morning. while andré's last wishes and bequests were sacredly followed, the infamous cunningham tore from hale his cherished bible and destroyed before his eyes his last letter to his mother and sister, and asked him what he had to say. "all i have to say," was his reply, "is, i regret i have but one life to lose for my country." the dying declarations of andre and hale express the animating spirit of their several armies, and teach why, with all her power, england could not conquer america. "i call upon you to witness that i die like a brave man," said andré, and he spoke from british and hessian surroundings, seeking only glory and pay. "i regret i have but one life to lose for my country," said hale; and, with him and his comrades, self was forgotten in that absorbing, passionate patriotism which pledges fortune, honor, and life to the sacred cause. the battle of lexington by theodore parker one raw morning in spring--it will be eighty years the nineteenth day of this month--hancock and adams, the moses and aaron of that great deliverance, were both at lexington; they also had "obstructed an officer" with brave words. british soldiers, a thousand strong, came to seize them and carry them over sea for trial, and so nip the bud of freedom auspiciously opening in that early spring. the town militia came together before daylight, "for training." a great, tall man, with a large head and a high, wide brow, their captain,--one who had "seen service,"--marshaled them into line, numbering but seventy, and bade "every man load his piece with powder and ball." "i will order the first man shot that runs away," said he, when some faltered. "don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want to have a war, let it begin here." gentlemen, you know what followed; those farmers and mechanics "fired the shot heard round the world." a little monument covers the bones of such as before had pledged their fortune and their sacred honor to the freedom of america, and that day gave it also their lives. i was born in that little town, and bred up amid the memories of that day. when a boy, my mother lifted me up, on sunday, in her religious, patriotic arms, and held me while i read the first monumental line i ever saw-- "sacred to liberty and the rights of mankind." since then i have studied the memorial marbles of greece and rome, in many an ancient town; nay, on egyptian obelisks, have read what was written before the eternal roused up moses to lead israel out of egypt, but no chiseled stone has ever stirred me to such emotion as these rustic names of men who fell "in the sacred cause of god and their country." gentlemen, the spirit of liberty, the love of justice, was early fanned into a flame in my boyish heart. the monument covers the bones of my own kinsfolk; it was their blood which reddened the long, green grass at lexington. it was my own name which stands chiseled on that stone; the tall captain who marshaled his fellow farmers and mechanics into stern array, and spoke such brave and dangerous words as opened the war of american independence,--the last to leave the field,--was my father's father. i learned to read out of his bible, and with a musket he that day captured from the foe, i learned also another religious lesson, that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to god." i keep them both "sacred to liberty and the rights of mankind," to use them both "in the sacred cause of god and my country." the homes of the people reprinted with the permission of henry w. grady, jr. by henry w. grady i went to washington the other day, and i stood on the capitol hill; my heart beat quick as i looked at the towering marble of my country's capitol, and the mist gathered in my eyes as i thought of its tremendous significance, and the armies and the treasury, and the judges and the president, and the congress and the courts, and all that was gathered there. and i felt that the sun in all its course could not look down on a better sight than that majestic home of a republic that had taught the world its best lessons of liberty. and i felt that if honor and wisdom and justice abided therein, the world would at last owe that great house in which the ark of the covenant of my country is lodged, its final uplifting and its regeneration. two days afterward, i went to visit a friend in the country, a modest man, with a quiet country home. it was just a simple, unpretentious house, set about with big trees, encircled in meadow and field rich with the promise of harvest. inside was quiet, cleanliness, thrift, and comfort. outside, there stood my friend, the master, a simple, upright man, with no mortgage on his roof, no lien on his growing crops, master of his own land and master of himself. there was his old father, an aged, trembling man, but happy in the heart and home of his son. they started to their home, and as they reached the door the old mother came with the sunset falling fair on her face, and lighting up her deep, patient eyes, while her lips, trembling with the rich music of her heart, bade her husband and son welcome to their home. beyond was the housewife, busy with her household cares, clean of heart and conscience, the buckler and helpmeet of her husband. down the lane came the children, trooping home after the cows, seeking as truant birds do the quiet of their home nest. and i saw the night come down on that house, falling gently as the wings of the unseen dove. and the old man--while a startled bird called from the forest, and the trees were shrill with the cricket's cry, and the stars were swarming in the sky--got the family around him, and, taking the old bible from the table, called them to their knees, the little baby hiding in the folds of its mother's dress, while he closed the record of that simple day by calling down god's benediction on that family and on that home. and while i gazed, the vision of that marble capitol faded. forgotten were its treasures and its majesty, and i said, "oh, surely here in the homes of the people are lodged at last the strength and the responsibility of this government, the hope and the promise of this republic." general ulysses s. grant by canon g. w. farrar when abraham lincoln sat, book in hand, day after day, under the tree, moving round it as the shadow crossed, absorbed in mastering his task; when james garfield rang the bell at hiram institute on the very stroke of the hour and swept the schoolroom as faithfully as he mastered his greek lesson; when ulysses grant, sent with his team to meet some men who came to load his cart with logs, and, finding no men, loaded the cart with his own boy's strength, they showed in the conscientious performance of duty the qualities which were to raise them to become kings of men. when john adams was told that his son, john quincy adams, had been elected president of the united states, he said, "he has always been laborious, child and man, from infancy." but the youth was not destined to die in the deep valley of obscurity and toil, in which it is the lot--and perhaps the happy lot--of most of us to spend our little lives. the hour came; the man was needed. in there broke out that most terrible war of modern days. grant received a commission as colonel of volunteers, and in four years the struggling toiler had been raised to the chief command of a vaster army than has ever been handled by any mortal man. who could have imagined that four years would make that enormous difference? but it is often so. the great men needed for some tremendous crisis have stepped often, as it were, out of a door in the wall which no man had noticed; and, unannounced, unheralded, without prestige, have made their way silently and single-handed to the front. and there was no luck in it. it was a work of inflexible faithfulness, of indomitable resolution, of sleepless energy, and iron purpose and tenacity. in the campaigns at fort donelson; in the desperate battle at shiloh; in the siege of corinth; in battle after battle, in seige after seige; whatever grant had to do, he did it with his might. other generals might fail--he would not fail. he showed what a man could do whose will was strong. he undertook, as general sherman said of him, what no one else would have ventured and his very soldiers began to reflect something of his indomitable determination. his sayings revealed the man. "i have nothing to do with opinions," he said at the outset," and shall only deal with armed rebellion." "in riding over the field," he said at shiloh, "i saw that either side was ready to give way, if the other showed a bold front. i took the opportunity, and ordered an advance along the whole line." "no terms," he wrote to general buckner at fort donelson (and it is pleasant to know that general buckner stood as a warm friend beside his dying bed); "no terms other than unconditional surrender can be accepted." "my headquarters," he wrote from vicksburg, "will be on the field." with a military genius which embraced the vastest plans while attending to the smallest details, he defeated, one after another, every great general of the confederates except stonewall jackson. the southerners felt that he held them as in the grasp of a vise; that this man could neither be arrested nor avoided. for all this he has been severely blamed. he ought not to be blamed. he has been called a butcher, which is grossly unjust. he loved peace; he hated bloodshed; his heart was generous and kind. his orders were to save lives, to save treasure, but at all costs to save his country--and he did save his country. after the surrender at appomattox court house, the war was over. he had put his hand to the plow and had looked not back. he had made blow after blow, each following where the last had struck; he had wielded like a hammer the gigantic forces at his disposal, and had smitten opposition into the dust. it was a mighty work, and he had done it well. surely history has shown that for the future destinies of a mighty nation it was a necessary and blessed work! american courage from the copyrighted print in "a modern reader and speaker," by george riddle, with the permission of duffield and company, new york, publishers. by sherman hoar i fear we undervalue the devotion to country which comes from a contemplation of what has been done and suffered in her name. i feel that we teach those who are to make or mar the future of this nation too much of what has been done elsewhere, and too little of what has been done here. courage is the characteristic of no one land or time. the world's history is full of it and the lessons it teaches. american courage, however, is of this nation; it is ours, and if the finest national spirit is worth the creating; if patriotism is still a quality to be engendered in our youth; if love of country is still to be a strong power for good, those acts of devotion and of heroic personal sacrifice with which our history is filled, are worthy of earnest study, of continued contemplation, and of perpetual consideration. "let him who will, sing deeds done well across the sea, here, lovely land, men bravely live and die for thee." the particular example i desire to speak about is of that splendid quality of courage which dares everything not for self or country, but for an enemy. it is of that kind which is called into existence not by dreams of glory, or by love of land, but by the highest human desire; the desire to mitigate suffering in those who are against us. in the afternoon of the day after the battle of fredericksburg, general kershaw of the confederate army was sitting in his quarters when suddenly a young south carolinian named kirkland entered, and, after the usual salutations, said: "general, i can't stand this." the general, thinking the statement a little abrupt, asked what it was he could not stand, and kirkland replied: "those poor fellows out yonder have been crying for water all day, and i have come to you to ask if i may go and give them some." the "poor fellows" were union soldiers who lay wounded between the union and confederate lines. to go to them, kirkland must go beyond the protection of the breastworks and expose himself to a fire from the union sharpshooters, who, so far during that day, had made the raising above the confederate works of so much as a head an act of extreme danger. general kershaw at first refused to allow kirkland to go on his errand, but at last, as the lad persisted in his request, declined to forbid him, leaving the responsibility for action with the boy himself. kirkland, in perfect delight, rushed from the general's quarters to the front, where he gathered all the canteens he could carry, filled them with water, and going over the breastworks, started to give relief to his wounded enemies. no sooner was he in the open field than our sharpshooters, supposing he was going to plunder their comrades, began to fire at him. for some minutes he went about doing good under circumstances of most imminent personal danger. soon, however, those to whom he was taking the water recognized the character of his undertaking. all over the field men sat up and called to him, and those too hurt to raise themselves, held up their hands and beckoned to him. soon our sharpshooters, who luckily had not hit him, saw that he was indeed an angel of mercy, and stopped their fire, and two armies looked with admiration at the young man's pluck and loving- kindness. with a beautiful tenderness, kirkland went about his work, giving of the water to all, and here and there placing a knapsack pillow under some poor wounded fellow's head, or putting in a more comfortable position some shattered leg or arm. then he went back to his own lines and the fighting went on. tell me of a more exalted example of personal courage and self-denial than that of that confederate soldier, or one which more clearly deserves the name of christian fortitude. in that terrible war of the rebellion, kirkland gave up his life for a mistaken cause in the battle of chickamauga, but i cannot help thanking god that, in our reunited country, we are joint heirs with the men from the south in the glory and inspiration that come from such heroic deeds as his. the minutemen of the revolution reprinted, with permission, from "the orations and addresses of george william curtis," vol. iii. copyright, , by harper and brothers. by george william curtis the minuteman of the revolution! and who was he? he was the old, the middle-aged, and the young. he was the husband and the father, who left his plow in the furrow and his hammer on the bench, and marched to die or be free. he was the son and lover, the plain, shy youth of the singing school and the village choir, whose heart beat to arms for his country, and who felt, though he could not say with the old english cavalier:-- "i could not love thee, dear, so much, loved i not honor more." he was the man who was willing to pour out his life's blood for a principle. intrenched in his own honesty, the king's gold could not buy him; enthroned in the love of his fellow citizens, the king's writ could not take him; and when, on the morning of lexington, the king's troops marched to seize him, his sublime faith saw, beyond the clouds of the moment, the rising sun of the america we behold, and, careless of himself, mindful only of his country, he exultingly exclaimed, "oh, what a glorious morning!" and then, amid the flashing hills, the ringing woods, the flaming roads, he smote with terror the haughty british column, and sent it shrinking, bleeding, wavering, and reeling through the streets of the village, panic-stricken and broken. him we gratefully recall to-day; him we commit in his immortal youth to the reverence of our children. and here amid these peaceful fields,-- here in the heart of middlesex county, of lexington and concord and bunker hill, stand fast, son of liberty, as the minuteman stood at the old north bridge. but should we or our descendants, false to justice or humanity, betray in any way their cause, spring into life as a hundred years ago, take one more step, descend, and lead us, as god led you in saving america, to save the hopes of man. no hostile fleet for many a year has vexed the waters of our coast; nor is any army but our own likely to tread our soil. not such are our enemies to-day. they do not come, proudly stepping to the drumbeat, their bayonets flashing in the morning sun. but wherever party spirit shall strain the ancient guarantees of freedom; or bigotry and ignorance shall lay their fatal hands on education; or the arrogance of caste shall strike at equal rights; or corruption shall poison the very springs of national life,--there, minuteman of liberty, are your lexington green and concord bridge. and as you love your country and your kind, and would have your children rise up and call you blessed, spare not the enemy. over the hills, out of the earth, down from the clouds, pour in resistless might. fire from every rock and tree, from door and window, from hearthstone and chamber. hang upon his flank from morn to sunset, and so, through a land blazing with indignation, hurl the hordes of ignorance and corruption and injustice back--back in utter defeat and ruin. paul revere's ride reprinted with permission from "the orations and addresses of george william curtis," vol. iii. copyright , by harper and brothers. by george william curtis on tuesday, april , , gage, the royal governor, who had decided to send a force to concord to destroy the stores, picketed the roads from boston into middlesex, to prevent any report of the intended march from spreading into the country. but the very air was electric. in the tension of the popular mind, every sound and sight was significant. in the afternoon, one of the governor's grooms strolled into a stable where john ballard was cleaning a horse. john ballard was a son of liberty; and when the groom idly remarked in nervous english "about what would occur to-morrow," john's heart leaped and his hand shook, and, asking the groom to finish cleaning the horse, he ran to a friend, who carried the news straight to paul revere. gage thought that his secret had been kept, but lord percy, who had heard the people say on the common that the troops would miss their aim, undeceived him. gage instantly ordered that no one should leave the town. but dr. warren was before him, and, as the troops crossed the river, paul revere was rowing over the river farther down to charlestown, having agreed with his friend, robert newman, to show lanterns from the belfry of the old north church,-- "one, if by land, and two, if by sea," as a signal of the march of the british. it was a brilliant april night. the winter had been unusually mild and the spring very forward. the hills were already green; the early grain waved in the fields, and the air was sweet with blossoming orchards. under the cloudless moon the soldiers silently marched, and paul revere swiftly rode, galloping through medford and west cambridge, rousing every house as he went, spurring for lexington and hancock and adams, and evading the british patrols, who had been sent out to stop the news. stop the news! already the village church bells were beginning to ring the alarm, as the pulpits beneath them had been ringing for many a year. in the awakening houses lights flashed from window to window. drums beat faintly far away and on every side. signal guns flashed and echoed. the watchdogs barked; the cocks crew. stop the news! stop the sunrise! the murmuring night trembled with the summons so earnestly expected, so dreaded, so desired. and as, long ago, the voice rang out at midnight along the syrian shore, wailing that great pan was dead, but in the same moment the choiring angels whispered, "glory to god in the highest, for christ is born," so, if the stern alarm of that april night seemed to many a wistful and loyal heart to portend the passing glory of british dominion and the tragical chance of war, it whispered to them with prophetic inspiration, "good will to men; america is born!" there is a tradition that long before the troops reached lexington an unknown horseman thundered at the door of captain joseph robbins in acton, waking every man and woman and babe in the cradle, shouting that the regulars were marching to concord and that the rendezvous was the old north bridge. captain robbins' son, a boy of ten years, heard the summons in the garret where he lay, and in a few minutes was on his father's old mare, a young paul revere, galloping along the road to rouse captain isaac davis, who commanded the minutemen of acton. the company assembled at his shop, formed, and marched a little way, when he halted them and returned for a moment to his house. he said to his wife, "take good care of the children," kissed her, turned to his men, gave the order to march, and saw his home no more. such was the history of that night in how many homes! the hearts of those men and women of middlesex might break, but they could not waver. they had counted the cost. they knew what and whom they served; and, as the midnight summons came, they started up and answered, "here am i!" the arts of the ancients from "speeches and lectures," with the permission of lothrop, lee and shepard, boston, publishers. by wendell phillips we have a pitying estimate, a tender compassion, for the narrowness, ignorance, and darkness of the bygone ages. we seem to ourselves not only to monopolize, but to have begun, the era of light. in other words, we are all running over with a fourth-day-of-july spirit of self-content. i am often reminded of the german whom the english poet coleridge met at frankfort. he always took off his hat with profound respect when he ventured to speak of himself. it seems to me, the american people might be painted in the chronic attitude of taking off its hat to itself. considering their employment of the mechanical forces, and their movement of large masses from the earth, we know that the egyptians had the five, seven, or three mechanical powers; but we cannot account for the multiplication and increase necessary to perform the wonders they accomplished. there is a book telling how domenico fontana of the sixteenth century set up the egyptian obelisk at rome on end, in the papacy of sixtus v. wonderful! yet the egyptians quarried that stone, and carried it a hundred and fifty miles, and the romans brought it seven hundred and fifty miles, and never said a word about it. take canals. the suez canal absorbs half its receipts in cleaning out the sand which fills it continually, and it is not yet known whether it is a pecuniary success. the ancients built a canal at right angles to ours; because they knew it would not fill up if built in that direction, and they knew such a one as ours would. there were magnificent canals in the land of the jews, with perfectly arranged gates and sluices. we have only just begun to understand ventilation properly for our houses; yet late experiments at the pyramids in egypt show that those egyptian tombs were ventilated in the most perfect and scientific manner. again, cement is modern, for the ancients dressed and joined their stones so closely, that, in buildings thousands of years old the thin blade of a penknife cannot be forced between them. the railroad dates back to egypt. arago has claimed that they had a knowledge of steam. a painting has been discovered of a ship full of machinery, and a could only be accounted for by supposing the motive power to have been steam. bramah acknowledges that he took the idea of his celebrated lock from an ancient egyptian pattern. de tocqueville says that there was no social question that was not discussed to rags in egypt. "well," say you, "franklin invented the lightning rod." i have no doubt he did; but years before his invention, and before muskets were invented, the old soldiers on guard on the towers used franklin's invention to keep guard with; and if a spark passed between them and the spearhead, they ran and bore the warning of the state and condition of affairs. after that you will admit that benjamin franklin was not the only one that knew of the presence of electricity, and the advantages derived from its use. solomon's temple you will find was situated on an exposed point of the hill: the temple was so lofty that it was often in peril, and was guarded by a system exactly like that of benjamin franklin. well, i may tell you a little of ancient manufactures. the duchess of burgundy took a necklace from the neck of a mummy, and wore it to a ball given at the tuileries; and everybody said they thought it was the newest thing there. a hindoo princess came into court; and her father, seeing her, said, "go home, you are not decently covered,--go home;" and she said, "father, i have seven suits on;" but the suits were of muslin so thin that the king could see through them, a roman poet says, "the girl was in the poetic dress of the country." i fancy the french would be rather astonished at this. four hundred and fifty years ago the first spinning machine was introduced into europe. i have evidence to show that it made its first appearance two thousand years before. why have i groped among these ashes? i have told you these facts to show you that we have not invented everything--that we do not monopolize the encyclopedia. the past had knowledge. but it was the knowledge of the classes, not of the masses. "the beauty that was greece and the grandeur that was rome" were exclusive, the possession of the few. the science of egypt was amazing; but it meant privilege-- the privilege of the king and the priest. it separated royalty and priesthood from the people, and was the engine of oppression. when cambyses came down from persia and thundered across egypt, treading out royalty and priesthood, he trampled out at the same time civilization itself. the distinctive glory of the nineteenth century is that it distributes knowledge; that it recognizes the divine will, which is that every man has a right to know whatever may be serviceable to himself or to his fellows; that it makes the church, the schoolhouse, and the town hall, its symbols, and humanity its care. this democratic spirit will animate our arts with immortality, if god means that they shall last. a man without a country an extract from "a man without a country" by edward everett hale philip nolan was as fine a young officer as there was in the "legion of the west," as the western division of our army was then called. when aaron burr made his first dashing expedition down to new orleans in , at fort massac, or somewhere above on the river, he met, as the devil would have it, this gay, dashing, bright young fellow; at some dinner party, i think. burr marked him, talked to him, walked with him, took him a day or two's voyage in his flatboat, and, in short, fascinated him. for the next year, barrack life was very tame to poor nolan. he occasionally availed himself of the permission the great man had given him to write to him. long, high-worded, stilted letters the poor boy wrote and rewrote and copied. but never a line did he have in reply from the gay deceiver. the other boys in the garrison sneered at him, because he sacrificed in this unrequited affection for a politician the time which they devoted to monongahela, hazard, and high-low-jack. but one day nolan had his revenge. this time burr came down the river, not as an attorney seeking a place for his office, but as a disguised conquerer. he had defeated i know not how many district attorneys; he had dined at i know not how many public dinners; he had been heralded in i don't know how many "weekly arguses," and it was rumored that he had an army behind him and an empire before him. it was a great day--his arrival--to poor nolan. burr had not been at the fort an hour before he sent for him. that evening he asked nolan to take him out in his skiff, to show him a canebrake or a cottonwood tree, as he said--really to seduce him; and by the time the sail was over, nolan was enlisted body and soul. from that time, though he did not yet know it, he lived as a man without a country. what burr meant to do i know no more than you. it is none of our business just now. only, when the grand catastrophe came, and jefferson and the house of virginia of that day undertook to break on the wheel all the possible clarences of the then house of york, by the great treason trial at richmond, some of the lesser fry in that distant mississippi valley, which was farther from us than puget's sound is to- day, introduced the like novelty on their provincial stage; and, to while away the monotony of the summer at fort adams, got up, for "spectacles," a string of court-martials on the officers there. one and another of the colonels and majors were tried, and, to fill out the list, little nolan, against whom, heaven knows, there was evidence enough--that he was sick of the service, had been willing to be false to it, and would have obeyed any order to march any-whither with any one who would follow him had the order been signed, "by command of his exc. a. burr." the courts dragged on. the big flies escaped--rightly for all i know. nolan was proved guilty enough, as i say; yet you and i would never have heard of him, but that, when the president of the court asked him at the close whether he wished to say anything to show that he had always been faithful to the united states, he cried out, in a fit of frenzy:--"damn the united states! i wish i may never hear of the united states again!" i suppose he did not know how the words shocked old colonel morgan, who was holding the court. he, on his part, had grown up in the west of those days, in the midst of "spanish plot," "orleans plot," and all the rest. he had spent half his youth with an older brother, hunting horses in texas; and, in a word, to him "united states" was scarcely a reality. yet he had been fed by "united states" for all the years since he had been in the army. he had sworn on his faith as a christian to be true to "united states." it was "united states" which gave him the uniform he wore, and the sword by his side. i do not excuse nolan; i only explain to the reader why he damned his country, and wished he might never hear her name again. he never did hear her name but once again. from that moment, september , , till the day he died, may , , he never heard her name again. for that half century and more he was a man without a country. old morgan, as i said, was terribly shocked. he called the court into his private room, and returned in fifteen minutes, with a face like a sheet, to say:-- "prisoner, hear the sentence of the court! the court decides, subject to the approval of the president, that you never hear the name of the united states again." nolan laughed. but nobody else laughed. old morgan was too solemn, and the whole room was hushed dead as night for a minute. even nolan lost his swagger in a moment. then morgan added:-- "mr. marshal, take the prisoner to orleans in an armed boat, and deliver him to the naval commander there." the marshal gave his orders and the prisoner was taken out of court. "mr. marshal," continued old morgan, "see that no one mentions the united states to the prisoner. mr. marshal, make my respects to lieutenant mitchell at orleans, and request him to order that no one shall mention the united states to the prisoner while he is on board ship. you will receive your written orders from the officer on duty here this evening. the court is adjourned without day." the plan then adopted was substantially the same which was necessarily followed ever after. the secretary of the navy was requested to put nolan on board a government vessel bound on a long cruise, and to direct that he should be only so far confined there as to make it certain that he never saw or heard of the country. one afternoon a lot of the men sat on the deck smoking and reading aloud. well, so it happened that in his turn nolan took the book and read to the others; and he read very well. nobody in the circle knew a line of the poem, only it was all magic and border chivalry, and was ten thousand years ago. poor nolan read steadily through the fifth canto without a thought of what was coming:-- "breathes there the man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said,"-- it seems impossible to us that anybody ever heard this for the first time; but all these fellows did then, and poor nolan himself went on, still unconsciously or mechanically:-- "this is my own, my native land!" then they all saw something was to pay; but he expected to get through, i suppose, turned a little pale, but plunged on:-- "whose heart hath ne'er within him burned as home his footsteps he hath turned from wandering on a foreign strand?-- if such there breathe, go, mark him well,"-- by this time the men were all beside themselves, wishing there was any way to make him turn over two pages; but he had not quite presence of mind for that; he gagged a little, colored crimson, and staggered on:-- "for him no minstrel raptures swell; high though his titles, proud his name, boundless his wealth as wish can claim, despite these titles, power, and pelf, the wretch, concentred all in self,"-- and here the poor fellow choked, could not go on, but started up, swung the book into the sea, vanished into his stateroom, and we did not see him for two months again. he never entered in with the young men exactly as a companion again; but generally he had the nervous, tired look of a heart-wounded man. and when nolan died, there was found in his bible a slip of paper at the place where he had marked the text:-- "they desire a country, even a heavenly; wherefore god is not ashamed to be called their god; for he hath prepared for them a city." on this slip of paper he had written:-- "bury me in the sea; it has been my home, and i love it. but will not some one set up a stone for my memory at fort adams or at orleans, that my disgrace may not be more than i ought to bear? say on it:-- "in memory of "philip nolan, "_lieutenant in the army of the united states_. "he loved his country as no other man has loved her; but no man deserved less at her hands." the execution of rodriguez from "cuba in war time," with the author's permission by richard harding davis adolfo rodriguez was the only son of a cuban farmer. when the revolution broke out, young rodriguez joined the insurgents, leaving his father and mother and two sisters at the farm. he was taken by the spanish, was tried by a military court for bearing arms against the government, and sentenced to be shot by a fusillade some morning before sunrise. his execution took place a half mile distant from the city, on the great plain that stretches from the forts out to the hills, beyond which rodriguez had lived for nineteen years. there had been a full moon the night preceding the execution, and when the squad of soldiers marched out from town, it was still shining brightly through the mists. it lighted a plain two miles in extent broken by ridges and gullies and covered with thick, high grass and with bunches of cactus and palmetto. the execution was quickly finished with rough, and, but for one frightful blunder, with merciful swiftness. the crowd fell back when it came to the square of soldiery, and the condemned man, the priests, and the firing squad of six young volunteers passed in and the lines closed behind them. rodriguez bent and kissed the cross which the priest held up before him. he then walked to where the officer directed him to stand, and turned his back to the square and faced the hills and the road across them which led to his father's farm. as the officer gave the first command he straightened himself as far as the cords would allow, and held up his head and fixed his eyes immovably on the morning light which had just begun to show above the hills. the officer had given the order, the men had raised their pieces, and the condemned man had heard the clicks of the triggers as they were pulled back, and he had not moved. and then happened one of the most cruelly refined, though unintentional, acts of torture that one can very well imagine. as the officer slowly raised his sword, preparatory to giving the signal, one of the mounted officers rode up to him and pointed out silently--the firing squad were so placed that when they fired they would shoot several of the soldiers stationed on the extreme end of the square. their captain motioned his men to lower their pieces, and then walked across the grass and laid his hand on the shoulder of the waiting prisoner. it is not pleasant to think what that shock must have been. the man had steeled himself to receive a volley of bullets in the back. he believed that in the next instant he would be in another world; he had heard the command given, had heard the click of the mausers as the locks caught--and then, at that supreme moment, a human hand had been laid upon his shoulder and a voice spoke in his ear. you would expect that any man who had been snatched back to life in such a fashion would start and tremble at the reprieve, or would break down altogether, but this boy turned his head steadily, and followed with his eyes the direction of the officer's sword, then nodded his head gravely, and with his shoulders squared, took up a new position, straightened his back again, and once more held himself erect. as an exhibition of self-control this should surely rank above feats of heroism performed in battle, where there are thousands of comrades to give inspiration. this man was alone, in sight of the hills he knew, with only enemies about him, with no source to draw on for strength but that which lay within himself. the officer of the firing squad, mortified by his blunder, hastily whipped up his sword, the men once more leveled their rifles, the sword rose, dropped, and the men fired. at the report the cuban's head snapped back almost between his shoulders, but his body fell slowly, as though some one had pushed him gently forward from behind and he had stumbled. he sank on his side in the wet grass without a struggle or sound, and did not move again. at that moment the sun, which had shown some promise of its coming in the glow above the hills, shot up suddenly from behind them in all the splendor of the tropics, a fierce, red disk of heat, and filled the air with warmth and light. the informal discussion the flood of books from "essays in application," with the permission of charles scribner's sons, new york, publishers. by henry van dyke there is the highest authority for believing that a man's life, even though he be an author, consists not in the abundance of things that he possesses. rather is its real value to be sought in the quality of the ideas and feelings that possess him, and in the effort to embody them in his work. the work is the great thing. the delight of clear and steady thought, of free and vivid imagination, of pure and strong emotion; the fascination of searching for the right words, which sometimes come in shoals like herring, so that the net can hardly contain them, and at other times are more shy and fugacious than the wary trout which refuse to be lured from their hiding places; the pleasure of putting the fit phrase in the proper place, of making a conception stand out plain and firm with no more and no less than is needed for its expression, of doing justice to an imaginary character so that it shall have its own life and significance in the world of fiction, of working a plot or an argument clean through to its inevitable close: these inward and unpurchasable joys are the best wages of the men and women who write. what more will they get? well, unless history forgets to repeat itself, their additional wages, their personal dividends under the profit- sharing system, so to speak, will be various. some will probably get more than they deserve, others less. the next best thing to the joy of work is the winning of gentle readers and friends who find some good in your book, and are grateful for it, and think kindly of you for writing it. the next best thing to that is the recognition, on the part of people who know, that your work is well done, and of fine quality. that is called fame, or glory, and the writer who professes to care nothing for it is probably deceiving himself, or else his liver is out of order. real reputation, even of a modest kind and of a brief duration, is a good thing; an author ought to be able to be happy without it, but happier with it. effectiveness in speaking from the introduction to "the world's famous orations," with the permission of funk and wagnalls company, new york and london, publishers. by william jennings bryan while it is absolutely necessary for the orator to master his subject and to speak with earnestness, his speech can be made more effective by the addition of clearness, brevity and apt illustrations. clearness of statement is of very great importance. it is not sufficient to say that there are certain self-evident truths; it is more accurate to say that all truth is self-evident. because truth is self-evident, the best service that one can render a truth is to state it so clearly that it can be comprehended, needs no argument in its support. in debate, therefore, one's first effort should be to state his own side so clearly and concisely as to make the principles involved easily understood. his second object should be so to divest his opponent's argument of useless verbiage as to make it stand forth clearly; for as truth is self-evident, so error bears upon its face its own condemnation. error needs only to be exposed to be overthrown. brevity of statement also contributes to the force of a speaker. it is possible so to enfold a truth in long-drawn-out sentences as practically to conceal it. the epigram is powerful because it is full of meat and short enough to be remembered. to know when to stop is almost as important as to know where to begin and how to proceed. the ability to condense great thoughts into small words and brief sentences is an attribute of genius. often one lays down a book with the feeling that the author has "said nothing with elaboration," while in perusing another book one finds a whole sermon in a single sentence, or an unanswerable argument couched in a well-turned phrase. the interrogatory is frequently employed by the orator, and when wisely used is irresistible. what dynamic power for instance, there is in that question propounded by christ, "what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" volumes could not have presented so effectively the truth that he sought to impress upon his hearers. the illustration has no unimportant place in the equipment of the orator. we understand a thing more easily when we know that it is like something which we have already seen. illustrations may be drawn from two sources--nature and literature--and of the two, those from nature have the greater weight. all learning is valuable; all history is useful. by knowing what has been we can better judge the future; by knowing how men have acted heretofore we can understand how they will act again in similar circumstances. but people know nature better than they know books, and the illustrations drawn from everyday life are the most effective. if the orator can seize upon something within the sight or hearing of his audience,--something that comes to his notice at the moment and as if not thought of before,--it will add to the effectiveness of the illustration. for instance, paul's speech to the athenians derived a large part of its strength from the fact that he called attention to an altar near by, erected "to the unknown god," and then proceeded to declare unto them the god whom they ignorantly worshiped. abraham lincoln used scripture quotations very frequently and very powerfully. probably no bible quotation, or, for that matter, no quotation from any book ever has had more influence upon a people than the famous quotation made by lincoln in his springfield speech of ,--"a house divided against itself cannot stand." it is said that he had searched for some time for a phrase which would present in the strongest possible way the proposition he intended to advance--namely, that the nation could not endure half slave and half free. it is a compliment to a public speaker that the audience should discuss what he says rather than his manner of saying it; more complimentary that they should remember his arguments, than that they should praise his rhetoric. the orator should seek to conceal himself behind his subject. if he presents himself in every speech he is sure to become monotonous, if not offensive. if, however, he focuses attention upon his subject, he can find an infinite number of themes and, therefore, give variety to his speech. books, literature, and the people from "essays in application," with the permission of charles scribner's sons, new york, publishers. by henry van dyke every one knows what books are. but what is literature? it is the ark on the flood. it is the light on the candlestick. it is the flower among the leaves; the consummation of the plant's vitality, the crown of its beauty, and the treasure house of its seeds. it is hard to define, easy to describe. literature is made up of those writings which translate the inner meanings of nature and life, in language of distinction and charm, touched with the personality of the author, into artistic forms of permanent interest. the best literature, then, is that which has the deepest significance, the most lucid style, the most vivid individuality, and the most enduring form. on the last point contemporary judgment is but guess-work, but on the three other points it should not be impossible to form, nor improper to express, a definite opinion. literature has its permanent marks. it is a connected growth, and its life history is unbroken. masterpieces have never been produced by men who have had no masters. reverence for good work is the foundation of literary character. the refusal to praise bad work, or to imitate it, is an author's personal chastity. good work is the most honorable and lasting thing in the world. four elements enter into good work in literature:--an original impulse--not necessarily a new idea, but a new sense of the value of an idea. a first-hand study of the subject and the material. a patient, joyful, unsparing labor for the perfection of form. a human aim--to cheer, console, purify, or ennoble the life of the people. without this aim literature has never sent an arrow close to the mark. it is only by good work that men of letters can justify their right to a place in the world. the father of thomas carlyle was a stonemason, whose walls stood true and needed no rebuilding. carlyle's prayer was, "let me write my books as he built his houses." education for business from an address before the new york chamber of commerce, by charles william eliot before we can talk together to advantage about the value of education in business, we ought to come to a common understanding about the sort of education we mean and the sort of business. we must not think of the liberal education of to-day as dealing with a dead past--with dead languages, buried peoples, exploded philosophies; on the contrary, everything which universities now teach is quick with life and capable of application to modern uses. they teach indeed the languages and literature of judea, greece, and rome; but it is because those literatures are instinct with eternal life. they teach mathematics, but it is mathematics mostly created within the lifetime of the older men here present. in teaching english, french, and german, they are teaching the modern vehicles of all learning--just what latin was in medieval times. as to history, political science, and natural science, the subjects, and all the methods by which they are taught, may properly be said to be new within a century. liberal education is not to be justly regarded as something dry, withered, and effete; it is as full of sap as the cedars of lebanon. and what sort of business do we mean? surely the larger sorts of legitimate and honorable business; that business which is of advantage both to buyer and seller, and to producer, distributor, and consumer alike, whether individuals or nations, which makes common some useful thing which has been rare, or makes accessible to the masses good things which have been within reach only of the few--i wish i could say simply which make dear things cheap; but recent political connotations of the word cheap forbid. we mean that great art of production and exchange which through the centuries has increased human comfort, cherished peace, fostered the fine arts, developed the pregnant principle of associated action, and promoted both public security and public liberty. with this understanding of what we mean by education on the one hand and business on the other, let us see if there can be any doubt as to the nature of the relations between them. the business man in large affairs requires keen observation, a quick mental grasp of new subjects, and a wide range of knowledge. whence come these powers and attainments--either to the educated or to the uneducated--save through practice and study? but education is only early systematic practice and study under guidance. the object of all good education is to develop just these powers--accuracy in observation, quickness and certainty in seizing upon the main points of new subjects, and discrimination in separating the trivial from the important in great masses of facts. this is what liberal education does for the physician, the lawyer, the minister, and the scientist. this is what it can do also for the man of business; to give a mental power is one of the main ends of the higher education. is not active business a field in which mental power finds full play? again, education imparts knowledge, and who has greater need to know economics, history, and natural science than the man of large business? further, liberal education develops a sense of right, duty, and honor; and more and more, in the modern world, large business rests on rectitude and honor, as well as on good judgment. education does this through the contemplation and study of the moral ideals of our race; not in drowsiness or dreaminess or in mere vague enjoyment of poetic and religious abstractions, but in the resolute purpose to apply spiritual ideals to actual life. the true university fosters ideals, but always to urge that they be put into practice in the real world. when the universities hold up before their youth the great semitic ideals which were embodied in the decalogue, they mean that those ideals should be applied in politics. when they teach their young men that asiatic ideal of unknown antiquity, the golden rule, they mean that their disciples shall apply it to business; when they inculcate that comprehensive maxim of christian ethics, "ye are all members of one another," they mean that this moral principle is applicable to all human relations, whether between individuals, families, states, or nations. the beginnings of american oratory from the author's lectures on oratory, with his permission by thomas wentworth higginson it is a singular fact that the three leaders of the revolution, in the massachusetts colony, john adams, sam adams, and oxenbridge thatcher, were all trained originally to be clergymen, and all afterwards determined to be lawyers, and get their legal training in addition. john adams did it; oxenbridge thatcher did it. sam adams's parents held so hard to the doctrine that the law was a disreputable profession that they never allowed him to enter it. he went into business, but before he got through, mixed himself up with legal questions more than the two others put together. and what is more, and what has only lately been brought out distinctly, there existed in the southern colonies represented by virginia very much the same feeling, only coming from a different source. it was not a question of church membership or of ecclesiastical training--the southern colonies never troubled themselves very much about those things--but turned upon a wholly different thing. the southern colonies were based on land ownership; the aim was to build up a type of society like the english type, an aristocratic system of landowners as in england. and these miscellaneous men who, without owning large estates or large numbers of slaves, came forward to try cases in court, were regarded with the same sort of suspicion which the same class had to meet in massachusetts. patrick henry, the greatest of virginians for the purpose for which providence had marked him out, was always regarded by jefferson in very much the same light in which sam adams was by his uncles, who were afraid he wanted to be a lawyer. henry was regarded as a man from the people, an irregularly trained man. jefferson, you will find, criticizes his pronunciation severely. he talked about "yearth" instead of "earth." he said that a man's "nateral" parts needed to be improved by "eddication." jefferson had traveled in europe and talked with cultivated men in other countries. he did not do that sort of thing, and he, not being a man of the most generous or candid nature, always tries to make us think that patrick henry was a nobody who had very little practice. and it was not until the admirable life of him written for the "american statesmen" series by my predecessor in this lectureship, moses coit tyler, whose loss we so greatly mourn, that it was clearly made out that, on the contrary, he had an immense legal practice and was wonderfully successful in a great variety of cases. so, both north and south, there was this antagonism to this new class coming forward; and yet that new class stepped forward and took the leadership of the american revolution. not that the clergy were false to their duty. they did their duty well. there is a book by j. wingate thornton, called "the clergy of the american revolution," which contains an admirable and powerful series of sermons by those very clergymen whom i have criticized for their limitations. they did their part admirably, and yet one sees as time goes on that the lawyers are taking matters into their own hands. but the change was not always a benefit to the style of oratory. it was a period of somewhat formal style; it was not a period when the english language was reaching to its highest sources. you will be surprised to find, for instance, in the books and addresses of that period how little shakespeare is quoted, how much oftener much inferior poets. in edmund burke's orations he quotes shakespeare very little; and edmund burke's orations are interesting especially for this, that they are not probably the original addresses which he gave, are literature rather than oratory, and are now generally supposed to have been written out afterwards. like burke most of the orators of that period have a certain formal style. when all is said and done, the clergy got a certain pithiness from that terrific habit they had of going back every little while and pinning down their thought with a text. one english clergyman of the period compared his text to a horse block on which he ascended when he wished to mount his horse, and then he rode his horse as long as he wished and might or might not come back to that horse block again. therefore we see in the oratory of that time a certain formality. moreover, in the absence of the modern reporter, we really do not know exactly what was said in the greatest speeches of that day. the modern reporter, whose aim is to report everything that is said, and who generally succeeds in putting in a great many fine things which haven't occurred to the orators--the modern reporter was not known, and we have but very few descriptions even of the great orations. daniel webster, the man from the author's lectures on oratory, with his permission by thomas wentworth higginson it happened to me, when i was in college, to be once on some business at an office on state street in boston, then as now the central business street of the place, in a second-story office where there were a number of young men writing busily at their desks. presently one of the youths, passing by accident across the room, stopped suddenly and said,-- "there is daniel webster!" in an instant every desk in that room was vacated, every pane in every window was filled with a face looking out, and i, hastening up behind them, found it difficult to get a view of the street so densely had they crowded round it. and once looking out, i saw all up and down the street, in every window i could see, just the same mass of eager faces behind the windows. those faces were all concentrated on a certain figure, a farmer-like, sunburned man who stood, roughly clothed, with his hands behind him, speaking to no one, looking nowhere in particular; waiting, so far as i could see, for nothing, with broad shoulders and heavy muscles, and the head of a hero above. such a brow, such massive formation, such magnificent black eyes, such straight black eyebrows i had never seen before. that man, it appeared, was daniel webster! i saw people go along the street sidling along past him, looking up at him as if he were the statue of liberty enlightening the world in new york harbor. nobody knew what he wanted, it never was explained; he may have been merely waiting for some companion to go fishing. but there he was, there he stands in my memory. i don't know what happened afterwards, or how these young men ever got back to their desks--if they ever did. for me, however, that figure was revealed by one brief duplicate impression, which came in a few months afterwards when i happened to be out in brookline, a suburb of boston, where people used to drive then, as they drive now, on summer afternoons for afternoon tea--only, afternoon tea not having been invented, they drove out to their neighbors' houses for fruit or a cup of chocolate. you have heard boston perhaps called the "hub of the universe." a lady, not a bostonian, once said that if boston were the hub of the universe, brookline ought to be called the "sub-hub." in the "sub-hub" i was sitting in the house of a kinsman who had a beautiful garden; who was the discoverer, in fact, of the boston nectarine, which all the world came to his house to taste. i heard voices in the drawing-room and went in there. and there i saw again before me the figure of that day on state street, but it was the figure of a man with a beamingly good- natured face, seated in a solid chair brought purposely to accommodate his weight, sitting there with the simple culinary provision of a cup of chocolate in his hand. it so happened that the great man, the godlike daniel, as the people used to call him, had expressed the very mortal wish for a little more sugar in his chocolate; and i, if you please, was the fortunate youth who, passing near him, was selected as the ganymede to bring to him the refreshment desired. i have felt ever since that i, at least, was privileged to put one drop of sweetness into the life of that great man, a life very varied and sometimes needing refreshment. and i have since been given by my classmates to understand--i find they recall it to this day--that upon walking through the college yard for a week or two after that opportunity, i carried my head so much higher than usual as to awaken an amount of derision which undoubtedly, if it had been at west point, would have led to a boxing match. that was daniel webster, one of the two great lawyers of boston--i might almost say, of the american bar at that time. the enduring value of speech from the author's lectures on oratory, with his permission by thomas wentworth higginson the englishman, as far as i have observed, as a rule gets up with reluctance, and begins with difficulty. just as you are beginning to feel seriously anxious for him, you gradually discover that he is on the verge of saying some uncommonly good thing. before you are fully prepared for it he says that good thing, and then to your infinite amazement he sits down! the american begins with an ease which relieves you of all anxiety. the anxiety begins when he talks a while without making any special point. he makes his point at last, as good perhaps as the englishman's, possibly better. but then when he has made it, you find that he goes on feeling for some other good point, and he feels and feels so long, that perhaps he sits down at last without having made it. my ideal of a perfect speech in public would be that it should be conducted by a syndicate or trust, as it were, of the two nations, and that the guaranty should be that an american should be provided to begin every speech and an englishman provided to end it. then, when we go a little farther and consider the act of speech itself, and its relation to the word, we sometimes meet with a doubt that we see expressed occasionally in the daily papers provided for us with twenty pages per diem and thirty-two on sunday, whether we will need much longer anything but what is called sometimes by clergymen "the printed word"--whether the whole form of communication through oral speech will not diminish or fade away. it seems to me a truly groundless fear--like wondering whether there will ever be a race with only one arm or one leg, or a race of people who live only by the eye or by the ear. the difference between the written word and the spoken word is the difference between solitude and companionship, between meditation and something so near action that it is at least halfway to action and creates action. it is perfectly supposable to imagine a whole race of authors of whom not one should ever exchange a word with a human being while his greatest work is being produced. the greatest work of american literature, artistically speaking, hawthorne's "scarlet letter," was thus produced. his wife records that during the year that he was writing it, he shut himself up in his study every day. she asked no questions; he volunteered no information. she only knew that something was going on by the knot in his forehead which he carried all that year. at the end of the year he came from his study and read over to her the whole book; a work of genius was added to the world. it was the fruit of solitude. and sometimes solitude, i regret as an author to say, extends to the perusal of the book, for i have known at least one volume of poems of which not a copy was ever sold; and i know another of which only one copy was sold through my betraying the secret of the author and mentioning the book to a classmate, who bought that one copy. therefore, in a general way, we may say that literature speaks in a manner the voice of solitude. as soon as the spoken word comes in, you have companionship. there can be no speech without at least one person present, if it is only the janitor of the church. dean swift in reading the church of england service to his manservant only, adapted the service as follows: "dearly beloved roger, the scripture moveth thee and me in sundry places," etc.; but in that very economy of speech he realized the presence of an audience. it takes a speaker and an audience together to make a speech--i can say to you what i could not first have said to myself. "the sea of upturned faces," as daniel webster said, borrowing the phrase, however, from scott's "rob roy"-- "the sea of upturned faces makes half the speech." and therefore we may assume that there will always be this form of communication. it has, both for the speaker and for the audience, this one vast advantage. to college girls from "girls and education," by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by le baron russell briggs i doubt whether any one has told more effectively what a college may do for a girl's mind than dr. thomas fuller. in his "church history of britain" he gives a short chapter to "the conveniency of she-colleges." (i once quoted this chapter at smith college, and was accused of making it up.) "nunneries also," he observes, "were good she-schools, wherein the girls and maids of the neighborhood were taught to read and work; and sometimes a little latin was taught them therein. yea, give me leave to say, if such feminine foundations had still continued, haply the weaker sex might be heightened to a higher perfection than hitherto hath been attained. that sharpness of their wits, and suddenness of their conceits, which their enemies must allow unto them, might by education be improved into a judicious solidity." the feminine mind, with its quick intuitions and unsteady logic, may keep the intuitions and gain a firmness which makes it more than transiently stimulating. the emotional mind has its charm, especially if its emotions are favorable to ourselves. in some things it may be well that emotion is greater than logic; but emotion _in logic_ is sad to contend with, sad even to contemplate--and such is too often the reasoning of the untrained woman. do not for a moment suppose that i believe such reasoning peculiar to women; but from the best men it has been in great measure trained out. in a right-minded, sound-hearted girl, college training tends toward control of the nervous system; and control of the nervous system-- making it servant and not master--is almost the supreme need of women. without such control they become helpless; with it they know scarcely a limit to their efficiency. the world does not yet understand that for the finest and highest work it looks and must look to the naturally sensitive, whether women or men. i remember expressing to the late professor greenough regret that a certain young teacher was nervous. his answer has been a comfort to me ever since. "i wouldn't give ten cents for any one who isn't." the nervous man or woman is bound to suffer; but the nervous man or woman may rise to heights that the naturally calm can never reach and can seldom see. to whom do you go for counsel? to the calm, no doubt; but never to the phlegmatic-never to the calm who are calm because they know no better (like the man in ruskin "to whom the primrose is very accurately the primrose because he does not love it"). you go to the calm who have fought for their calmness, who have known what it is to quiver in every nerve, but have put through whatever they have taken in hand. there are numberless sweet and patient women who never studied beyond the curriculum of the district school, women who help every one near them by their own unselfish loveliness; but the intelligently patient, the women who can put themselves into the places of all sorts of people, who can sympathize not merely with great and manifest griefs, but with every delicate jarring of the human soul--hardest of all, with the ambitions of the dull--these women, who must command a respect intellectual as well as moral, reach their highest efficiency through experience based on college training. college life, designed as it is to strengthen a girl's intellect and character, should teach her to understand better, and not worse, herself as distinguished from other beings of her own sex or the opposite, should fortify her individuality, her power of resisting, and her determination to resist, the contagion of the unwomanly. exaggerated study may lessen womanly charm; but there is nothing loud or masculine about it. nor should we judge mental training or anything else by scattered cases of its abuse. the only characteristics of women that the sensible college girl has lost are feminine frivolity, and that kind of headless inaccuracy in thought and speech which once withheld from the sex--or from a large part of it--the intellectual respect of educated men. at college, if you have lived rightly, you have found enough learning to make you humble, enough friendship to make your hearts large and warm, enough culture to teach you the refinement of simplicity, enough wisdom to keep you sweet in poverty and temperate in wealth. here you have learned to see great and small in their true relation, to look at both sides of a question, to respect the point of view of every honest man or woman, and to recognize the point of view that differs most widely from your own. here you have found the democracy that excludes neither poor nor rich, and the quick sympathy that listens to all and helps by the very listening. here too, it may be at the end of a long struggle, you have seen--if only in transient glimpses--that after doubt comes reverence, after anxiety peace, after faintness courage, and that out of weakness we are made strong. suffer these glimpses to become an abiding vision, and you have the supreme joy of life. the art of acting from an address to the students of harvard university, . published in "the drama; addresses by henry irving," william heinemann, london, publisher, by henry irving what is the art of acting? i speak of it in its highest sense, as the art to which roscius, betterton, and garrick owed their fame. it is the art of embodying the poet's creations, of giving them flesh and blood, of making the figures which appeal to your mind's eye in the printed drama live before you on the stage. "to fathom the depths of character, to trace its latent motives, to feel its finest quiverings of emotion, to comprehend the thoughts that are hidden under words, and thus possess one's self of the actual mind of the individual man"--such was macready's definition of the player's art; and to this we may add the testimony of talma. he describes tragic acting as "the union of grandeur without pomp and nature without triviality." it demands, he says, the endowment of high sensibility and intelligence. you will readily understand from this that to the actor the well-worn maxim that art is long and life is short has a constant significance. the older we grow the more acutely alive we are to the difficulties of our craft. i cannot give you a better illustration of this fact than a story which is told of macready. a friend of mine, once a dear friend of his, was with him when he played hamlet for the last time. the curtain had fallen, and the great actor was sadly thinking that the part he loved so much would never be his again. and as he took off his velvet mantle and laid it aside, he muttered almost unconsciously the words of horatio, "good-night, sweet prince" then turning to his friend, "ah," said he, "i am just beginning to realise the sweetness, the tenderness, the gentleness of this dear hamlet!" believe me, the true artist never lingers fondly upon what he has done. he is ever thinking of what remains undone: ever striving toward an ideal it may never be his fortune to attain. it is often supposed that great actors trust to the inspiration of the moment. nothing can be more erroneous. there will, of course, be such moments, when an actor at a white heat illumines some passage with a flash of imagination (and this mental condition, by the way, is impossible to the student sitting in his armchair); but the great actor's surprises are generally well weighed, studied, and balanced. we know that edmund kean constantly practiced before a mirror effects which startled his audience by their apparent spontaneity. it is the accumulation of such effects which enables an actor, after many years, to present many great characters with remarkable completeness. i do not want to overstate the case, or to appeal to anything that is not within common experience, so i can confidently ask you whether a scene in a great play has not been at some time vividly impressed on your minds by the delivery of a single line, or even of one forcible word. has not this made the passage far more real and human to you than all the thought you have devoted to it? an accomplished critic has said that shakespeare himself might have been surprised had he heard the "fool, fool, fool!" of edmund kean. and though all actors are not keans, they have in varying degree this power of making a dramatic character step out of the page, and come nearer to our hearts and our understandings. after all, the best and most convincing exposition of the whole art of acting is given by shakespeare himself: "to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." thus the poet recognized the actor's art as a most potent ally in the representation of human life. he believed that to hold the mirror up to nature was one of the worthiest functions in the sphere of labor, and actors are content to point to his definition of their work as the charter of their privileges. address to the freshman class at harvard university from "the harvard graduates magazine" by charles william eliot just in the last few years we have had a striking illustration of strong reaction against prevailing educational policies. there has come upon us right here on these grounds and among harvard's constituents, and widespread over the country as well, a distrust of freedom for students, of freedom for citizens, of freedom for backward races of men. this is one of the striking phenomena of our day, a distrust of freedom. now, there is no moment in life when there comes a greater sudden access of freedom than this moment in which you find yourselves. when young men come to an american college, i care not at all which college--to any american college from the parents' home or from school, they experience a tremendous access of freedom. is it an injury? is it a danger? are you afraid of it? has society a right to be afraid of it? what is freedom for? what does it do for us? does it hurt us or help us? do we grow in it, or do we shrink in it? that is quite an important question in the management of harvard university. it is the important question in modern government. it is pretty clear that when young men or old men are free, they make mistakes, and they go wrong; having freedom to do right or wrong, they often do right and they often do wrong. when you came hither, you found yourselves in possession of a new freedom. you can overeat yourselves, for example; you can overdrink; you can take no care for sleep; you can take no exercise or too much; you can do little work or too much; you can indulge in harmful amusements: in short, you have a great new freedom here. is it a good thing for you or a bad thing? clearly you can go astray, for the road is not fenced. you can make mistakes; you can fall into sin. have you learned to control yourselves? have you got the will-power in you to regulate your own conduct? can you be your own taskmaster? you have been in the habit of looking to parents, perhaps, or to teachers, or to the heads of your boarding schools or your day schools for control in all these matters. have you got it in yourselves to control yourselves? that is the prime question which comes up with regard to every one of you when you come to the university. have you the sense and the resolution to regulate your own conduct? it is pretty clear that in other spheres freedom is dangerous. how is it with free political institutions? do they always yield the best government? look at the american cities and compare them with the cities of europe. clearly, free institutions do not necessarily produce the best government. are then free institutions wrong or inexpedient? what is freedom for? why has god made men free, as he has not made the plants and the animals? is freedom dangerous? yes! but it is necessary to the growth of human character, and that is what we are all in the world for, and that is what you and your like are in college for. that is what the world was made for, for the occupation of men who in freedom through trial win character. it is choice which makes the dignity of human nature. it is habitual choosing after examination, consideration, reflection, and advice, which makes the man of power. it is through the internal motive power of the will that men imagine, invent, and thrust thoughts out into the obscure beyond, into the future. the will is the prime motive power; and you can only train your wills, in freedom. that is what freedom is for, in school and college, in society, industries, and governments. fine human character is the ultimate object, and freedom is the indispensable condition of its development. now, there are some clear objects for choice here in college, for real choice, for discreet choice. i will mention only two. in the first place, choose those studies--there is a great range of them here--which will, through your interest in them, develop your working power. you know it is only through work that you can achieve anything, either in college or in the world. choose those studies on which you can work intensely with pleasure, with real satisfaction and happiness. that is the true guide to a wise choice. choose that intellectual pursuit which will develop within you the power to do enthusiastic work, an internal motive power, not an external compulsion. then choose an ennobling companionship. you will find out in five minutes that this man stirs you to good, that man to evil. shun the latter; cling to the former. choose companionship rightly, choose your whole surroundings so that they shall lift you up and not drag you down. make these two choices wisely, and be faithful in labor, and you will succeed in college and in after life. with tennyson at farringford from "alfred lord tennyson, a memoir by his son," with the permission of the macmillan company, new york and london, publishers. before leaving for aldworth we spent some delightful sunny days in the farringford gardens. in the afternoons my father sat in his summerhouse and talked to us and his friends. this spring he had enjoyed seeing the unusually splendid blossom of apple and pear tree, of white lilacs, and of purple aubretia that bordered the walks. at intervals he strolled to the bottom of the kitchen garden to look at the roses, or at the giant fig tree ("like a breaking wave," as he said) bursting into leaf; or he marked the "branching grace" of the stately line of elms, between the boles of which, from his summerhouse, he caught a glimpse of far meadows beyond. he said that he did not believe in emerson's pretty lines:-- "only to children children sing, only to youth the spring is spring." "for age does feel the joy of spring, though age can only crawl over the bridge while youth skips the brook." his talk was grave and gay together. in the middle of anecdotes he would stop short and say something of what he felt to be the sadness and mystery of life. what impressed all his friends was his choice of language, the felicity of his turns of expression, his imagery, the terseness of his unadorned english, and his simple directness of manner, which none will ever be able to reproduce, however many notes they may have taken. his dignity and repose of manner, his low musical voice, and the power of his magnetic dark eye kept the attention riveted. his argument was clear and logical and never wandered from the point except by way of illustration, and his illustrations were the most various i have ever heard, and were taken from nature and science, from high and low life, from the rich and from the poor, and his analysis of character was always subtle and powerful. while he talked of the mysteries of the universe, his face, full of the strong lines of thought, was lighted up; and his words glowed as it were with inspiration. when conversing with my brother and myself or our college friends, he was, i used to think, almost at his best, for he would quote us the fine passages from ancient or modern literature and show us why they are fine, or he would tell us about the great facts and discoveries in astronomy, geology, botany, chemistry, and the great problems in philosophy, helping us toward a higher conception of the laws which govern the world and of "the law behind the law." he was so sympathetic that the enthusiasm of youth seemed to kindle his own. he spoke out of the fullness of his heart, and explained more eloquently than ever where his own difficulties lay, and what he, as an old man, thought was the true mainspring of human life and action; and "how much of act at human hands the sense of human will demands by which we dare to live or die." the truth is that real genius, unless made shallow by prejudice, is seldom frozen by age, and that, until absolute physical decay sets in, the powers of the mind may become stronger and stronger. on one of these june mornings, miss l--, who was a stranger to us, but whose brother we had known for some time, called upon us. my father took her over the bridge to the summerhouse looking on the down. after a little while he said: "miss l--, my son says i am to read to you," and added, "i will read whatever you like." he read some of "maud," "the spinster's sweet-arts," and some "enoch arden." his voice, as miss l-- noticed, was melodious and full of change, and quite unimpaired by age. there was a peculiar freshness and passion in his reading of "maud," giving the impression that he had just written the poem, and that the emotion which created it was fresh in him. this had an extraordinary influence on the listener, who felt that the reader had been _present_ at the scenes he described, and that he still felt their bliss or agony. he thoroughly enjoyed reading his "the spinster's sweet-arts," and when he was reading "enoch arden" he told miss l-- to listen to the sound of the sea in the line, "the league-long roller thundering on the reef," and to mark miriam lane's chatter in "he ceased; and miriam lane made such a voluble answer promising all." notes on speech-making from "notes on speech-making," with the permission of longmans, green and company, new york and london, publishers. by brander matthews we are told that the five-minute speeches with which judge hoar year after year delighted the harvard chapter of the phi beta kappa contained but one original idea, clearly stated, and but one fresh story, well told. this is indeed a model to be admired of all men; yet how few of us will take the trouble of copying it! the speaker who rambles and ambles along, saying nothing, and his fellow, the speaker who links jest to jest, saying little more, are both of them unabashed in the presence of an audience. they are devoid of all shyness. they are well aware that they have "the gift of the gab"; they rejoice in its possession; they lie in wait for occasions to display it. they have helped to give foreigners the impression that every american is an oratorical revolver, ready with a few remarks whenever any chairman may choose to pull the trigger. and yet there are americans not a few to whom the making of an after-dinner speech is a most painful ordeal. when the public dinner was given to charles dickens in new york, on his first visit to america, washington irving was obviously the predestined presiding officer. curtis tells us that irving went about muttering: "i shall certainly break down; i know i shall break down." when the dinner was eaten, and irving arose to propose the health of dickens, he began pleasantly and smoothly in two or three sentences; then hesitated, stammered, smiled, and stopped; tried in vain to begin again; then gracefully gave it up, announced the toast, "charles dickens, the guest of the nation," and sank into his chair amid immense applause, whispering to his neighbor, "there! i told you i should break down, and i've done it." when thackeray came, later, irving "consented to preside at a dinner, if speeches were absolutely forbidden; the condition was faithfully observed" (so curtis records), "but it was the most extraordinary instance of american self-command on record." thackeray himself had no fondness for after-dinner speaking, nor any great skill in the art. he used to complain humorously that he never could remember all the good things he had thought of in the cab; and in "philip" he went so far as to express a hope that "a day will soon arrive (but i own, mind you, that i do not carve well) when we shall have the speeches done by a skilled waiter at a side table, as we now have the carving." hawthorne was as uncomfortable on his feet as were thackeray and irving; but his resolute will steeled him for the trial. when he dined with the mayor of liverpool, he was called upon for the toast of the united states. "being at bay, and with no alternative, i got upon my legs and made a response," he wrote in his notebook, appending this comment: "anybody may make an after-dinner speech who will be content to talk onward without saying anything. my speech was not more than two or three inches long; ... but, being once started, i felt no embarassment, and went through it as coolly as if i were going to be hanged." he also notes that his little speech was quite successful, "considering that i did not know a soul there, except the mayor himself, and that i am wholly unpracticed in all sorts of oratory, and that i had nothing to say." to each of these three considerations of hawthorne's it would be instructive to add a comment, for he spoke under a triple disadvantage. a speech cannot really be successful when the speaker has nothing to say. it is rarely successful unless he knows the tastes and the temper of those he is addressing. it can be successful only casually unless he has had some practice in the simpler sort of oratory. hunting the grizzly from "hunting the grizzly" with the permission of g. p. putnam's sons, new york and london, publishers. by theodore roosevelt for half a mile i walked quickly and silently over the pine needles, across a succession of slight ridges separated by narrow, shallow valleys. the forest here was composed of lodge-pole pines, which on the ridges grew close together, with tall slender trunks, while in the valleys the growth was more open. though the sun was behind the mountains, there was yet plenty of light by which to shoot, but it faded rapidly. at last, as i was thinking of turning toward camp, i stole up to the crest of one of the ridges, and looked over into the valley some sixty yards off. immediately i caught the loom of some large, dark object; and another glance showed me a big grizzly walking slowly off with his head down. he was quartering to me, and i fired into his flank, the bullet, as i afterward found, ranging forward and piercing one lung. at the shot he uttered a loud, moaning grunt and plunged forward at a heavy gallop, while i raced obliquely down the hill to cut him off. after going a few hundred feet, he reached a laurel thicket, some thirty yards broad, and two or three times as long, which he did not leave. i ran up to the edge and there halted, not liking to venture into the mass of twisted, close-growing stems and glossy foliage. moreover, as i halted, i heard him utter a peculiar, savage kind of whine from the heart of the brush. accordingly, i began to skirt the edge, standing on tiptoe and gazing earnestly to see if i could not catch a glimpse of his hide. when i was at the narrowest part of the thicket, he suddenly left it directly opposite, and then wheeled and stood broadside to me on the hillside, a little above. he turned his head stiffly toward me; scarlet strings of froth hung from his lips; his eyes burned like embers in the gloom. i held true, aiming at the shoulder, and my bullet shattered the point or lower end of his heart, taking out a big nick. instantly the great bear turned with a harsh roar of fury and challenge, blowing the bloody foam from his mouth, so that i saw the gleam of his white fangs; and then he charged straight at me, crashing and bounding through the laurel bushes, so that it was hard to aim. i waited till he came to a fallen tree, raking him as he topped it with a ball, which entered his chest and went through the cavity of his body, but he neither swerved nor flinched, and at the moment i did not know that i had struck him. he came steadily on, and in another second was almost upon me. i fired for his forehead, but my bullet went low, entering his open mouth, smashing his lower jaw and going into the neck. i leaped to one side almost as i pulled the trigger; and through the hanging smoke the first thing i saw was his paw as he made a vicious side blow at me. the rush of his charge carried him past. as he struck he lurched forward, leaving a pool of bright blood where his muzzle hit the ground; but he recovered himself and made two or three jumps onward, while i hurriedly jammed a couple of cartridges into the magazine, my rifle holding only four, all of which i had fired. then he tried to pull up, but as he did so his muscles seemed suddenly to give way, his head dropped, and he rolled over and over like a shot rabbit. each of my first three bullets had inflicted a mortal wound. it was already twilight, and i merely opened the carcass, and then trotted back to camp. next morning i returned and with much labor took off the skin. the fur was very fine, the animal being in excellent trim, and unusually bright colored. unfortunately, in packing it out i lost the skull, and had to supply its place with one of plaster. the beauty of the trophy, and the memory of the circumstances under which i produced it, make me value it perhaps more highly than any other in my house. argument and persuasion debates and campaign speeches on retaining the philippine islands speech of george f. hoar a famous orator once imagined the nations of the world uniting to erect a column to jurisprudence in some stately capital. each country was to bring the name of its great jurist to be inscribed on the side of the column, with a sentence stating what he and his country through him had done toward establishing the reign of law and justice for the benefit of mankind. i have sometimes fancied that we might erect here in the capital of the country a column to american liberty which alone might rival in height the beautiful and simple shaft which we have erected to the fame of the father of the country. i can fancy each generation bringing its inscription, which should recite its own contribution to the great structure of which the column should be but the symbol. the generation of the puritan and the pilgrim and the huguenot claims the place of honor at the base. "i brought the torch of freedom across the sea. i cleared the forest. i subdued the savage and the wild beast. i laid in christian liberty and law the foundations of empire." the next generation says: "what my fathers founded i builded. i left the seashore to penetrate the wilderness. i planted schools and colleges and churches." then comes the generation of the great colonial day: "i stood by the side of england on many a hard-fought field. i helped humble the power of france." then comes the generation of the revolutionary time: "i encountered the power of england. i declared and won the independence of my country. i placed that declaration on the eternal principles of justice and righteousness which all mankind have read, and on which all mankind will one day stand. i affirmed the dignity of human nature and the right of the people to govern themselves." the next generation says: "i encountered england again. i vindicated the right of an american ship to sail the seas the wide world over without molestation. i made the american sailor as safe at the ends of the earth as my fathers had made the american farmer safe in his home." then comes the next generation: "i did the mighty deeds which in your younger years you saw and which your fathers told. i saved the union. i freed the slave. i made of every slave a freeman, and of every freeman a citizen, and of every citizen a voter." then comes another who did the great work in peace, in which so many of you had an honorable share: "i kept the faith. i paid the debt. i brought in conciliation and peace instead of war. i built up our vast domestic commerce. i made my country the richest, freest, strongest, happiest people on the face of the earth." and now what have we to say? what have we to say? are we to have a place in that honorable company? must we engrave on that column: "we repealed the declaration of independence. we changed the munroe doctrine from a doctrine of eternal righteousness and justice, resting on the consent of the governed, to a doctrine of brutal selfishness, looking only to our own advantage. we crushed the only republic in asia. we made war on the only christian people in the east. we converted a war of glory into a war of shame. we vulgarized the american flag. we introduced perfidy into the practice of war. we inflicted torture on unarmed men to extort confession. we put children to death. we established reconcentrado camps. we devastated provinces. we baffled the aspirations of a people for liberty"? no, mr. president. never! never! other and better counsels will yet prevail. the hours are long in the life of a great people. the irrevocable step is not yet taken. let us at least have this to say: "we, too, have kept the faith of the fathers. we took cuba by the hand. we delivered her from her age-long bondage. we welcomed her to the family of nations. we set mankind an example never beheld before of moderation in victory. we led hesitating and halting europe to the deliverance of their beleaguered ambassadors in china. we marched through a hostile country--a country cruel and barbarous--without anger or revenge. we returned benefit for injury, and pity for cruelty. we made the name of america beloved in the east as in the west. we kept faith with the philippine people. we kept faith with our own history. we kept our national honor unsullied. the flag which we received without a rent we handed down without a stain." speech of william mckinley i do not know why in the year this republic has unexpectedly had placed before it mighty problems which it must face and meet. they have come and are here, and they could not be kept away. we have fought a war with spain. the philippines, like cuba and porto rico, were intrusted to our hands by the war, and to that great trust, under the providence of god and in the name of human progress and civilization, we are committed. it is a trust we have not sought; it is a trust from which we will not flinch. the american people will hold up the hands of their servants at home to whom they commit its execution, while dewey and otis and the brave men whom they command will have the support of the country in upholding our flag where it now floats, the symbol and assurance of liberty and justice. there is universal agreement that the philippines shall not be turned back to spain. no true american consents to that. even if unwilling to accept them ourselves, it would have been a weak evasion of manly duty to require spain to transfer them to some other power or powers, and thus shirk our own responsibility. even if we had had, as we did not have, the power to compel such a transfer, it could not have been made without the most serious international complications. such a course could not be thought of. and yet had we refused to accept the cession of them, we should have had no power over them even for their own good. we could not discharge the responsibilities upon us until these islands became ours, either by conquest or treaty. there was but one alternative, and that was either spain or the united states in the philippines. the other suggestions--first, that they should be tossed into the arena of contention for the strife of nations; or, second, be left to the anarchy and chaos of no protectorate at all--were too shameful to be considered. the treaty gave them to the united states. could we have required less and done our duty? could we, after freeing the filipinos from the domination of spain, have left them without government and without power to protect life or property or to perform the international obligations essential to an independent state? could we have left them in a state of anarchy and justified ourselves in our own consciences or before the tribunal of mankind? could we have done that in the sight of god or man? no imperial designs lurk in the american mind. they are alien to american sentiment, thought, and purpose. our priceless principles undergo no change under a tropical sun. they go with the flag. they are wrought in every one of its sacred folds, and are indistinguishable as its shining stars. "why read ye not the changeless truth, the free can conquer but to save?" if we can benefit these remote peoples, who will object? if in the years of the future they are established in government under law and liberty, who will regret our perils and sacrifices? who will not rejoice in our heroism and humanity? always perils, and always after them safety; always darkness and clouds, but always shining through them the light and the sunshine; always cost and sacrifice, but always after them the fruition of liberty, education, and civilization. i have no light or knowledge not common to my countrymen. i do not prophesy. the present is all-absorbing to me, but i cannot bound my vision by the blood-stained trenches around manila, where every red drop, whether from the veins of an american soldier or a misguided filipino, is anguish to my heart; but by the broad range of future years, when that group of islands, under the impulse of the year just past, shall have become the gems and glories of those tropical seas; a land of plenty and of increasing possibilities; a people redeemed from savage indolence and habits, devoted to the arts of peace, in touch with the commerce and trade of all nations, enjoying the blessings of freedom, of civil and religious liberty, of education and of homes, and whose children and children's children shall for ages hence bless the american republic because it emancipated and redeemed their fatherland and set them in the pathway of the world's best civilization. debate on the tariff speech of thomas b. reed whether the universal sentiment in favor of protection as applied to every country is sound or not, i do not stop to discuss. whether it is best for the united states of america alone concerns me now, and the first thing i have to say is, that after thirty years of protection, undisturbed by any menace of free trade, up to the very year now last past, this country was the greatest and most flourishing nation on the face of this earth. moreover, with the shadow of this unjustifiable bill resting cold upon it, with mills closed, with hundreds of thousands of men unemployed, industry at a standstill, and prospects before it more gloomy than ever marked its history--except once--this country is still the greatest and the richest that the sun shines on, or ever did shine on. according to the usual story that is told, england had been engaged with a long and vain struggle with the demon of protection, and had been year after year sinking farther into the depths until at a moment when she was in her distress and saddest plight her manufacturing system broke down, "protection, having destroyed home trade by reducing," as mr. atkinson says, "the entire population to beggary, destitution, and want." mr. cobden and his friends providentially appeared, and after a hard struggle established a principle for all time and for all the world, and straightway england enjoyed the sum of human happiness. hence all good nations should do as england has done and be happy ever after. suppose england, instead of being a little island in the sea, had been the half of a great continent full of raw material, capable of an internal commerce which would rival the commerce of all the rest of the world. suppose every year new millions were flocking to her shores, and every one of those new millions in a few years, as soon as they tasted the delights of a broader life, would become as great a consumer as any one of her own people. suppose that these millions, and the , , already gathered under the folds of her flag, were every year demanding and receiving a higher wage and therefore broadening her market as fast as her machinery could furnish production. suppose she had produced cheap food beyond all her wants, and that her laborers spent so much money that whether wheat was sixty cents a bushel or twice that sum hardly entered the thoughts of one of them, except when some democratic tariff bill was paralyzing his business. suppose that she was not only but a cannon shot from france, but that every country in europe had been brought as near to her as baltimore is to washington--for that is what cheap ocean freights mean between us and european producers. suppose all those countries had her machinery, her skilled workmen, her industrial system, and labor forty per cent cheaper. suppose under that state of facts, with all her manufacturers proclaiming against it, frantic in their disapproval, england had been called upon by cobden to make the plunge into free trade, would she have done it? not if cobden had been backed by the angelic host. history gives england credit for great sense. speech of charles f. crisp i assume that the cause of protection has no more able advocate than the gentleman from maine. i assume that the argument for protection can be put in no more alluring form than that to which we have listened to- day. so assuming, i shall ask you calmly and dispassionately to examine with me that argument, to see upon what it is based, and then i shall invoke the unprejudiced judgment of this house as to whether the cause attempted to be sustained by the gentleman from maine has been sustained, or can be before any tribunal where the voice of reason is heard or the sense of justice is felt. the gentleman from maine, with a facility that is unequaled, when he encounters an argument which he is unable to answer passes it by with some bright and witty saying and thereby invites and receives the applause of those who believe as he does. but the gentleman does not attempt, the gentleman has not to-day attempted, to reply to the real arguments that are made in favor of freer trade and greater liberty of commerce. the gentleman points to the progress of the united states, he points to the rate of wages in the united states, he points to the aggregated wealth of the united states, and claims all this is due to protection. but he does not explain how we owe these blessings to protection. he says, we have protection in the united states, wages are high in the united states; therefore protection makes high wages. when we ask the gentleman from maine to give us a reason why a high protective tariff increases the rate of wages he points to the glory, the prosperity, and the honor of our country. we on this side unite with him in every sentiment, in every purpose, in every effort that has for its object the advancement of the general welfare of the people of the united states, but we differ from him as to the method of promoting their welfare. the gentleman belongs to that school who believe that scarcity is a blessing, and that abundance should be prohibited by law. we belong to that school who believe that scarcity is a calamity to be avoided, and that abundance should be, if possible, encouraged by law. the gentleman belongs to that class who believe that by a system of taxation we can make the country rich. he believes that it is possible by tax laws to advance the prosperity of all the industries and all the people in the united states. either, mr. speaker, that statement is an absurdity upon its face, or it implies that in some way we have the power to make some persons not resident of the united states pay the taxes that we impose. i insist that you do not increase the taxable wealth of the united states when you tax a gentleman in illinois and give the benefit of that tax to a gentleman in maine. such a course prevents the natural and honest distribution of wealth, but it does not create or augment it. south carolina and massachusetts delivered in the united states senate, january, by robert y. hayne the gentleman has made a great flourish about his fidelity to massachusetts. i shall make no profession of zeal for the interests and honor of south carolina; of that my constituents shall judge. if there be one state in the union, mr. president (and i say it not in a boastful spirit), that may challenge comparison with any other for a uniform, zealous, ardent, and uncalculating devotion to the union, that state is south carolina. sir, from the very commencement of the revolution up to this hour there is no sacrifice, however great, she has not cheerfully made, no service she has ever hesitated to perform. she has adhered to you in your prosperity; but in your adversity she has clung to you with more than filial affection. no matter what was the condition of her domestic affairs, though deprived of her resources, divided by parties, or surrounded with difficulties, the call of the country has been to her as the voice of god. domestic discord ceased at the sound; every man became at once reconciled to his brethren, and the sons of carolina were all seen crowding together to the temple, bringing their gifts to the altar of their common country. what, sir, was the conduct of the south during the revolution? sir, i honor new england for her conduct in that glorious struggle. but great as is the praise which belongs to her, i think at least equal honor is due to the south. they espoused the quarrel of their brethren with a generous zeal, which did not suffer them to stop to calculate their interest in the dispute. favorites of the mother country, possessed of neither ships nor seamen to create a commercial rivalship, they might have found in their situation a guaranty that their trade would be forever fostered and protected by great britain. but, trampling on all considerations either of interest or of safety, they rushed into the conflict, and, fighting for principle, periled all in the sacred cause of freedom. never were there exhibited in the history of the world higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering, and heroic endurance than by the whigs of carolina during the revolution. the whole state, from the mountains to the sea, was overrun by an overwhelming force of the enemy. the fruits of industry perished on the spot where they were produced, or were consumed by the foe. the "plains of carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her citizens. black and smoking ruins marked the places where had been the habitations of her children. driven from their homes into the gloomy and almost impenetrable swamps, even there the spirit of liberty survived, and south carolina (sustained by the example of her sumters and her marions) proved by her conduct that, though her soil might be overrun, the spirit of her people was invincible. reply by daniel webster the eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of the state of south carolina for her revolutionary and other merits meets my hearty concurrence. i shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished character, south carolina has produced. i claim part of the honor, i partake in the pride, of her great names. i claim them for countrymen, one and all,--the laurenses, the rutledges, the pinckneys, the sumters, the marions, americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. in their day and generation they served and honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of massachusetts instead of south carolina? sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? no, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. i thank god that, if i am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, i have yet none, as i trust, of that other spirit which would drag angels down. when i shall be found, sir, in my place here in the senate or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit because it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own state or neighborhood; when i refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the homage due to american talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if i see an uncommon endowment of heaven, if i see extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the south, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by state jealousy, i get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame,--may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than massachusetts and south carolina. would to god that harmony might again return! shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution; hand in hand they stood round the administration of washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust, are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. they are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium upon massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain forever. the bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia; and there they will lie forever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. if discord and party strife shall succeed in separating it from that union by which alone its existence is made sure,--it will stand in the end by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked, and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory and on the very spot of its origin. the republican party by john hay our platform is before the country. perhaps it is lacking in novelty. there is certainly nothing sensational about it. its principles have been tested by eight years of splendid success and have received the approval of the country. it is in line with all our platforms of the past, except where prophecy and promise in those days have become history in these. we stand by the ancient ways which have proved good. we come before the country in a position which cannot be successfully attacked in front, or flank, or rear. what we have done, what we are doing, and what we intend to do--on all three we confidently challenge the verdict of the american people. the record of fifty years will show whether as a party we are fit to govern; the state of our domestic and foreign affairs will show whether as a party we have fallen off; and both together will show whether we can be trusted for a while longer. i want to say a word to the young men whose political life is beginning. any one entering business would be glad of the chance to become one of an established firm with years of success behind it, with a wide connection, with unblemished character, with credit founded on a rock. how infinitely brighter the future when the present is so sure, the past so glorious! everything great done by this country in the last fifty years has been done under the auspices of the republican party. is not this consciousness a great asset to have in your mind and memory? as a mere item of personal comfort is it not worth having? lincoln and grant, hayes and garfield, harrison and mckinley--names secure in the heaven of fame--they all are gone, leaving small estates in worldly goods, but what vast possessions in principles, memories, sacred associations! it is a start in life to share that wealth. who now boasts that he opposed lincoln? who brags of his voting against grant? though both acts may have been from the best of motives. in our form of government there must be two parties, and tradition, circumstances, temperament, will always create a sufficient opposition. but what young man would not rather belong to the party that does things, instead of one that opposes them; to the party that looks up, rather than down; to the party of the dawn, rather than of the sunset? for fifty years the republican party has believed in the country and labored for it in hope and joy; it has reverenced the flag and followed it; it has carried it under strange skies and planted it on far- receding horizons. it has seen the nation grow greater every year and more respected; by just dealing, by intelligent labor, by a genius for enterprise, it has seen the country extend its intercourse and its influence to regions unknown to our fathers. yet it has never abated one jot or tittle of the ancient law imposed on us by our god-fearing ancestors. we have fought a good fight, but also we have kept the faith. the constitution of our fathers has been the light to our feet; our path is, and will ever remain, that of ordered progress, of liberty under the law. the country has vastly increased, but the great-brained statesmen who preceded us provided for infinite growth. the discoveries of science have made miraculous additions to our knowledge. but we are not daunted by progress; we are not afraid of the light. the fabric our fathers builded on such sure foundations will stand all shocks of fate or fortune. there will always be a proud pleasure in looking back on the history they made; but, guided by their example, the coming generation has the right to anticipate work not less important, days equally memorable to mankind. we who are passing off the stage bid you, as the children of israel encamping by the sea were bidden, to go forward; we whose hands can no longer hold the flaming torch pass it on to you that its clear light may show the truth to the ages that are to come. nominating ulysses s. grant by roscoe conkling in obedience to instructions i should never dare to disregard-- expressing, also, my own firm convictions--i rise to propose a nomination with which the country and the republican party can grandly win. the election before us is to be the austerlitz of american politics. it will decide, for many years, whether the country shall be republican or cossack. the supreme need of the hour is not a candidate who can carry michigan. all republican candidates can do that. the need is not of a candidate who is popular in the territories, because they have no vote. the need is of a candidate who can carry doubtful states. not the doubtful states of the north alone, but doubtful states of the south, which we have heard, if i understand it aright, ought to take little or no part here, because the south has nothing to give, but everything to receive. no, gentlemen, the need that presses upon the conscience of this convention is of a candidate who can carry doubtful states both north and south. and believing that he, more surely than any other man, can carry new york against any opponent, and can carry not only the north, but several states of the south, new york is for ulysses s. grant. never defeated in peace or in war, his name is the most illustrious borne by living man. his services attest his greatness, and the country--nay, the world-- knows them by heart. his fame was earned not alone in things written and said, but by the arduous greatness of things done. and perils and emergencies will search in vain in the future, as they have searched in vain in the past, for any other on whom the nation leans with such confidence and trust. never having had a policy to enforce against the will of the people, he never betrayed a cause or a friend, and the people will never desert nor betray him. standing on the highest eminence of human distinction, modest, firm, simple, and self-poised, having filled all lands with his renown, he has seen not only the highborn and the titled, but the poor and the lowly, in the uttermost ends of the earth, rise and uncover before him. he has studied the needs and the defects of many systems of government, and he has returned a better american than ever. his integrity, his common-sense, his courage, his unequaled experience, are the qualities offered to his country. the only argument, the only one that the wit of man or the stress of politics has devised is one that would have dumbfounded solomon, because he thought there was nothing new under the sun. having tried grant twice and found him faithful, we are told that we must not, even after an interval of years, trust him again. my countrymen! my countrymen! what stultification does not such a fallacy involve! is this an electioneering juggle, or is it hypocrisy's masquerade? there is no field of human activity, responsibility, or reason, in which rational beings object to an agent because he has been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. there is, i say, no department of human reason in which sane men reject an agent because he has had experience making him exceptionally competent and fit. this convention is master of a supreme opportunity. it can name the next president. it can make sure of his election. it can make sure not only of his election, but of his certain and peaceful inauguration. gentlemen, we have only to listen above the din and look beyond the dust of an hour to behold the republican party advancing with its ensigns resplendent with illustrious achievements, marching to certain and lasting victory with its greatest marshal at its head. the choice of a party from a speech delivered in new york, . depew's "library of oratory," e. j. bowen and company, new york, publishers. by roscoe conkling we are citizens of a republic. we govern ourselves. here no pomp of eager array in chambers of royalty awaits the birth of boy or girl to wield an hereditary scepter. we know no scepter save a majority's constitutional will. to wield that scepter in equal share is the duty and the right, nay, the birthright, of every citizen. the supreme, the final, the only peaceful arbiter here, is the ballot box; and in that urn should be gathered and from it should be sacredly recorded the conscience, the judgment, the intelligence of all. the right of free self-government has been in all ages the bright dream of oppressed humanity,--the sighed-for privilege to which thrones, dynasties, and power have so long blocked the way. in the fullness of freedom the republic of america is alone in the earth; alone in its grandeur; alone in its blessings; alone in its promises and possibilities, and therefore alone in the devotion due from its citizens. the time has come when law, duty, and interest require the nation to determine for at least four years its policy in many things. two parties exist; parties should always exist in a government of majorities, and to support and strengthen the party which most nearly holds his views is among the most laudable, meritorious acts of an american citizen; and this whether he be in official or in private station. two parties contend for the management of national affairs. the question is, which of the two is it safer and wiser to trust? it is not a question of candidates. a candidate, if he be an honest, genuine man, will not seek and accept a party nomination to the presidency, vice presidency, or congress, and after he is elected become a law unto himself. the higher obligations among men are not set down in writing and signed or sealed; they reside in honor and good faith. the fidelity of a nominee belongs to this exalted class, and therefore the candidate of a party is but the exponent of a party. the object of political discussion and action is to settle principles, policies, and issues. it is a paltry incident of an election affecting fifty million people that it decides for an occasion the aspirations of individual men. the democratic party is the democratic candidate, and i am against the ticket and all its works. a triumphant nationality--a regenerated constitution--a free republic-- an unbroken country--untarnished credit--solvent finances--unparalleled prosperity--all these are ours despite the policy and the efforts of the democratic party. along with the amazing improvement in national finances, we have amazing individual thrift on every side. in every walk of life new activity is felt. labor, agriculture, manufactures, commerce, enterprises, and investments, all are flourishing, content and hopeful. but in the midst of this harmony and encouragement comes a harsh discord crying, "give us a change--anything for a change." this is not a bearing year for "a change." every other crop is good, but not the crop of "change"--that crop is good only when the rest are bad. the country does not need nor wish the change proposed, and to the pressing invitation of our democratic friends a good-natured but firm "no, i thank you," will be the response at the polls. upon its record and its candidates the republican party asks the country's approval, and stands ready to avow its purposes for the future. it proposes to rebuild our commercial marine. it proposes to foster labor, industry, and enterprise. it proposes to stand for education, humanity, and progress. it proposes to administer the government honestly, to preserve amity with all the world, observing our own obligations with others and seeing that others observe theirs with us, to protect every citizen in his rights and equality before the law, to uphold the public credit and the sanctity of engagements; and by doing these things the republican party proposes to assure to industry, humanity, and civilization in america the amplest welcome and the safest home. nominating john sherman from a speech nominating a candidate for president of the united states at the republican national convention, by james a. garfield i have witnessed the extraordinary scenes of this convention with deep solicitude. nothing touches my heart more quickly than a tribute of honor to a great and noble character; but as i sat in my seat and witnessed this demonstration, this assemblage seemed to me a human ocean in tempest. i have seen the sea lashed into fury and tossed into spray, and its grandeur moves the soul of the dullest man; but i remember that it is not the billows, but the calm level of the sea, from which all heights and depths are measured. when the storm has passed and the hour of calm settles on the ocean, when the sunlight bathes its peaceful surface, then the astronomer and surveyor take the level from which they measure all terrestrial heights and depths. gentlemen of the convention, your present temper may not mark the healthful pulse of our people. not here, in this brilliant circle, where fifteen thousand men and women are gathered, is the destiny of the republic to be decreed for the next four years. not here, where i see the enthusiastic faces of seven hundred and fifty-six delegates, waiting to cast their lots into the urn and determine the choice of the republic, but by four millions of republican firesides, where the thoughtful voters, with wives and children about them, with the calm thoughts inspired by love of home and country, with the history of the past, the hopes of the future, and reverence for the great men who have adorned and blessed our nation in days gone by, burning in their hearts,--there god prepares the verdict which will determine the wisdom of our work to-night. not in chicago, in the heat of june, but at the ballot boxes of the republic, in the quiet of november, after the silence of deliberate judgment, will this question be settled. now, gentlemen, i am about to present a name for your consideration,-- the name of one who was the comrade, associate, and friend of nearly all the noble dead, whose faces look down upon us from these walls to- night; a man who began his career of public service twenty-five years ago. you ask for his monument. i point you to twenty-five years of national statutes. not one great, beneficent law has been placed on our statute books without his intelligent and powerful aid. he aided in formulating the laws to raise the great armies and navies which carried us through the war. his hand was seen in the workmanship of those statutes that restored and brought back "the unity and married calm of states." his hand was in all that great legislation that created the war currency, and in all the still greater work that redeemed the promises of the government and made the currency equal to gold. when at last he passed from the halls of legislation into a high executive office, he displayed that experience, intelligence, firmness, and poise of character, which have carried us through a stormy period of three years, with one half the public press crying "crucify him!" and a hostile congress seeking to prevent success. in all this he remained unmoved until victory crowned him. the great fiscal affairs of the nation, and the vast business interests of the country, he guarded and preserved while executing the law of resumption, and effected its object without a jar and against the false prophecies of one half of the press and of all the democratic party. he has shown himself able to meet with calmness the great emergencies of the government. for twenty-five years he has trodden the perilous heights of public duty, and against all the shafts of malice has borne his breast unharmed. he has stood in the blaze of "that fierce light that beats against the throne"; but its fiercest ray has found no flaw in his armor, no stain upon his shield. i do not present him as a better republican or a better man than thousands of others that we honor; but i present him for your deliberate and favorable consideration. i nominate john sherman, of ohio. the democratic party from "the speeches and addresses of william e. russell." copyrighted , by little, brown and company, boston, publishers. by william e. russell as i stand here to-night, a democrat, speaking to democrats, and to men whose conscience party could not bind,--men who carry their sovereignty each under his own hat,--there comes vividly back to me the stirring words with which the chairman opened a similar meeting on the eve of the great battle of , "this is a union meeting;" and, as he spoke, the minds of his hearers went back to war days, when principle was placed above party, and patriotism above partisanship. our union is not for the triumph of any man, but for the triumph of ideas; for a living faith, a progressive spirit. it is of that to-night i speak. it has often been said that there was little difference between the two parties. perhaps that was the criticism of honest men, whose earnest desire for honest candidates led them to look no farther. to-day every intelligent man in massachusetts knows that there is a wide difference between the parties,--all the difference that there is between standing still and moving forward. i do not believe that this difference is accidental. it is the natural evolution of the history and purpose of the parties. a political prophet of a generation ago, who knew this history, who had studied the democratic faith, had seen the birth of the republican party and its purpose, could have predicted the position of the parties to-day. the democratic party is old enough to have outlived and defeated all other parties, young enough to represent the progressive spirit of to-day. it must be founded on vital principles and have a living faith. its creed from its first to its thirty-ninth article is an abiding trust in the people, a belief that men, irrespective of the accident of birth or fortune, have a right to a voice in the government that rules them. its principles are the equality and freedom of all men in affairs of state and before the altar of their god,--that there should be allowed the greatest possible personal liberty, that a government least felt is best, that it should lightly and never unnecessarily impose its burdens of taxation and restriction, that in its administration there should be simplicity, purity, and economy, and in its form it should be closely within the reach and control of the people. progress, merely as progress, is nothing; but progress that sees the changes of a generation,--a blessed, lasting peace in place of the horrors and burdens of civil war, a reunited, loyal country; progress that hears the demand of the people for pure and economic administration, for relief from restrictions and taxation; progress that feels the discontent and suffering of great masses of the people,--this progress, if willing and ready to shape into legislation the new wishes and the new wants, rises to the height of statesmanship. the call to democrats from a speech opening the national democratic convention, at baltimore, maryland, june, . by alton b. parker it is not the wild and cruel methods of revolution and violence that are needed to correct the abuses incident to our government as to all things human. neither material nor moral progress lies that way. we have made our government and our complicated institutions by appeals to reason, seeking to educate all our people that, day after day, year after year, century after century, they may see more clearly, act more justly, become more and more attached to the fundamental ideas that underlie our society. if we are to preserve undiminished the heritage bequeathed us, and add to it those accretions without which society would perish, we shall need all the powers that the school, the church, the court, the deliberative assembly, and the quiet thought of our people can bring to bear. we are called upon to do battle against the unfaithful guardians of our constitution and liberties and the hordes of ignorance which are pushing forward only to the ruin of our social and governmental fabric. too long has the country endured the offenses of the leaders of a party which once knew greatness. too long have we been blind to the bacchanal of corruption. too long have we listlessly watched the assembling of the forces that threaten our country and our firesides. the time has come when the salvation of the country demands the restoration to place and power of men of high ideals who will wage unceasing war against corruption in politics, who will enforce the law against both rich and poor, and who will treat guilt as personal and punish it accordingly. what is our duty? to think alike as to men and measures? impossible! even for our great party! there is not a reactionary among us. all democrats are progressives. but it is inevitably human that we shall not all agree that in a single highway is found the only road to progress, or each make the same man of all our worthy candidates his first choice. it is possible, however, and it is our duty to put aside all selfishness, to consent cheerfully that the majority shall speak for each of us, and to march out of this convention shoulder to shoulder, intoning the praises of our chosen leader--and that will be his due, whichever of the honorable and able men now claiming our attention shall be chosen. nominating woodrow wilson at the national democratic convention, baltimore, maryland, june, . by john w. wescott the new jersey delegation is commissioned to represent the great cause of democracy and to offer you as its militant and triumphant leader a scholar, not a charlatan; a statesman, not a doctrinaire; a profound lawyer, not a splitter of legal hairs; a political economist, not an egotistical theorist; a practical politician, who constructs, modifies, restrains, without disturbance and destruction; a resistless debater and consummate master of statement, not a mere sophist; a humanitarian, not a defamer of characters and lives; a man whose mind is at once cosmopolitan and composite of america; a gentleman of unpretentious habits, with the fear of god in his heart and the love of mankind exhibited in every act of his life; above all a public servant who has been tried to the uttermost and never found wanting--matchless, unconquerable, the ultimate democrat, woodrow wilson. new jersey has reasons for her course. let us not be deceived in our premises. campaigns of vilification, corruption and false pretence have lost their usefulness. the evolution of national energy is towards a more intelligent morality in politics and in all other relations. the situation admits of no compromise. the temper and purpose of the american public will tolerate no other view. the indifference of the american people to politics has disappeared. any platform and any candidate not conforming to this vast social and commercial behest will go down to ignominious defeat at the polls. men are known by what they say and do. they are known by those who hate and oppose them. many years ago woodrow wilson said, "no man is great who thinks himself so, and no man is good who does not try to secure the happiness and comfort of others." this is the secret of his life. the deeds of this moral and intellectual giant are known to all men. they accord, not with the shams and false pretences of politics, but make national harmony with the millions of patriots determined to correct the wrongs of plutocracy and reestablish the maxims of american liberty in all their regnant beauty and practical effectiveness. new jersey loves woodrow wilson not for the enemies he has made. new jersey loves him for what he is. new jersey argues that woodrow wilson is the only candidate who can not only make democratic success a certainty, but secure the electoral vote of almost every state in the union. new jersey will indorse his nomination by a majority of , of her liberated citizens. we are not building for a day, or even a generation, but for all time. new jersey believes that there is an omniscience in national instinct. that instinct centers in woodrow wilson. he has been in political life less than two years. he has had no organization; only a practical ideal--the reestablishment of equal opportunity. not his deeds alone, not his immortal words alone, not his personality alone, not his matchless powers alone, but all combined compel national faith and confidence in him. every crisis evolves its master. time and circumstance have evolved woodrow wilson. the north, the south, the east, and the west unite in him. new jersey appeals to this convention to give the nation woodrow wilson, that he may open the gates of opportunity to every man, woman, and child under our flag, by reforming abuses, and thereby teaching them, in his matchless words, "to release their energies intelligently, that peace, justice and prosperity may reign." new jersey rejoices, through her freely chosen representatives, to name for the presidency of the united states the princeton schoolmaster, woodrow wilson. democratic faith from "the speeches and addresses of william e. russell." copyrighted, , by little, brown and company, boston, publishers by william e. russell for the honor and privilege of addressing this gathering of young democracy i am deeply grateful. with earnestness and enthusiasm, with devotion to the party and its principles, and with unflinching loyalty to its glorious leaders, young democracy meets to-day for organization and action. gladly it volunteers in a campaign where its very faith is at stake; impatiently it awaits the coming of the battle. we fight for measures, not men; the principles of government, not men's characters, are to be discussed; a nation's policy, not personal ambition, is to be determined. thank god, we enter the fight with a living faith, founded upon principles that are just, enduring, as old as the nation itself, yet ever young, vigorous, and progressive, because there is ever work for them to do. our party was not founded for a single mission, which accomplished, left it drifting with no fixed star of principle to guide it. it was born and has lived to uphold great truths of government that need always to be enforced. the influence of the past speaks to us in the voice of the present. jefferson and jackson still lead us, not because they are glorious reminiscences, but because the philosophy of the one, the courage of the other, the democracy of both, are potent factors in determining democracy to-day. we believe that a government which controls the lives, liberties, and property of a people in its administration should be honest, economical, and efficient; and in its form a local self-government kept near to the power that makes and obeys it. to safeguard the rights and liberty of the individual, the democratic party demands home rule. democracy stands beside the humblest citizen to protect him from oppressive government; it is the bulwark of the silent people to resist having the power and purpose of government warped by the clamorous demands of selfish interests. its greatest good, its highest glory, is that it is, and is to be, the people's party. to it government is a power to protect and encourage men to make the most of themselves, and not something for men to make the most out of. and, lastly, we believe in the success, the glory, and the splendid destiny of this great republic. it leaped into life from the hands of democrats. more than three-quarters of a century it has been nurtured and strengthened by democratic rule. under democratic administrations, in its mighty sweep, it has stretched from ocean to ocean, not as a north and south and east and west, but now as a glorious union of sovereign states, reunited in love and loyalty, a great nation of millions of loyal subjects. the faith we profess is distinctly an american faith; the principles we proclaim are distinctly american principles, and have been from their first utterance in the declaration of independence to their latest in the platform of the st. louis convention; the policy they demand of us as democrats is emphatically an american policy. our great leader lives in the faith we profess. he speaks in the principles we assert. he leads because we follow democracy, its faith, its principles, and its policy and hail him as the foremost democrat of the nation. thus comes victory. thus victory means something. thus power and responsibility go together, and the only influence behind him are the wishes, the rights, and the welfare of the great american people. in such a cause, with such a leader, there is no room for failure. "to doubt would be disloyalty, to falter would be sin." england and america by john bright what can be more monstrous than that we, as we call ourselves, to some extent, an educated, a moral, and a christian nation--at a moment when an accident of this kind occurs, before we have made a representation to the american government, before we have heard a word from it in reply--should be all up in arms, every sword leaping from its scabbard, and every man looking about for his pistols and his blunderbusses? i think the conduct pursued--and i have no doubt just the same is pursued by a certain class in america--is much more the conduct of savages than of christian and civilized men. no, let us be calm. you recollect how we were dragged into the russian war--how we "drifted" into it. you know that i, at least, have not upon my head any of the guilt of that fearful war. you know that it cost one hundred millions of money to this country; that it cost at least the lives of forty thousand englishmen; that it disturbed your trade; that it nearly doubled the armies of europe; that it placed the relations of europe on a much less peaceful footing than before; and that it did not effect a single thing of all those that it was promised to effect. now, then, before i sit down, let me ask you what is this people, about which so many men in england at this moment are writing, and speaking, and thinking, with harshness, i think with injustice, if not with great bitterness? two centuries ago, multitudes of the people of this country found a refuge on the north american continent, escaping from the tyranny of the stuarts and from the bigotry of laud. many noble spirits from our country made great experiments in favor of human freedom on that continent. bancroft, the great historian of his own country, has said, in his own graphic and emphatic language, "the history of the colonization of america is the history of the crimes of europe." at this very moment, then, there are millions in the united states who personally, or whose immediate parents have at one time been citizens of this country. they found a home in the far west; they subdued the wilderness; they met with plenty there, which was not afforded them in their native country; and they have become a great people. there may be persons in england who are jealous of those states. there may be men who dislike democracy, and who hate a republic; there may be those whose sympathies warm only toward an oligarchy or a monarchy. but of this i am certain, that only misrepresentation the most gross, or calumny the most wicked, can sever the tie which unites the great mass of the people of this country with their friends and brethren beyond the atlantic. now, whether the union will be restored or not, or the south achieve an unhonored independence or not, i know not, and i predict not. but this i think i know--that in a few years, a very few years, the twenty millions of freemen in the north will be thirty millions, or even fifty millions--a population equal to or exceeding that of this kingdom. when that time comes, i pray that it may not be said among them, that in the darkest hour of their country's trials, england, the land of their fathers, looked on with icy coldness and saw unmoved the perils and calamities of her children. as for me, i have but this to say: i am but one in this audience, and but one in the citizenship of this country; but if all other tongues are silent, mine shall speak for that policy which tends, and which always shall tend, to generous thoughts, and generous words, and generous deeds, between the two great nations who speak the english language, and from their origin are alike entitled to the english name. on home rule in ireland by william e. gladstone there has been no great day of hope for ireland, no day when you might hope completely and definitely to end the controversy till now--more than ninety years. the long periodic time has at last run out, and the star has again mounted into the heavens. what ireland was doing for herself in we at length have done. the roman catholics have been emancipated--emancipated after a woeful disregard of solemn promises through twenty-nine years, emancipated slowly, sullenly, not from good will, but from abject terror, with all the fruits and consequences which will always follow that method of legislation. the second problem has been also solved, and the representation of ireland has been thoroughly reformed; and i am thankful to say that the franchise was given to ireland on the readjustment of last year with a free heart, with an open hand; and the gift of that franchise was the last act required to make the success of ireland in her final effort absolutely sure. we have given ireland a voice; we must all listen for a moment to what she says. we must all listen, both sides, both parties--i mean as they are divided on this question--divided, i am afraid, by an almost immeasurable gap. we do not undervalue or despise the forces opposed to us. i have described them as the forces of class and its dependents; and that as a general description--as a slight and rude outline of a description--is, i believe, perfectly true. you have power, you have wealth, you have rank, you have station, you have organization. what have we? we think that we have the people's heart; we believe and we know we have the promise of the harvest of the future. as to the people's heart, you may dispute it, and dispute it with perfect sincerity. let that matter make its own proof. as to the harvest of the future, i doubt if you have so much confidence; and i believe that there is in the breast of many a man who means to vote against us to- night a profound misgiving, approaching even to a deep conviction, that the end will be as we foresee, and not as you do--that the ebbing tide is with you, and the flowing tide with us. ireland stands at your bar, expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant. her words are the words of truth and soberness. she asks a blessed oblivion of the past, and in that oblivion our interest is deeper than even hers. my right honorable friend, the member for east edinburgh, asks us tonight to abide by the traditions of which we are the heirs. what traditions? by the irish traditions? go into the length and breadth of the world, ransack the literature of all countries, find, if you can, a single voice, a single book--find, i would almost say, as much as a single newspaper article, unless the product of the day,--in which the conduct of england towards ireland is anywhere treated except with profound and bitter condemnation. are these the traditions by which we are exhorted to stand? no; they are a sad exception to the glory of our country. they are a broad and black blot upon the pages of its history; and what we want to do is to stand by the traditions of which we are the heirs in all matters except our relations with ireland, and to make our relations with ireland to conform to the other traditions of our country. so we treat our traditions, so we hail the demand of ireland for what i call a blessed oblivion of the past. she asks also a boon for the future; and that boon for the future, unless we are much mistaken, will be a boon to us in respect of honor, no less than a boon to her in respect of happiness, prosperity, and peace. such, sir, is her prayer. think, i beseech you, think well, think wisely, think, not for the moment, but for the years that are to come, before you reject this bill. the legal plea the dartmouth college case by daniel webster the case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of everyday occurrence. it affects not this college only, but every college, and all the literary institutions of the country. they have flourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and useful to the community. they have all a common principle of existence, the inviolability of their charters. it will be a dangerous, a most dangerous experiment to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuations of political opinions. if the franchise may be at any time taken away, or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or its use perverted. benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their offices. colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and become a theater for the contentions of politics. party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. when the court in north carolina declared the law of the state, which repealed a grant to its university, unconstitutional and void, the legislature had the candor and the wisdom to repeal the law. this example, so honorable to the state which exhibited it, is most fit to be followed on this occasion. and there is good reason to hope that a state which has hitherto been so much distinguished for temperate counsels, cautious legislation, and regard to law, will not fail to adopt a course which will accord with her highest and best interests, and in no small degree elevate her reputation. it was for many and obvious reasons most anxiously desired that the question of the power of the legislature over this charter should have been finally decided in the state court. an earnest hope was entertained that the judges of the court might have reviewed the case in a light favorable to the rights of the trustees. that hope has failed. it is here that those rights are now to be maintained, or they are prostrated forever. this, sir, is my case. it is the case, not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in the land. it is more. it is the case of every eleemosynary institution throughout our country--of all those great charities formed by the piety of our ancestors, to alleviate human misery, and scatter blessings along the pathway of life. it is more! it is, in some sense, the case of every man among us who has property, of which he may be stripped, for the question is simply this: shall our state legislatures be allowed to take that which is not their own; to turn it from its original use, and to apply it to such ends or purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit? sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak; it is in your hands! i know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. you may put it out. but, if you do so, you must carry through your work! you must extinguish, one after another, all those greater lights of science, which, for more than a century, have thrown their radiance over our land! it is, sir, as i have said, a small college, and yet there are those who love it. sir, i know not how others may feel, but for myself, when i see my alma mater surrounded, like cæsar, in the senate house, by those who are reiterating stab after stab, i would not, for this right hand, have her turn to me, and say, _et tu quoque, mi fili! and thou too, my son!_ in defense of the kennistons by daniel webster gentlemen of the jury,--it is true that the offense charged in the indictment in this case is not capital; but perhaps this can hardly be considered as favorable to the defendants. to those who are guilty, and without hope of escape, no doubt the lightness of the penalty of transgression gives consolation. but if the defendants are innocent, it is more natural for them to be thinking upon what they have lost by that alteration of the law which has left highway robbery no longer capital, than what the guilty might gain by it. they have lost those great privileges in their trial, which the law allows, in capital cases, for the protection of innocence against unfounded accusation. they have lost the right of being previously furnished with a copy of the indictment, and a list of the government witnesses. they have lost the right of peremptory challenge; and, notwithstanding the prejudices which they know have been excited against them, they must show legal cause of challenge, in each individual case, or else take the jury as they find it. they have lost the benefit of assignment of counsel by the court. they have lost the benefit of the commonwealth's process to bring in witnesses in their behalf. when to these circumstances it is added that they are strangers, almost wholly without friends, and without the means for preparing their defense, it is evident they must take their trial under great disadvantages. but without dwelling on these considerations, i proceed, gentlemen of the jury, to ask your attention to those circumstances which cannot but cast doubts on the story of the prosecutor. the jury will naturally look to the appearances exhibited on the field after the robbery. the portmanteau was there. the witnesses say that the straps which fastened it to the saddle had been neither cut nor broken. they were carefully unbuckled. this was very considerate for robbers. it had been opened, and its contents were scattered about the field. the pocket book, too, had been opened, and many papers it contained found on the ground. nothing valuable was lost but money. the robbers did not think it well to go off at once with the portmanteau and the pocket book. the place was so secure, so remote, so unfrequented; they were so far from the highway, at least one full rod; there were so few persons passing, probably not more than four or five then in the road, within hearing of the pistols and the cries of goodridge; there being, too, not above five or six dwelling-houses, full of people, within the hearing of the report of a pistol; these circumstances were all so favorable to their safety, that the robbers sat down to look over the prosecutor's papers, carefully examined the contents of his pocket book and portmanteau, and took only the things which they needed! there was money belonging to other persons. the robbers did not take it. they found out it was not the prosecutor's, and left it. it may be said to be favorable to the prosecutor's story, that the money which did not belong to him, and the plunder of which would seem to be the most probable inducement he could have to feign a robbery, was not taken. but the jury will consider whether this circumstance does not bear quite as strongly the other way, and whether they can believe that robbers could have left this money, either from accident or design. ii the witnesses on the part of the prosecution have testified that the defendants, when arrested, manifested great agitation and alarm; paleness overspread their faces, and drops of sweat stood on their temples. this satisfied the witnesses of the defendants' guilt, and they now state the circumstances as being indubitable proof. this argument manifests, in those who use it, an equal want of sense and sensibility. it is precisely fitted to the feeling and the intellect of a bum-bailiff. in a court of justice it deserves nothing but contempt. is there nothing that can agitate the frame or excite the blood but the consciousness of guilt? if the defendants were innocent, would they not feel indignation at this unjust accusation? if they saw an attempt to produce false evidence against them, would they not be angry? and, seeing the production of such evidence, might they not feel fear and alarm? and have indignation, and anger, and terror no power to affect the human countenance or the human frame? miserable, miserable, indeed, is the reasoning which would infer any man's guilt from his agitation when he found himself accused of a heinous offense; when he saw evidence which he might know to be false and fraudulent brought against him; when his house was filled, from the garret to the cellar, by those whom he might esteem as false witnesses; and when he himself, instead of being at liberty to observe their conduct and watch their motions, was a prisoner in close custody in his own house, with the fists of a catchpoll clenched upon his throat. from the time of the robbery to the arrest, five or six weeks, the defendants were engaged in their usual occupations. they are not found to have passed a dollar of money to anybody. they continued their ordinary habits of labor. no man saw money about them, nor any circumstance that might lead to a suspicion that they had money. nothing occurred tending in any degree to excite suspicion against them. when arrested, and when all this array of evidence was brought against them, and when they could hope in nothing but their innocence, immunity was offered them again if they would confess. they were pressed, and urged, and allured, by every motive which could be set before them, to acknowledge their participation in the offense, and to bring out their accomplices. they steadily protested that they could confess nothing because they knew nothing. in defiance of all the discoveries made in their house, they have trusted to their innocence. on that, and on the candor and discernment of an enlightened jury, they still rely. if the jury are satisfied that there is the highest improbability that these persons could have had any previous knowledge of goodridge, or been concerned in any previous concert to rob him; if their conduct that evening and the next day was marked by no circumstance of suspicion; if from that moment until their arrest nothing appeared against them; if they neither passed money, nor are found to have had money; if the manner of the search of their house, and the circumstances attending it, excite strong suspicions of unfair and fraudulent practices; if, in the hour of their utmost peril, no promises of safety could draw from the defendants any confession affecting themselves or others, it will be for the jury to say whether they can pronounce them guilty. in defence of john e. cook published in depew's "library of oratory," e. j. bowen and company, new york, publishers. by d. w. voorhees who is john e. cook? he has the right himself to be heard before you; but i will answer for him. sprung from an ancestry of loyal attachment to the american government, he inherits no blood of tainted impurity. his grandfather, an officer of the revolution, by which your liberty, as well as mine, was achieved, and his gray-haired father, who lived to weep over him, a soldier of the war of , he brings no dishonored lineage into your presence. born of a parent stock occupying the middle walks of life, and possessed of all those tender and domestic virtues which escape the contamination of those vices that dwell on the frozen peaks, or in the dark and deep caverns of society, he would not have been here had precept and example been remembered in the prodigal wanderings of his short and checkered life. poor deluded boy! wayward, misled child! an evil star presided over thy natal hour and smote it with gloom. in an evil hour--and may it be forever accursed!--john e. cook met john brown on the prostituted plains of kansas. on that field of fanaticism, three years ago, this fair and gentle youth was thrown into contact with the pirate and robber of civil warfare. now look at john cook, the follower. he is in evidence before you. never did i plead for a face that i was more willing to show. if evil is there, i have not seen it. if murder is there, i am to learn to mark the lines of the murderer anew. if the assassin is in that young face, then commend me to the look of an assassin. no, gentlemen, it is a face for a mother to love, and a sister to idolize, and in which the natural goodness of his heart pleads trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation that estranged him from home and its principles. john brown was the despotic leader and john e. cook was an ill-fated follower of an enterprise whose horror be now realizes and deplores. i defy the man, here or elsewhere, who has ever known john e. cook, who has ever looked once fully into his face, and learned anything of his history, to lay his hand on his heart and say that he believes him guilty of the origin or the results of the outbreak at harper's ferry. here, then, are the two characters whom you are thinking to punish alike. can it be that a jury of christian men will find no discrimination should be made between them? are the tempter and the tempted the same in your eyes? is the beguiled youth to die the same as the old offender who has pondered his crimes for thirty years? are there no grades in your estimations of guilt? is each one, without respect to age or circumstances, to be beaten with the same number of stripes? such is not the law, human or divine. we are all to be rewarded according to our works, whether in punishment for evil, or blessings for good that we have done. you are here to do justice, and if justice requires the same fate to befall cook that befalls brown, i know nothing of her rules, and do not care to learn. they are as widely asunder, in all that constitutes guilt, as the poles of the earth, and should be dealt with accordingly. it is in your power to do so, and by the principles by which you yourselves are willing to be judged hereafter, i implore you to do it! in defense of the soldiers published in "depew's library of oratory," e. j. bowen and company, new york, publishers by josiah quincy, jr. may it please your honors, and you gentlemen of the jury,--we have at length gone through the evidence in behalf of the prisoners. the witnesses have now placed before you that state of facts from which results our defense. i stated to you, gentlemen, your duty in opening this cause--do not forget the discharge of it. you are paying a debt you owe the community for your own protection and safety: by the same mode of trial are your own rights to receive a determination; and in your turn a time may come when you will expect and claim a similar return from some other jury of your fellow subjects. how much need was there for my desire that you should suspend your judgment till the witnesses were all examined? how different is the complexion of the cause? will not all this serve to show every honest man the little truth to be attained in partial hearings? in the present case, how great was the prepossession against us? and i appeal to you, gentlemen, what cause there now is to alter our sentiments? will any sober, prudent man countenance the proceedings of the people in king street,--can any one justify their conduct,--is there any one man or any body of men who are interested to espouse and support their conduct? surely, no! but our inquiry must be confined to the legality of their conduct, and here can be no difficulty. it was certainly illegal, unless many witnesses are directly perjured: witnesses, who have no apparent interest to falsify,--witnesses who have given their testimony with candor and accuracy,--witnesses whose credibility stands untouched,--whose credibility the counsel for the king do not pretend to impeach or hint a suggestion to their disadvantage. i say, gentlemen, by the standard of the law are we to judge the actions of the people who were the assailants and those who were the assailed and then on duty. and here, gentlemen, the rule we formerly laid down takes place. to the facts, gentlemen, apply yourselves. consider them as testified; weigh the credibility of the witnesses-- balance their testimony--compare the several parts of it--see the amount of it; and then, according to your oath, "make true deliverance according to your evidence." that is, gentlemen, having settled the facts, bring them truly to the standard of the law; the king's judges, who are acquainted with it, who are presumed best to know it, will then inspect this great standard of right and wrong, truth and justice; and they are to determine the degree of guilt to which the fact rises. ii may it please your honors, and you gentlemen of the jury,--after having thus gone through the evidence and considered it as applicatory to all and every one of the prisoners, let us take once more a brief and cursory survey of matters supported by the evidence. and here let me ask in sober reason, what language more opprobrious, what actions more exasperating, than those used on this occasion? words, i am sensible, are no justification of blows, but they serve as the grand clew to discover the temper and the designs of the agents; they serve also to give us light in discerning the apprehensions and thoughts of those who are the objects of abuse. "you lobsters!"--"you bloody-back!"--"you coward!"--"you dastard!" are but some of the expressions proved. what words more galling? what more cutting and provoking to a soldier? but accouple these words with the succeeding actions,--"you dastard!"--"you coward!" a soldier and a coward! this was touching "the point of honor and the pride of virtue." but while these are as yet fomenting the passions and swelling the bosom, the attack is made; and probably the latter words were reiterated at the onset; at least, were yet sounding in the ear. gentlemen of the jury, for heaven's sake, let us put ourselves in the same situation! would you not spurn at that spiritless institution of society which tells you to be a subject at the expense of your manhood? but does the soldier step out of his ranks to seek his revenge? not a witness pretends it. did not the people repeatedly come within the points of their bayonets and strike on the muzzles of the guns? you have heard the witnesses. does the law allow one member of the community to behave in this manner towards his fellow citizen, and then bid the injured party be calm and moderate? the expressions from one party were--"stand off, stand off!"--"i am upon my station."--"if they molest me upon my post, i will fire."--"keep off!" these words were likely to produce reflection and procure peace. but had the words on the other hand a similar tendency? consider the temper prevalent among all parties at this time. consider the situation of the soldiery; and come to the heat and pressure of the action. the materials are laid, the spark is raised, the fire enkindles, all prudence and true wisdom are utterly consumed. does common sense, does the law expect impossibilities? here, to expect equanimity of temper, would be as irrational as to expect discretion in a madman. but was anything done on the part of the assailants similar to the conduct, warnings, and declarations of the prisoners? answer for yourselves, gentlemen! the words reiterated all around stabbed to the heart; the actions of the assailants tended to a worse end,--to awaken every passion of which the human breast is susceptible; fear, anger, pride, resentment, revenge, alternately take possession of the whole man. to expect, under these circumstances, that such words would assuage the tempest, that such actions would allay the flames,--you might as rationally expect the inundations of a torrent would suppress a deluge, or rather that the flames of aetna would extinguish a conflagration! iii gentlemen of the jury,--this case has taken up much of your time, and is likely to take up so much more that i must hasten to a close. indeed, i should not have troubled you, by being thus lengthy, but from a sense of duty to the prisoners; they who in some sense may be said to have put their lives in my hands; they whose situation was so peculiar that we have necessarily taken up more time than ordinary cases require. they, under all these circumstances, placed a confidence it was my duty not to disappoint, and which i have aimed at discharging with fidelity. i trust you, gentlemen, will do the like; that you will examine and judge with a becoming temper of mind; remembering that they who are under oath to declare the whole truth think and act very differently from bystanders, who, being under no ties of this kind, take a latitude which is by no means admissible in a court of law. i cannot close this cause better than by desiring you to consider well the genius and spirit of the law which will be laid down, and to govern yourselves by this great standard of truth. to some purposes, you may be said, gentlemen, to be ministers of justice; and "ministers," says a learned judge, "appointed for the ends of public justice, should have written on their hearts the solemn engagements of his majesty, at his coronation, to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all his judgments." "the quality of mercy is not strained; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven:... it is twice blessed; it blesseth him that gives, and him that takes." i leave you, gentlemen, hoping you will be directed in your inquiry and judgment to a right discharge of your duty. we shall all of us, gentlemen, have an hour of cool reflection when the feelings and agitations of the day shall have subsided; when we shall view things through a different and a much juster medium. it is then we all wish an absolving conscience. may you, gentlemen, now act such a part as will hereafter insure it; such a part as may occasion the prisoners to rejoice. may the blessing of those who were in jeopardy of life come upon you--may the blessing of him who is "not faulty to die" descend and rest upon you and your posterity. in defense of lord george gordon before the court of king's bench, by lord thomas erskine gentlemen,--you have now heard, upon the solemn oaths of honest, disinterested men, a faithful history of the conduct of lord george gordon, from the day that he became a member of the protestant association to the day that he was committed a prisoner to the tower. and i have no doubt, from the attention with which i have been honored from the beginning, that you have still kept in your minds the principles to which i entreated you would apply it, and that you have measured it by that standard. you have, therefore, only to look back to the whole of it together; to reflect on all you have heard concerning him; to trace him in your recollection through every part of the transaction; and, considering it with one manly, liberal view, to ask your own honest hearts, whether you can say that this noble and unfortunate youth is a wicked and deliberate traitor, who deserves by your verdict to suffer a shameful and ignominious death, which will stain the ancient honors of his house forever. the crime which the crown would have fixed upon him is, that he assembled the protestant association round the house of commons, not merely to influence and persuade parliament by the earnestness of their supplications, but actually to coerce it by hostile, rebellious force; that, finding himself disappointed in the success of that coercion, he afterward incited his followers to abolish the legal indulgences to papists, which the object of the petition was to repeal, by the burning of their houses of worship, and the destruction of their property, which ended, at last, in a general attack on the property of all orders of men, religious and civil, on the public treasures of the nation, and on the very being of the government. to support a charge of so atrocious and unnatural a complexion, the laws of the most arbitrary nations would require the most incontrovertible proof. and what evidence, gentlemen of the jury, does the crown offer to you in compliance with these sound and sacred doctrines of justice? a few broken, interrupted, disjointed words, without context or connection--uttered by the speaker in agitation and heat--heard, by those who relate them to you, in the midst of tumult and confusion--and even those words, mutilated as they are, in direct opposition to, and inconsistent with, repeated and earnest declarations delivered at the very same time and on the very same occasion, related to you by a much greater number of persons, and absolutely incompatible with the whole tenor of his conduct. which of us all, gentlemen, would be safe, standing at the bar of god or man, if we were not to be judged by the regular current of our lives and conversations, but by detached and unguarded expressions, picked out by malice, and recorded, without context or circumstances, against us? yet such is the only evidence on which the crown asks you to dip your hands, and to stain your consciences, in the innocent blood of the noble and unfortunate youth who stands before you. i am sure you cannot but see, notwithstanding my great inability, increased by a perturbation of mind (arising, thank god! from no dishonest cause), that there has been not only no evidence on the part of the crown to fix the guilt of the late commotions upon the prisoner, but that, on the contrary, we have been able to resist the probability, i might almost say the possibility of the charge, not only by living witnesses, whom we only ceased to call because the trial would never have ended, but by the evidence of all the blood that has paid the forfeit of that guilt already; since, out of all the felons who were let loose from prisons, and who assisted in the destruction of our property, not a single wretch was to be found who could even attempt to save his own life by the plausible promise of giving evidence to-day. what can overturn such a proof as this? surely a good man might, without superstition, believe that such a union of events was something more than natural, and that a divine providence was watchful for the protection of innocence and truth. i may now, therefore, relieve you from the pain of hearing me any longer, and be myself relieved from speaking on a subject which agitates and distresses me. since lord george gordon stands clear of every hostile act or purpose against the legislature of his country, or the properties of his fellow-subjects--since the whole tenor of conduct repels the belief of the _traitorous intention_ charged by the indictment--my task is finished. i shall make no address to your passions. i will not remind you of the long and rigorous imprisonment he has suffered; i will not speak to you of his great youth, of his illustrious birth, and of his uniformly animated and generous zeal in parliament for the constitution of his country. such topics might be useful in the balance; yet, even then, i should have trusted to the honest hearts of englishmen to have felt them without excitation. at present, the plain and rigid rules of justice and truth are sufficient to entitle me to your verdict. pronouncing sentence for high treason by sir alfred wills arthur alfred lynch, otherwise arthur lynch, the jury have found you guilty of the crime of high treason, a crime happily so rare that in the present day a trial for treason seems to be almost an anachronism-- a thing of the past. the misdeeds which have been done in this case, and which have brought you to the lamentable pass in which you stand, must surely convince the most skeptical and apathetic of the gravity and reality of the crime. what was your action in the darkest hour of your country's fortunes, when she was engaged in the deadly struggle from which she has just emerged? you joined the ranks of your country's foes. born in australia, a land which has nobly shown its devotion to its parent country, you have indeed taken a different course from that which was adopted by her sons. you have fought against your country, not with it. you have sought, as far as you could, to dethrone great britain from her place among the nations, to make her name a byword and a reproach, a synonym for weakness and irresolution. nor can i forget that you have shed the blood, or done your best to shed the blood, of your countrymen who were fighting for their country. how many wives have been made widows, how many children orphans, by what you and those who acted under your command have done, heaven only knows! you thought it safe at that dark hour of the empire's fate, when ladysmith, when kimberley, when mafeking, were in the very jaws of deadly peril--you thought it safe, no doubt, to lift the parricidal hand against your country. you thought she would shrink from the costly struggle wearied out by her gigantic efforts, and that, at the worst, a general peace would be made which would comprehend a general amnesty and cover up such acts as yours and save you from personal peril. you misjudged your country and failed to appreciate that, though slow to enter into a quarrel, however slow to take up arms, it has yet been her wont that in the quarrel she shall bear herself so that the opposer may beware of her, and that she is seldom so dangerous to her enemies as when the hour of national calamity has raised the dormant energies of her people--knit together every nerve and fiber of the body politic, and has made her sons determined to do all, to sacrifice all on behalf of the country that gave them birth. and against what a sovereign and what a country did you lift your hand! a sovereign the best beloved and most deeply honored of all the long line of english kings and queens, and whose lamented death was called back to my remembrance only yesterday as a fresh sorrow to many an english household. against a country which has been the home of progress and freedom, and under whose beneficent sway, whenever you have chosen to stay within her dominions, you have enjoyed a liberty of person, a freedom of speech and action, such as you can have in no other country in europe, and it is not too much to say in no other country in the world. the only--i will not say excuse, but palliation that i can find for conduct like yours is that it has been for some years past the fashion to treat lightly matters of this kind, so that men have been perhaps encouraged to play with sedition and to toy with treason, wrapt in a certain proud consciousness of strength begotten of the deep-seated and well-founded conviction that the loyalty of her people is supreme, and true authority in this country has slumbered or has treated with contemptuous indifference speeches and acts of sedition. it may be that you have been misled into the notion that, no matter what you did, so long as your conduct could be called a political crime, it was of no consequence. but it is one thing to talk sedition and to do small seditious acts, it is quite another thing to bear arms in the ranks of the foes of your country, and against it. between the two the difference is immeasurable. but had you and those with whom you associated yourself succeeded, what fatal mischief might have been done to the great inheritance which has been bequeathed to us by our forefathers--that inheritance of power which it must be our work to use nobly and for good things; an inheritance of influence which will be of little effect even for good unless backed by power, and of duty which cannot be effectually performed if our power be shattered and our influence impaired. he who has attempted to do his country such irreparable wrong must be prepared to submit to the sentence which it is now my duty to pronounce upon you. the sentence of this court--and it is pronounced in regard to each count of the indictment--is that you be taken hence to the place from which you came, and from thence to a place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. the impeachment of andrew johnson from the official records of the trial in the united states senate, by george s. boutwell andrew johnson has disregarded and violated the laws and constitution of his own country. under his administration the government has not been strengthened, but weakened. its reputation and influence at home and abroad have been injured and diminished. ten states of this union are without law, without security, without safety; public order everywhere violated, public justice nowhere respected; and all in consequence of the evil purposes and machinations of the president. forty millions of people have been rendered anxious and uncertain as to the preservation of public peace and the perpetuity of the institutions of freedom in this country. all classes are oppressed by the private and public calamities which he has brought upon them. they appeal to you for relief. the nation waits in anxiety for the conclusion of these proceedings. forty millions of people, whose interest in public affairs is in the wise and just administration of the laws, look to this tribunal as a sure defense against the encroachments of a criminally minded chief magistrate. will any one say that the heaviest judgment which you can render is any adequate punishment for these crimes? your office is not punishment, but to secure the safety of the republic. but human tribunals are inadequate to punish those criminals who, as rulers or magistrates, by their example, conduct, policy, and crimes, become the scourge of communities and nations. no picture, no power of the imagination, can illustrate or conceive the suffering of the poor but loyal people of the south. a patriotic, virtuous, law-abiding chief magistrate would have healed the wounds of war, soothed private and public sorrows, protected the weak, encouraged the strong, and lifted from the southern people the burdens which now are greater than they can bear. travelers and astronomers inform us that in the southern heavens, near the southern cross, there is a vast space which the uneducated call the hole in the sky, where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of the telescope, has been unable to discover nebulae, or asteroid, or comet, or planet, or star, or sun. in that dreary, cold, dark region of space, which is only known to be less than infinite by the evidences of creation elsewhere, the great author of celestial mechanism has left the chaos which was in the beginning. if this earth were capable of the sentiments and emotions of justice and virtue, which in human mortal beings are the evidences and the pledge of our divine origin and immortal destiny, it would heave and throw, with the energy of the elemental forces of nature, and project this enemy of two races of men into that vast region, there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life, or as the absence of life, emblematical of, if not really, that "outer darkness" of which the savior of man spoke in warning to those who are the enemies of themselves, of their race, and of their god. but it is yours to relieve, not to punish. this done and our country is again advanced in the intelligent opinion of mankind. in other governments an unfaithful ruler can be removed only by revolution, violence, or force. the proceeding here is judicial, and according to the forms of law. your judgment will be enforced without the aid of a policeman or a soldier. what other evidence will be needed of the value of republican institutions? what other test of the strength and vigor of our government? what other assurance that the virtue of the people is equal to any emergency of national life? by william m. evarts mr. chief justice and senators,--if indeed we have arrived at a settled conclusion that this is a court, that it is governed by the law, that it is to confine its attention to the facts applicable to the law, and regard the sole evidence of those facts to be embraced within the testimony of witnesses or documents produced in court, we have made great progress in separating, at least, from your further consideration much that has been impressed upon your attention heretofore. it follows from this that the president is to be tried upon the charges which are produced here, and not upon common fame. i may as conveniently at this point of the argument as at any other pay some attention to the astronomical punishment which the learned and honorable manager, mr. boutwell, thinks should be applied to this novel case of impeachment of the president. cicero i think it is who says that a lawyer should know everything, for sooner or later there is no fact in history, in science, or of human knowledge that will not come into play in his arguments. painfully sensible of my ignorance, being devoted to a profession which "sharpens and does not enlarge the mind," i yet can admire without envy the superior knowledge evinced by the honorable manager. indeed, upon my soul, i believe he is aware of an astronomical fact which many professors of that science are wholly ignorant of. but nevertheless, while some of his honorable colleagues were paying attention to an unoccupied and unappropriated island on the surface of the seas, mr. manager boutwell, more ambitious, had discovered an untenanted and unappropriated region in the skies, reserved, he would have us think, in the final councils of the almighty, as the place of punishment for convicted and deposed american presidents. at first i thought that his mind had become so "enlarged" that it was not "sharp" enough to discover the constitution had limited the punishment; but on reflection i saw that he was as legal and logical as he was ambitious and astronomical, for the constitution has said "removal from office," and has put no limit to the distance of the removal, so that it may be, without shedding a drop of his blood, or taking a penny of his property, or confining his limbs, instant removal from office and transportation to the skies. truly, this is a great undertaking; and if the learned manager can only get over the obstacles of the laws of nature the constitution will not stand in his way. he can contrive no method but that of a convulsion of the earth that shall project the deposed president to this infinitely distant space; but a shock of nature of so vast an energy and for so great a result on him might unsettle even the footing of the firm members of congress. we certainly need not resort to so perilous a method as that. how shall we accomplish it? why, in the first place, nobody knows where that space is but the learned manager himself, and he is the necessary deputy to execute the judgment of the court. let it then be provided that in case of your sentence of deposition and removal from office the honorable and astronomical manager shall take into his own hands the execution of the sentence. with the president made fast to his broad and strong shoulders, and, having already essayed the flight by imagination, better prepared than anybody else to execute it in form, taking the advantage of ladders as far as ladders will go to the top of this great capitol, and spurning then with his foot the crest of liberty, let him set out upon his flight, while the two houses of congress and all the people of the united states shall shout, "_sic itur ad astra_." ii but here a distressing doubt strikes me; how will the manager get back? he will have got far beyond the reach of gravitation to restore him, and so ambitious a wing as his could never stoop to a downward flight. indeed, as he passes through the constellations, that famous question of carlyle by which he derides the littleness of human affairs upon the scale of the measure of the heavens, "what thinks bœotes as he drives his dogs up the zenith in their race of sidereal fire?" will force itself on his notice. what, indeed, would bœotes think of this new constellation? besides, reaching this space, beyond the power of congress even "to send for persons and papers," how shall he return, and how decide in the contest, there become personal and perpetual, the struggle of strength between him and the president? in this new revolution, thus established forever, who shall decide which is the sun and which is the moon? who determine the only scientific test which reflects the hardest upon the other? mr. chief justice and senators, we have come all at once to the great experiences and trials of a full-grown nation, all of which we thought we should escape--the distractions of civil strife, the exhaustions of powerful war. we could summon from the people a million of men and inexhaustible treasure to help the constitution in its time of need. can we summon now resources enough of civil prudence and of restraint of passion to carry us through this trial, so that whatever result may follow, in whatever form, the people may feel that the constitution has received no wound! to this court, the last and best resort for this determination, it is to be left. and oh, if you could only carry yourselves back to the spirit and the purpose and the wisdom and the courage of the framers of the government, how safe would it be in your hands? how safe is it now in your hands, for you who have entered into their labors will see to it that the structure of your work comports in durability and excellence with theirs. indeed, so familiar has the course of the argument made us with the names of the men of the convention and of the first congress that i could sometimes seem to think that the presence even of the chief justice was replaced by the serene majesty of washington, and that from massachusetts we had adams and ames, from connecticut, sherman and ellsworth, from new jersey, paterson and boudinot, and from new york, hamilton and benson, and that they were to determine this case for us. act, then, as if under this serene and majestic presence your deliberations were to be conducted to their close, and the constitution was to come out from the watchful solicitude of these great guardians of it as if from their own judgment in this court of impeachment. the after-dinner speech at a university club dinner reprinted, with the author's permission, from a speech at a dinner of the harvard club of new york city. by henry e. howland there should be a proper amount of modesty in one called upon to address such an intelligent audience of educated men as i see before me, and i am conscious of it in the same sense as the patient who said to his physician, "i suffer a great deal from nervous dyspepsia, and i attribute it to the fact that i attend so many public dinners." "ah, i see," said the doctor, "you are often called upon to speak, and the nervous apprehension upsets your digestion." "not at all; my apprehension is entirely on account of the other speakers; i never say a thing;" and it is with some hesitation that i respond to your call. following out that line of thought, there is a great deal that is attractive in a gathering of college men. they have such a winsome and a winning way with them. richest in endowments, foremost in progress, honored by the renown of a long line of distinguished sons, the university that claims you is worthy of the homage and respect which it receives from the educated men of america. the study of the development of the human race by educational processes which change by necessity under changing conditions and environment, is one of the most interesting that we can engage in. the greatest men of this country, or any other, have not always been made by the university, however it may be with the average. you cannot always tell by a man's degree what manner of man he is likely to be. but the value of a technical or academic training is apparent as time goes on, population increases, occupations multiply and compete, and the strife of life becomes more fierce and strenuous. many in these days seem to prefer notoriety to fame, because it runs along the line of least resistance. a man has to climb for fame, but he can get notoriety by an easy tumble. and others forget the one essential necessary to success, of personal effort, and, assuming there is a royal road to learning, are content with the distinction of a degree from a university, without caring for what it implies, and answer as the son did to his father who asked him: "why don't you work, my son? if you only knew how much happiness work brings, you would begin at once." "father, i am trying to lead a life of self-denial in which happiness cuts no figure; do not tempt me." but notwithstanding all these tendencies, the level of mankind is raised at these fountains of learning, the tone is higher, and the standards are continually advanced. the discipline and the training reaches and acts upon a willing and eager army of young recruits and works its salutary effect, like that upon a man who listened with rapt attention to a discourse from the pulpit and was congratulated upon his devotion, and asked if he was not impressed. "yes," he replied, "for it is a mighty poor sermon that doesn't hit me somewhere." however discouraging the action of our governing bodies through the obstruction and perverse action of an ignorant or corrupt majority or minority in them may be in the administration of great public affairs, the time at last comes when the nation arouses from its lethargy, shakes off its torpor, shows the strain of its blood, and follows its trained and intelligent leaders, like the man who, in a time of sore distress, after the ancient fashion, put ashes on his head, rent his garments, tore off his coat, his waistcoat, his shirt, and his undershirt, and at last came to himself. at such times, by the universal voice of public opinion and amid hearty applause of the whole people, we welcome to public office and the highest responsible stations such men as our universities have given to the country. it matters not to what family we belong--harvard, yale, columbia, or princeton--we are all of us one in our welcome to them, for they represent the university spirit and what it teaches--honor, high- mindedness, intelligence, truthfulness, unselfishness, courage, and patriotism. the evacuation of new york reprinted with the author's permission by joseph h. choate mr. president and gentlemen,--i came here to-night with some notes for a speech in my pocket, but i have been sitting next to general butler, and in the course of the evening they have mysteriously disappeared. the consequence is, gentlemen, that you may expect a very good speech from him and a very poor one from me. when i read this toast which you have just drunk in honor of her gracious majesty, the queen of great britain, and heard how you received the letter of the british minister that was read in response, and how heartily you joined in singing "god save the queen," when i look up and down these tables and see among you so many representatives of english capital and english trade, i have my doubts whether the evacuation of new york by the british was quite as thorough and lasting as history would fain have us believe. if george iii, who certainly did all he could to despoil us of our rights and liberties and bring us to ruin--if he could rise from his grave and see how his granddaughter is honored at your hands to-night, why, i think he would return whence he came, thanking god that his efforts to enslave us, in which for eight long years he drained the resources of the british empire, were not successful. the truth is, the boasted triumph of new york in getting rid of the british once and forever has proved, after all, to be but a dismal failure. we drove them out in one century only to see them return in the next to devour our substance and to carry off all the honors. we have just seen the noble chief justice of england, the feasted favorite of all america, making a triumphal tour across the continent and carrying all before him at the rate of fifty miles an hour. night after night at our very great cost we have been paying the richest tribute to the reigning monarch of the british stage, and nowhere in the world are english men and women of character and culture received with a more hearty welcome, a more earnest hospitality, than in this very state of new york. the truth is, that this event that we celebrate to-day, which sealed the independence of america and seemed for a time to give a staggering blow to the prestige and the power of england, has proved to be no less a blessing to her own people than to ours. the latest and best of the english historians has said that, however important the independence of america might be in the history of england, it was of overwhelming importance in the history of the world, and that though it might have crippled for a while the supremacy of the english nation, it founded the supremacy of the english race. and in the same spirit we welcome the fact that those social, political, and material barriers that separated the two nations a century ago have now utterly vanished; that year by year we are being drawn closer and closer together, and that this day may be celebrated with equal fitness on both sides of the atlantic and by all who speak the english tongue. ties of kinship from "modern eloquence," vol. i, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by sir edwin arnold when i was conversing recently with lord tennyson, he said to me: "it is bad for us that english will always be a spoken speech, since that means that it will always be changing, and so the time will come when you and i will be as hard to read for the common people as chaucer is to-day." you remember what opinion your brilliant humorist, artemus ward, let fall concerning that ancient singer. "mr. chaucer," he observed casually, "is an admirable poet, but as a spellist, a very decided failure." to the treasure house of that noble tongue the united states has splendidly contributed. it would be far poorer to-day without the tender lines of longfellow, the serene and philosophic pages of emerson, the convincing wit and clear criticism of my illustrious departed friend, james russell lowell, the catullus-like perfection of the lyrics of edgar allan poe, and the glorious, large-tempered dithyrambs of walt whitman. these stately and sacred laurel groves grow here in a garden forever extending, ever carrying further forward, for the sake of humanity, the irresistible flag of our saxon supremacy, leading one to falter in an attempt to eulogize america and the idea of her potency and her promise. the most elaborate panegyric would seem but a weak impertinence, which would remind you, perhaps too vividly, of sydney smith, who, when he saw his grandchild pat the back of a large turtle, asked her why she did so. the little maid replied: "grandpa, i do it to please the turtle." "my child," he answered, "you might as well stroke the dome of st. paul's to please the dean and chapter" i myself once heard, in our zoological gardens in london, another little girl ask her mamma whether it would hurt the elephant if she offered him a chocolate drop. in that guarded and respectful spirit is it that i venture to tell you here to-night how truly in england the peace and prosperity of your republic is desired, and that nothing except good will is felt by the mass of our people toward you, and nothing but the greatest satisfaction in your wealth and progress. between these two majestic sisters of the saxon blood the hatchet of war is, please god, buried. no cause of quarrel, i think and hope, can ever be otherwise than truly out of proportion to the vaster causes of affection and accord. we have no longer to prove to each other, or to the world, that englishmen and americans are high-spirited and fearless; that englishmen and americans alike will do justice, and will have justice, and will put up with nothing else from each other and from the nations at large. our proofs are made on both sides, and indelibly written on the page of history. not that i wish to speak platitudes about war. it has been necessary to human progress; it has bred and preserved noble virtues; it has been inevitable, and may be again; but it belongs to a low civilization. other countries have, perhaps, not yet reached that point of intimate contact and rational advance, but for us two, at least, the time seems to have come when violent decisions, and even talk of them, should be as much abolished between us as cannibalism. i ventured, when in washington, to propose to president harrison that we should some day, the sooner the better, choose five men of public worth in the united states, and five in england; give them gold coats if you please, and a handsome salary, and establish them as a standing and supreme tribunal of arbitration, referring to them the little family fallings-out of america and of england, whenever something goes wrong between us about a sealskin in behring strait, a lobster pot, an ambassador's letter, a border tariff, or an irish vote. he showed himself very well disposed toward my suggestion. mr. president, in the sacred hope that you take me to be a better poet than orator, i thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your reception to-night, and personally pray for the tranquility and prosperity of this free and magnificent republic. canada, england, and the united states from an address in brewer's "the world's best orations," vol. vii, ferd p. kaiser, st. louis, chicago, publishers. by sir wilfred laurier mr. toastmaster, mr. president, and gentlemen,--i very fully and very cordially appreciate the very kind feelings which have just now been uttered by the toastmaster in terms so eloquent, and which you gentlemen have accepted and received in so sympathetic a manner. let me say at once, in the name of my fellow-canadians who are here with me and also, i may say, in the name of the canadian people, that these feelings we shall at all times reciprocate; reciprocate, not only in words evanescent, but in actual living deeds. because i must say that i feel that, though the relations between canada and the united states are good, though they are brotherly, though they are satisfactory, in my judgment they are not as good, as brotherly, as satisfactory as they ought to be. we are of the same stock. we spring from the same races on one side of the line as on the other. we speak the same language. we have the same literature, and for more than a thousand years we have had a common history. let me recall to you the lines which, in the darkest days of the civil war, the puritan poet of america issued to england:-- "oh, englishmen! oh, englishmen! in hope and creed, in blood and tongue, are brothers, we all are heirs of runnymede." brothers we are, in the language of your own poet. may i not say that while our relations are not always as brotherly as they should have been, may i not ask, mr. president, on the part of canada and on the part of the united states, if we are sometimes too prone to stand by the full conceptions of our rights, and exact all our rights to the last pound of flesh? may i not ask if there have not been too often between us petty quarrels, which happily do not wound the heart of the nation? there was a civil war in the last century. there was a civil war between england, then, and her colonies. the union which then existed between england and her colonies was severed. if it was severed, american citizens, as you know it was, through no fault of your fathers, the fault was altogether the fault of the british government of that day. if the british government of that day had treated the american colonies as the british government for the last twenty or fifty years has treated its colonies; if great britain had given you then the same degree of liberty which it gives to canada, my country; if it had given you, as it has given us, legislative independence absolute,--the result would have been different; the course of victory, the course of history, would have been very different. but what has been done cannot be undone. you cannot expect that the union which was then severed shall ever be restored; but can we not expect--can we not hope that the banners of england and the banners of the united states shall never, never again meet in conflict, except those conflicts provided by the arts of peace, such as we see to-day in the harbor of new york in the contest between the _shamrock_ and the _columbia_ for the supremacy of naval architecture and naval prowess? can we not hope that if ever the banners of england and the banners of the united states are again to meet on the battlefield, they shall meet entwined together in the defense of some holy cause, in the defense of holy justice, for the defense of the oppressed, for the enfranchisement of the downtrodden, and for the advancement of liberty, progress, and civilization? monsieur and madame from a speech in "modern eloquence," vol. i, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by paul blouet (max o'rell) now, the attitude of men towards women is very different, according to the different nations to which they belong. you will find a good illustration of that different attitude of men toward women in france, in england, and in america, if you go to the dining-rooms of their hotels. you go to the dining-room, and you take, if you can, a seat near the entrance door, and you watch the arrival of the couples, and also watch them as they cross the room and go to the table that is assigned to them by the head waiter. now, in europe, you would find a very polite head waiter, who invites you to go in, and asks you where you will sit; but in america the head waiter is a most magnificent potentate who lies in wait for you at the door, and bids you to follow him sometimes in the following respectful manner, beckoning, "there." and you have got to do it, too. i traveled six times in america, and i never saw a man so daring as not to sit there. in the tremendous hotels of the large cities, where you have got to go to number or something of the sort, i generally got a little entertainment out of the head waiter. he is so thoroughly persuaded that it would never enter my head not to follow him, he will never look round to see if i am there. why, he knows i am there, but i'm not. i wait my time, and when he has got to the end i am sitting down waiting for a chance to be left alone. he says, "you cannot sit here." i say: "why not? what is the matter with this seat?" he says, "you must not sit there." i say, "i don't want a constitutional walk; don't bother, i'm all right." once, indeed, after an article in the _north american review_--for your head waiter in america reads reviews--a head waiter told me to sit where i pleased. i said, "now, wait a minute, give me time to realize that; do i understand that in this hotel i am going to sit where i like?" he said, "certainly!" he was in earnest. i said, "i should like to sit over there at that table near the window." he said, "all right, come with me." when i came out, there were some newspaper people in the hotel waiting for me, and it was reported in half a column in one of the papers, with one of those charming headlines which are so characteristic of american journalism, "max sits where he likes!" well, i said, you go to the dining-room, you take your seat, and you watch the arrival of the couples, and you will know the position of men. in france monsieur and madame come in together abreast, as a rule arm in arm. they look pleasant, smile, and talk to each other. they smile at each other, even though married. in england, in the same class of hotel, john bull comes in first. he does not look happy. john bull loves privacy. he does not like to be obliged to eat in the presence of lots of people who have not been introduced to him, and he thinks it very hard he should not have the whole dining-room to himself. that man, though, mind you, in his own house undoubtedly the most hospitable, the most kind, the most considerate of hosts in the world, that man in the dining-room of a hotel always comes in with a frown. he does not like it, he grumbles, and mild and demure, with her hands hanging down, modestly follows mrs. john bull. but in america, behold the arrival of mrs. jonathan! behold her triumphant entry, pulling jonathan behind! well, i like my own country, and i cannot help thinking that the proper and right way is the french. ladies, you know all our shortcomings. our hearts are exposed ever since the rib which covered them was taken off. yet we ask you kindly to allow us to go through life with you, like the french, arm in arm, in good friendship and camaraderie. the typical american from "the new south," with the permission of henry w. grady, jr. by henry w. grady pardon me one word, mr. president, spoken for the sole purpose of getting into the volumes that go out annually freighted with the rich eloquence of your speakers--the fact that the cavalier as well as the puritan was on the continent in its early days, and that he was "up and able to be about." i have read your books carefully and i find no mention of that fact, which seems to me an important one for preserving a sort of historical equilibrium if for nothing else. let me remind you that the virginia cavalier first challenged france on this continent-- that cavalier, john smith, gave new england its very name, and was so pleased with the job that he has been handing his own name around ever since--and that while miles standish was cutting off men's ears for courting a girl without her parents' consent, and forbade men to kiss their wives on sunday, the cavalier was courting everything in sight, and that the almighty had vouchsafed great increase to the cavalier colonies, the huts in the wilderness being full as the nests in the woods. but having incorporated the cavalier as a fact in your charming little books, i shall let him work out his own salvation, as he always has done with engaging gallantry, and we will hold no controversy as to his merits. why should we? neither puritan nor cavalier long survive as such. the virtues and traditions of both happily still live for the inspiration of their sons and the saving of the old fashion. but both puritan and cavalier were lost in the storm of the first revolution; and the american citizen, supplanting both and stronger than either, took possession of the republic bought by their common blood and fashioned to wisdom, and charged himself with teaching men government and establishing the voice of the people as the voice of god. my friend dr. talmage has told you that the typical american has yet to come. let me tell you that he has already come. great types, like valuable plants, are slow to flower and fruit. but from the union of these colonist puritans and cavaliers, from the straightening of their purposes and the crossing of their blood, slow perfecting through a century, came he who stands as the first typical american, the first who comprehended within himself all the strength and gentleness, all the majesty and grace, of this republic--abraham lincoln. he was the sum of puritan and cavalier, for in his ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in the depths of his great soul the faults of both were lost. he was greater than puritan, greater than cavalier, in that he was american, and in that in his homely form were first gathered the vast and thrilling forces of his ideal government--charging it with such tremendous meaning and so elevating it above human suffering that martyrdom, though infamously aimed, came as a fitting crown to a life consecrated from the cradle to human liberty. let us, each cherishing the traditions and honoring his fathers, build with reverent hands to the type of this simple but sublime life, in which all types are honored; and in our common glory as americans there will be plenty and to spare for your forefathers and for mine. the pilgrim mothers reprinted with the author's permission by joseph h. choate i really don't know, at this late hour, mr. chairman, how you expect me to treat this difficult and tender subject. i might take up the subject etymologically, and try and explain how woman ever acquired that remarkable name. but that has been done before me by a poet with whose stanzas you are not familiar, but whom you will recognize as deeply versed in this subject, for he says:-- "when eve brought woe to all mankind, old adam called her woe-man, but when she woo'd with love so kind, he then pronounced her woman. "but now, with folly and with pride, their husbands' pockets trimming, the ladies are so full of whims that people call them w(h)imen." mr. chairman, i believe you said i should say something about the pilgrim mothers. well, sir, it is rather late in the evening to venture upon that historic subject. but, for one, i pity them. the occupants of the galleries will bear me witness that even these modern pilgrims-- these pilgrims with all the modern improvements--how hard it is to put up with their weaknesses, their follies, their tyrannies, their oppressions, their desire of dominion and rule. but when you go back to the stern horrors of the pilgrim rule, when you contemplate the rugged character of the pilgrim fathers, why, you give credence to what a witty woman of boston said--she had heard enough of the glories and sufferings of the pilgrim fathers; for her part, she had a world of sympathy for the pilgrim mothers, because they not only endured all that the pilgrim fathers had done, but they also had to endure the pilgrim fathers to boot. well, sir, they were afraid of woman. they thought she was almost too refined a luxury for them to indulge in. miles standish spoke for them all, and i am sure that general sherman, who so much resembles miles standish, not only in his military renown but in his rugged exterior and in his warm and tender heart, will echo his words when he says:-- "i can march up to a fortress, and summon the place to surrender, but march up to a woman with such a proposal, i dare not. i am not afraid of bullets, nor shot from the mouth of a cannon, but of a thundering 'no!' point-blank from the mouth of a woman, that i confess i'm afraid of, nor am i ashamed to confess it." mr. president, did you ever see a more self-satisfied or contented set of men than these that are gathered at these tables this evening? i never come to the pilgrim dinner and see these men, who have achieved in the various departments of life such definite and satisfactory success, but that i look back twenty or thirty or forty years, and see the lantern-jawed boy who started out from the banks of the connecticut, or some more remote river of new england, with five dollars in his pocket and his father's blessing on his head and his mother's bible in his carpetbag, to seek those fortunes which now they have so gloriously made. and there is one woman whom each of these, through all his progress and to the last expiring hour of his life, bears in tender remembrance. it is the mother who sent him forth with her blessing. a mother is a mother still--the holiest thing alive; and if i could dismiss you with a benediction to-night, it would be by invoking upon the heads of you all the blessing of the mothers that we left behind us. bright land to westward from "modern eloquence," vol. iii, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by e. o. wolcott mr. president and gentlemen,--it was with great diffidence that i accepted the invitation of your president to respond to a toast to- night. i realized my incapacity to do justice to the occasion, while at the same time i recognized the high compliment conveyed. i felt somewhat as the man did respecting the shakespeare-bacon controversy; he said he didn't know whether lord bacon wrote shakespeare's works or not, but if he didn't, he missed the greatest opportunity of his life. we are a plain people, and live far away. we are provincial; we have no distinctive literature and no great poets; our leading personage abroad of late seems to be the honorable "buffalo bill"; and we use our adjectives so recklessly that the polite badinage indulged in toward each other by your new york editors to us seems tame and spiritless. in mental achievement we may not have fully acquired the use of the fork, and are "but in the gristle and not yet hardened into the bone of manhood." we stand toward the east somewhat as country to city cousin; about as new to old england, only we don't feel half so badly about it, and on the whole are rather pleased with ourselves. there is not in the whole broad west a ranch so lonely or so remote that a public school is not within reach of it. with generous help from the east, western colleges are elevating and directing western thought, and men busy making states yet find time to live manly lives and to lend a hand. all this may not be aesthetic, but it is virile, and it leads up and not down. there are some things more important than the highest culture. the west is the almighty's reserve ground, and as the world is filling up, he is turning even the old arid plains and deserts into fertile acres, and is sending there the rain as well as the sunshine. a high and glorious destiny awaits us; soon the balance of population will lie the other side of the mississippi, and the millions that are coming must find waiting for them schools and churches, good government, and a happy people:-- "who love the land because it is their own, and scorn to give aught other reason why; would shake hands with a king upon his throne, and think it kindness to his majesty." in everything which pertains to progress in the west, the yankee reënforcements step rapidly to the front. every year she needs more of them, and as the country grows the annual demand becomes greater. genuine new englanders are to be had on tap only in six small states, and remembering this we feel that we have the right to demand that in the future, even more than in the past, the heads of the new england households weary not in the good work. in these days of "booms" and new souths and great wests, when everybody up north who fired a gun is made to feel that he ought to apologize for it, and good fellowship everywhere abounds, there is a sort of tendency to fuse; only big and conspicuous things are much considered; and new england being small in area and most of her distinguished people being dead, she is just now somewhat under an eclipse. but in her past she has undying fame. you of new england and her borders live always in the atmosphere of her glories; the scenes which tell of her achievements are ever near at hand, and familiarity and contact may rob them of their charms, and dim to your eyes their sacredness. the sons of new england in the west revisit her as men who make pilgrimage to some holy shrine, and her hills and valleys are still instinct with noble traditions. in her glories and her history we claim a common heritage, and we never wander so far away from her that, with each recurring anniversary of this day, our hearts do not turn to her with renewed love and devotion for our beloved new england; yet-- "not by eastern windows only, when daylight comes, comes in the light; in front the sun climbs slow, how slowly, but westward, look, the land is bright!" woman from "modern eloquence," vol. ill, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by theodore tilton you must not forget, mr. president, in eulogizing the early men of new england, who are your clients to-night, that it was only through the help of the early women of new england, who are mine, that your boasted heroes could ever have earned their title of the pilgrim fathers. a health, therefore, to the women in the cabin of the mayflower! a cluster of mayflowers themselves, transplanted from summer in the old world to winter in the new! counting over those matrons and maidens, they numbered, all told, just eighteen. their names are now written among the heroines of history! for as over the ashes of cornelia stood the epitaph "the mother of the gracchi," so over these women of the pilgrimage we write as proudly "the mothers of the republic." there was good mistress bradford, whose feet were not allowed of god to kiss plymouth rock, and who, like moses, came only near enough to see but not to enter the promised land. she was washed overboard from the deck--and to this day the sea is her grave and cape cod her monument! there was mistress carver, wife of the first governor, who, when her husband fell under the stroke of sudden death, followed him first with heroic grief to the grave, and then, a fortnight after, followed him with heroic joy up into heaven! there was mistress white--the mother of the first child born to the new england pilgrims on this continent. and it was a good omen, sir, that this historic babe was brought into the world on board the mayflower between the time of the casting of her anchor and the landing of her passengers--a kind of amphibious prophecy that the newborn nation was to have a birthright inheritance over the sea and over the land. there also was rose standish, whose name is a perpetual june fragrance, to mellow and sweeten those december winds. then, after the first vessel with these women, there came other women-- loving hearts drawn from the olden land by those silken threads which afterwards harden into golden chains. for instance, governor bradford, a lonesome widower, went down to the seabeach, and, facing the waves, tossed a love letter over the wide ocean into the lap of alice southworth in old england, who caught it up, and read it, and said, "yes, i will go." and she went! and it is said that the governor, at his second wedding, married his first love! which, according to the new theology, furnishes the providential reason why the first mrs. bradford fell overboard! now, gentlemen, as you sit to-night in this elegant hall, think of the houses in which the _mayflower_ men and women lived in that first winter! think of a cabin in the wilderness--where winds whistled--where wolves howled--where indians yelled! and yet, within that log house, burning like a lamp, was the pure flame of christian faith, love, patience, fortitude, heroism! as the star of the east rested over the rude manger where christ lay, so--speaking not irreverently--there rested over the roofs of the pilgrims a star of the west--the star of empire; and to-day that empire is the proudest in the world! and now, to close, let me give you just a bit of good advice. the cottages of our forefathers had few pictures on the walls, but many families had a print of "king charles's twelve good rules," the eleventh of which was, "make no long meals." now king charles lost his head, and you will have leave to make a long meal. but when, after your long meal, you go home in the wee small hours, what do you expect to find? you will find my toast--"woman, a beautiful rod!" now my advice is, "kiss the rod!" abraham lincoln reprinted with the author's permission by horace porter the story of the life of abraham lincoln savors more of romance than reality. it is more like a fable of the ancient days than the story of a plain american of the nineteenth century. the singular vicissitudes in the life of our martyred president surround him with an interest which attaches to few men in history. he sprang from that class which he always alluded to as the "plain people," and never attempted to disdain them. he believed that the government was made for the people, not the people for the government. he felt that true republicanism is a torch--the more it is shaken in the hands of the people the brighter it will burn. he was transcendently fit to be the first successful standard bearer of the progressive, aggressive, invincible republican party. he might well have said to those who chanced to sneer at his humble origin what a marshal of france raised from the ranks said to the haughty nobles of vienna boasting of their long line of descent, when they refused to associate with him: "i am an ancestor; you are only descendants!" he was never guilty of any posing for effect, any attitudinizing in public, any mawkish sentimentality, any of that puppyism so often bred by power, that dogmatism which johnson said was only puppyism grown to maturity. he made no claim to knowledge he did not possess. he felt with addison that pedantry and learning are like hypocrisy in religion--the form of knowledge without the power of it. he had nothing in common with those men of mental malformation who are educated beyond their intellects. the names of washington and lincoln are inseparably associated, and yet as the popular historian would have us believe one spent his entire life in chopping down acorn trees and the other splitting them up into rails. washington could not tell a story. lincoln always could. and lincoln's stories always possessed the true geometrical requisites, they were never too long, and never too broad. but his heart was not always attuned to mirth; its chords were often set to strains of sadness. yet throughout all his trials he never lost the courage of his convictions. when he was surrounded on all sides by doubting thomases, by unbelieving saracens, by discontented catilines, his faith was strongest. as the danes destroyed the hearing of their war horses in order that they might not be affrighted by the din of battle, so lincoln turned a deaf ear to all that might have discouraged him, and exhibited an unwavering faith in the justice of the cause and the integrity of the union. it is said that for three hundred years after the battle of thermopylæ every child in the public schools of greece was required to recite from memory the names of the three hundred martyrs who fell in the defense of that pass. it would be a crowning triumph in patriotic education if every school child in america could contemplate each day the grand character and utter the inspiring name of abraham lincoln, who has handed down unto a grateful people the richest legacy which man can leave to man--the memory of a good name, the inheritance of a great example! to athletic victors from a speech at a dinner of graduates of yale university, in new york, . by the kindness of the author. by henry e. howland on boston common, under the shadow of the state house, and within the atmosphere of harvard university, there is an inscription on a column, in honor of those who, on land and sea, maintained the cause of their country during four years of civil war. the visitor approaches it with respect and reverently uncovers as he reads. with similar high emotions we, as citizens of the world of letters, and acknowledging particular allegiance to the province thereof founded by elihu yale, are assembled to pour libations, to partake of a sacrificial feast, and to crown with honors and with bays those who, on land and sea, with unparalleled courage and devotion, have borne their flag to victory in desperate encounters. peace hath her victories no less renowned than war. on large fields of strife, the record of success like that which we are called upon to commemorate would give the victors a high place in history and liken their country to ancient thebes,-- "which spread her conquest o'er a thousand states, and poured her heroes through a hundred gates." there are many reasons why yale men win. one is that which was stated by lord beaconsfield, "the secret of success is constancy of purpose." that alone sufficiently accounts for it. we are here present in no vain spirit of boasting, though if our right to exalt ourselves were questioned, we might reply in the words of the american girl who was shown some cannon at woolwich arsenal, the sergeant in charge remarking, "you know we took them from you at bunker hill." "yes," she replied, "i see you've got the cannon, but i guess we've got the hill." we come rather in a spirit of true modesty to recognize the plaudits of an admiring world, to tell you how they were won. it was said in the days of athenian pride and glory that it was easier to find a god in athens than a man. we must be careful in these days of admiration of athletic effort that no such imputation is laid upon us, and that the deification of the human form divine is not carried to extremes. it is a curious coincidence that a love of the classics and proficiency in intellectual pursuits should coexist with admiration for physical perfection and with athletic superiority during all the centuries of which the history is written. the youth who lisped in attic numbers and was brought up on the language we now so painfully and imperfectly acquire, who was lulled to sleep by songs of Æschylus and sophocles, who discussed philosophy in the porches of plato, aristotle, and epicurus, was a more accomplished classical scholar than the most learned pundit of modern times, and was a model of manly beauty, yet he would have died to win the wreath of parsley at the olympian games, which all esteemed an immortal prize. while, in our time, to be the winning crew on the isis, the cam, the english or american thames, is equal in honor and influence to the position of senior wrangler, valedictorian, or deforest prize man. the man who wins the world's honors to-day must not be overtrained mentally or physically; not, as john randolph said of the soil of virginia,--"poor by nature and ruined by cultivation," hollow-chested, convex in back, imperfect in sight, shuffling in gait, and flabby in muscle. the work of such a man will be musty like his closet, narrow as the groove he moves in, tinctured with the peculiarities that border on insanity, and out of tune with nature. no man can work in the world unless he knows it, struggles with it, and becomes a part of it, and the statement of the english statesman that the undergraduate of oxford or cambridge who had the best stomach, the hardest muscles, and the greatest ambition would be the future lord chancellor of england, had a solid basis of truth. gentlemen of the bat, the oar, the racquet, the cinder path, and the leathern sphere, never were conquerors more welcome guests, in palace or in hall, at the tables of their friends than you are here. you come with your laurels fresh from the fields you have won, to receive the praise which is your due and which we so gladly bestow. your self-denial, devotion, skill, and courage have brought honor to your university, and for it we honor you. the babies at a banquet in honor of general grant, chicago, by samuel l. clemens (mark twain) mr. chairman and gentlemen,--"the babies." now, that's something like. we haven't all had the good fortune to be ladies; we have not all been generals, or poets, or statesmen; but when the toast works down to the babies, we stand on common ground--for we've all been babies. it is a shame that for a thousand years the world's banquets have utterly ignored the baby, as if he didn't amount to anything! if you, gentlemen, will stop and think a minute--if you will try to go back fifty or a hundred years, to your early married life, and recontemplate your first baby--you will remember that he amounted to a good deal--and even something over. you soldiers all know that when that little fellow arrived at family headquarters, you had to hand in your resignation. he took entire command. you had to execute his order whether it was possible or not. and there was only one form of marching in his manual of tactics, and that was the double-quick. when he called for soothing syrup, did you venture to throw out any remarks about certain services unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman? no; you got up and got it! if he ordered his pap bottle, and it wasn't warm, did you talk back? not you; you went to work and warmed it. you even descended so far in your menial office as to take a suck at that warm, insipid stuff yourself, to see if it was right!--three parts water to one of milk, a touch of sugar to modify the colic, and a drop of peppermint to kill those immortal hiccoughs. i can taste that stuff yet. and how many things you learned as you went along! sentimental young folks still take stock in that beautiful old saying, that when a baby smiles in his sleep it is because the angels are whispering to him. very pretty, but "too thin"--simply wind on the stomach, my friends. i like the idea that a baby doesn't amount to anything! why, one baby is just a house and a front yard full by itself; one baby can furnish more business than you and your whole interior department can attend to; he is enterprising, irrepressible, brimful of lawless activities. do what you please you can't make him stay on the reservation. sufficient unto the day is one baby. as long as you are in your right mind don't ever pray for twins. twins amount to a permanent riot; and there ain't any real difference between triplets and insurrections. among the three or four million cradles now rocking in the land there are some which this nation would preserve for ages as sacred things, if we could know which ones they are. for in one of these cradles the unconscious farragut of the future is at this moment teething; in another the future great historian is lying, and doubtless he will continue to lie until his earthly mission is ended. and in still one more cradle, somewhere under the flag, the future illustrious commander-in-chief of the american armies is so little burdened with his approaching grandeurs and responsibilities as to be giving his whole strategic mind at this moment, to trying to find out some way to get his own big toe into his mouth, an achievement to which (meaning no disrespect) the illustrious guest of this evening also turned his attention some fifty-six years ago! and if the child is but the prophecy of the man, there are mighty few will doubt that he succeeded. the occasional poem charles dickens read by mr. watson in new york, at the celebration of the dickens centenary, . reprinted from the public press. by william watson when nature first designed in her all-procreant mind the man whom here tonight we are met to honor-- when first the idea of dickens flashed upon her-- "where, where" she said, "upon my populous earth shall this prodigious child be brought to birth? where shall we have his earliest wondering look into my magic book? shall he be born where life runs like a brook, pleasant and placid as of old it ran, far from the sound and shock of mighty deeds, among soft english meads? or shall he first my pictured volume scan where london lifts its hot and fevered brow for cooling night to fan?" "nay, nay," she said, "i have a happier plan for where at portsmouth, on the embattled tides the ships of war step out with thundering prow and shake their stormy sides-- in yonder place of arms, whose gaunt sea wall flings to the clouds the far-heard bugle call-- he shall be born amid the drums and guns, he shall be born among my fighting sons, perhaps the greatest warrior of them all." ii so there, where from the forts and battle gear and all the proud sea babbles nelson's name, into the world this later hero came-- he, too, a man that knew all moods but fear-- he, too, a fighter. yet not his the strife that leaves dark scars on the fair face of life. he did not fight to rend the world apart; he fought to make it one in mind and heart, building a broad and noble bridge to span the icy chasm that sunders man from man. wherever wrong had fixed its bastions deep, there did his fierce yet gay assault surprise some fortress girt with lucre or with lies; there his light battery stormed some ponderous keep; there charged he up the steep, a knight on whom no palsying torpor fell, keen to the last to break a lance with hell. and still undimmed his conquering weapons shine; on his bright sword no spot of rust appears, and still across the years his soul goes forth to battle, and in the face of whatso'er is false, or cruel, or base, he hurls his gage and leaps among the spears, being armed with pity and love and scorn divine, immortal laughter and immortal tears. the mariners of england by thomas campbell ye mariners of england that guard our native seas! whose flag has braved, a thousand years, the battle and the breeze! your glorious standard launch again to match another foe: and sweep through the deep, while the stormy winds do blow; while the battle rages loud and long and the stormy winds do blow. the spirit of your fathers shall start from every wave, for the deck it is our field of fame, and ocean was their grave: where blake and mighty nelson fell your manly heart shall glow, as ye sweep through the deep, while the stormy winds do blow; while the battle rages loud and long and the stormy winds do blow. britannia needs no bulwarks, no towers along the steep; her march is o'er the mountain waves, her home is on the deep. with thunders from her native oak she quells the floods below, as they roar on the shore, when the stormy winds do blow; when the battle rages loud and long and the stormy winds do blow. the meteor-flag of england shall yet terrific burn; till danger's troubled night depart and the star of peace return. then, then, ye ocean warriors! our song and feast shall flow to the fame of your name, when the storm has ceased to blow; when the fiery fight is heard no more, and the storm has ceased to blow. class poem read in sanders theater at the harvard class day exercises, . reprinted with permission. by langdon warner not unto every one of us shall come the bugle call that sounds for famous deeds; not far lands, but the pleasant paths of home, not broad seas to traffic, but the meads of fruitful midland ways, where daily life down trellised vistas, heavy in the fall, seems but the decent way apart from strife; and love, and work, and laughter there seem all. war, and the orient sun uprising, the east, the west, and man's shrill clamorous strife, travail, disaster, flood, and far emprising, man may not reach, yet take fast hold on life. let us now praise men who are not famous, striving for good name rather than for great; hear we the quiet voice calling to claim us, heed it no less than the trumpet-call of fate! profit we to-day by the men who've gone before us, men who dared, and lived, and died, to speed us on our way. fair is their fame, who make that mighty chorus, and gentle is the heritance that comes to us to-day. they pulled with the strength that was in them, but 'twas not for the pewter cup, and not for the fame 'twould win them when the length of the race was up. for the college stood by the river, and they heard, with cheeks that glowed, the voice of the coxswain calling at the end of the course--"well rowed!" we have pulled at the sweep and run at the games, we have striven to stand to our boyhood aims, and we know the worth of our fathers' names; shall we have less care for our own? the praise of men they dared despise, they set the game above the prize, must we fear to look in our fathers' eyes, nor reap where they have sown? do we lose the zest we've known before? the joy of running?--the kick of the oar when the ash sweeps buckle and bend? is the goal too far?--too hard to gain? we know that the candle is not the play, we know the reward is not to-day, and may not come at the end. but we hear the voice of each bygone class from the river's bank when our own crews pass, and the backs of the men are bowed, with a steady lift and a squandering strength, for the heave that shall drive us a nation's length, till the coxswain calls--"well rowed." now all to the tasks that may find us-- to the saddle, the home, or the sea, still hearing the voices behind us the voices that set us free; free to be bound by our honor, free to our birthright of toil, the masters, and slaves, of the nation, the serfs, and the lords, of the soil! proudly we lift the burdens that humbled the ages past, and pray to the god that gave them we may bear them on to the last; that our sons and our younger brothers, when our gaps in the front they fill, may know that the class has faltered not, and the line is even still. then out to the wind and weather! down the course our fathers showed, and finish well together, as the coxswain calls--"well rowed!" a troop of the guard harvard class poem, , houghton mifflin company, boston, publishers, reprinted with permission. by hermann hagedorn, jr. there's a trampling of hoofs in the busy street, there's a clanking of sabers on floor and stair, there's a sound of restless, hurrying feet, of voices that whisper, of lips that entreat,-- will they live, will they die, will they strive, will they dare?-- the houses are garlanded, flags flutter gay, for a troop of the guard rides forth to-day. oh, the troopers will ride and their hearts will leap, when it's shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend-- but it's some to the pinnacle, some to the deep, and some in the glow of their strength to sleep, and for all it's a fight to the tale's far end, and it's each to his goal, nor turn nor sway, when the troop of the guard rides forth to-day. the dawn is upon us, the pale light speeds to the zenith with glamour and golden dart. on, up! boot and saddle! give spurs to your steeds! there's a city beleaguered that cries for men's deeds, with the pain of the world in its cavernous heart. ours be the triumph! humanity calls! life's not a dream in the clover! on to the walls, on to the walls, on to the walls, and over! the wine is spent, the tale is spun, the revelry of youth is done. the horses prance, the bridles clink, while maidens fair in bright array with us the last sweet goblet drink, then bid us, "mount and away!" into the dawn, we ride, we ride, fellow and fellow, side by side; galloping over the field and hill, over the marshland, stalwart still, into the forest's shadowy hush, where specters walk in sunless day, and in dark pool and branch and bush the treacherous will-o'-the-wisp lights play. out of the wood 'neath the risen sun, weary we gallop, one and one, to a richer hope and a stronger foe and a hotter fight in the fields below-- each man his own slave, each his lord, for the golden spurs and the victor's sword! an anxious generation sends us forth on the far conquest of the thrones of might. from west to east, from south to north, earth's children, weary-eyed from too much light, cry from their dream-forsaken vales of pain, "give us our gods, give us our gods again!" a lofty and relentless century, gazing with argus eyes, has pierced the very inmost halls of faith; and left no shelter whither man may flee from the cold storms of night and lovelessness and death. old gods have fallen and the new must rise! out of the dust of doubt and broken creeds, the sons of those who cast men's idols low must build up for a hungry people's needs new gods, new hopes, new strength to toil and grow; knowing that nought that ever lived can die,-- no act, no dream but spreads its sails, sublime, sweeping across the visible seas of time into the treasure-haven of eternity. the portals are open, the white road leads through thicket and garden, o'er stone and sod. on, up! boot and saddle! give spurs to your steeds! there's a city beleaguered that cries for men's deeds, for the faith that is strength and the love that is god! on, through the dawning! humanity calls! life's not a dream in the clover! on to the walls, on to the walls, on to the walls, and over! the boys at a class reunion. by permission of, and by special arrangement with, houghton mifflin company, authorized publishers of this author's works. by oliver wendell holmes has there any old fellow got mixed with the boys? if there has, take him out, without making a noise. hang the almanac's cheat and the catalogue's spite! old time is a liar! we're twenty to-night! we're twenty! we're twenty! who says we are more? he's tipsy, young jackanapes!--show him the door! 'gray temples at twenty?'--yes! _white_ if we please; where the snowflakes fall thickest there's nothing can freeze! was it snowing i spoke of? excuse the mistake! look close,--you will see not a sign of a flake! we want some new garlands for those we have shed,-- and these are white roses in place of the red. we've a trick, we young fellows, you may have been told, of talking (in public) as if we were old:-- that boy we call 'doctor,' and this we call 'judge'; it's a neat little fiction,--of course it's all fudge. that fellow's the 'speaker,'--the one on the right: 'mr. mayor,' my young one, how are you to-night? that's our 'member of congress,' we say when we chaff; there's the 'reverend' what's his name?--don't make me laugh. that boy with the grave mathematical look made believe he had written a wonderful book, and the royal society thought it was _true_! so they chose him right in; a good joke it was, too! there's a boy, we pretend, with a three-decker brain, that could harness a team with a logical chain; when he spoke for our manhood in syllabled fire, we called him 'the justice,' but now he's 'the squire.' and there's a nice youngster of excellent pith,-- fate tried to conceal him by naming him smith; but he shouted a song for the brave and the free,-- just read on his medal, 'my country,' 'of thee!' you hear that boy laughing?--you think he's all fun; but the angels laugh, too, at the good he has done; the children laugh loud as they troop to his call, and the poor man that knows him laughs loudest of all! yes, we're boys,--always playing with tongue or with pen,-- and i sometimes have asked,--shall we ever be men? shall we always be youthful, and laughing, and gay, till the last dear companion drops smiling away? then here's to our boyhood, its gold and its gray! the stars of its winter, the dews of its may! and when we have done with our life-lasting toys, dear father, take care of thy children, the boys! the anecdote the mob conquered from "the orations and addresses of george william curtis," vol. copyright , by harper and brothers. reprinted with permission. by george william curtis it is especially necessary for us to perceive the vital relation of individual courage and character to the common welfare, because ours is a government of public opinion, and public opinion is but the aggregate of individual thought. we have the awful responsibility as a community of doing what we choose; and it is of the last importance that we choose to do what is wise and right. in the early days of the antislavery agitation a meeting was called at faneuil hall, in boston, which a good-natured mob of sailors was hired to suppress. they took possession of the floor and danced breakdowns and shouted choruses and refused to hear any of the orators upon the platform. the most eloquent pleaded with them in vain. they were urged by the memories of the cradle of liberty, for the honor of massachusetts, for their own honor as boston boys, to respect liberty of speech. but they still laughed and sang and danced, and were proof against every appeal. at last a man suddenly arose from among themselves, and began to speak. struck by his tone and quaint appearance, and with the thought that he might be one of themselves, the mob became suddenly still, "well, fellow-citizens," he said, "i wouldn't be quiet if i didn't want to." the words were greeted with a roar of delight from the mob, which supposed it had found its champion, and the applause was unceasing for five minutes, during which the strange orator tranquilly awaited his chance to continue. the wish to hear more hushed the tumult, and when the hall was still he resumed: "no, i certainly wouldn't stop if i hadn't a mind to; but then, if i were you, i _would_ have a mind to!" the oddity of the remark and the earnestness of the tone, held the crowd silent, and the speaker continued, "not because this is faneuil hall, nor for the honor of massachusetts, nor because you are boston boys, but because you are men, and because honorable and generous men always love fair play." the mob was conquered. free speech and fair play were secured. public opinion can do what it has a mind to in this country. if it be debased and demoralized, it is the most odious of tyrants. it is nero and caligula multiplied by millions. can there then be a more stringent public duty for every man--and the greater the intelligence the greater the duty--than to take care, by all the influence he can command, that the country, the majority, public opinion, shall have a mind to do only what is just and pure and humane? an example of faith from "the new south." reprinted with permission by henry w. grady permitted, through your kindness, to catch my second wind, let me say that i appreciate the significance of being the first southerner to speak at this board, which bears the substance, if it surpasses the semblance, of original new england hospitality--and honors the sentiment that in turn honors you, but in which my personality is lost, and the compliment to my people made plain. i bespeak the utmost stretch of your courtesy to-night. i am not troubled about those from whom i come. you remember the man whose wife sent him to a neighbor with a pitcher of milk, and who, tripping on the top step, fell with such casual interruptions as the landings afforded into the basement, and, while picking himself up, had the pleasure of hearing his wife call out: "john, did you break the pitcher?" "no, i didn't," said john, "but i'll be dinged if i don't." so, while those who call me from behind may inspire me with energy, if not with courage, i ask an indulgent hearing from you. i beg that you will bring your full faith in american fairness and frankness to judgment upon what i shall say. there was an old preacher once who told some boys of the bible lesson he was going to read in the morning. the boys, finding the place, glued together the connecting pages. the next morning he read on the bottom of one page, "when noah was one hundred and twenty years old he took unto himself a wife, who was--" then turning the page--" cubits long, cubits wide, built of gopher wood--and covered with pitch inside and out." he was naturally puzzled at this. he read it again, verified it, and then said, "my friends, this is the first time i ever met this in the bible, but i accept this as an evidence of the assertion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made." if i could get you to hold such faith to-night i could proceed cheerfully to the task i otherwise approach with a sense of consecration. the rail-splitter from "the lincoln story book," with the permission of g. w. dillingham and co., new york, publishers. by h. l. williams the illinois republican state convention of met at decatur, in a wigwam built for the purpose, a type of that noted in the lincoln annals as at chicago. a special welcome was given to abraham lincoln as a "distinguished citizen of illinois, and one she will ever be delighted to honor." the session was suddenly interrupted by the chairman saying: "there is an old democrat outside who has something to present to the convention." the present was two old fence rails, carried on the shoulder of an elderly man, recognized by lincoln as his cousin john hanks, and by the sangamon folks as an old settler in the bottoms. the rails were explained by a banner reading: "two rails from a lot made by abraham lincoln and john hanks, in the sangamon bottom, in the year ." thunderous cheers for "the rail-splitter" resounded, for this slur on the statesman had recoiled on aspersers and was used as a title of honor. the call for confirmation of the assertion led lincoln to rise, and blushing--so recorded--said: "gentlemen,--i suppose you want to know something about those things. well, the truth is, john and i did make rails in the sangamon bottom." he eyed the wood with the knowingness of an authority on "stumpage," and added: "i don't know whether we made those rails or not; the fact is, i don't think they are a credit to the makers!" it was john hanks' turn to blush. "but i do know this: i made rails then, and, i think, i could make better ones now!" whereupon, by acclamation, abraham lincoln was declared to be "first choice of the republican party in illinois for the presidency." riding a man in on a rail became of different and honorable meaning from that out. this incident was a prepared theatrical effect. governor oglesby arranged with lincoln's stepbrother, john d. johnston, to provide two rails, and with lincoln's mother's cousin, dennis hanks, for the latter to bring in the rails at the telling juncture. lincoln's guarded manner about identifying the rails, and sly slap at his ability to make better ones, show that he was in the scheme, though recognizing that the dodge was of value politically. o'connell's wit from a lecture on daniel o'connell in "speeches and lectures," with the permission of lothrop, lee and shepard, boston, publishers. by wendell phillips we used to say of webster, "this is a great effort"; of everett, "it is a beautiful effort"; but you never used the word "effort" in speaking of o'connell. it provoked you that he would not make an effort. i heard him perhaps a score of times, and i do not think more than three times he ever lifted himself to the full sweep of his power. and this wonderful power, it was not a thunderstorm: he flanked you with his wit, he surprised you out of yourself; you were conquered before you knew it. he was once summoned to court out of the hunting field, when a young friend of his of humble birth was on trial for his life. the evidence gathered around a hat found next the body of the murdered man, which was recognized as the hat of the prisoner. the lawyers tried to break down the evidence, confuse the testimony, and get some relief from the directness of the circumstances, but in vain, until at last they called for o'connell. he came in, flung his riding-whip and hat on the table, was told the circumstances, and, taking up the hat, said to the witness, "whose hat is this?" "well, mr. o'connell, that is mike's hat." "how do you know it?" "i will swear to it, sir." "and did you really find it by the body of the murdered man?" "i did that, sir." "but you're not ready to swear to that?" "i am, indeed, mr. o'connell." "pat, do you know what hangs on your word? a human soul. and with that dread burden, are you ready to tell this jury that the hat, to your certain knowledge, belongs to the prisoner?" "y-yes, mr. o'connell; yes, i am." o'connell takes the hat to the nearest window, and peers into it--"j-a- m-e-s, james. now, pat, did you see that name in the hat?" "i did, mr. o'connell." "you knew it was there?" "yes, sir; i read it after i picked it up."----"no name in the hat, your honor." so again in the house of commons. when he took his seat in the house in , the london _times_ visited him with its constant indignation, reported his speeches awry, turned them inside out, and made nonsense of them; treated him as the new york _herald_ use to treat us abolitionists twenty years ago. so one morning he rose and said, "mr. speaker, you know i have never opened my lips in this house, and i expended twenty years of hard work in getting the right to enter it,--i have never lifted my voice in this house, but in behalf of the saddest people the sun shines on. is it fair play, mr. speaker, is it what you call 'english fair play' that the press of this city will not let my voice be heard?" the next day the _times_ sent him word that, as he found fault with their manner of reporting him, they never would report him at all, they never would print his name in their parliamentary columns. so the next day when prayers were ended o'connell rose. those reporters of the _times_ who were in the gallery rose also, ostentatiously put away their pencils, folded their arms, and made all the show they could, to let everybody know how it was. well, you know nobody has a right to be in the gallery during the session, and if any member notices them, the mere notice clears the gallery; only the reporters can stay after that notice. o'connell rose. one of the members said, "before the member from clare opens his speech, let me call his attention to the gallery and the instance of that 'passive resistance' which he is about to preach." "thank you," said o'connell. "mr. speaker, i observe the strangers in the gallery." of course they left; of course the next day, in the columns of the london _times_, there were no parliamentary debates. and for the first time, except in richard cobden's case, the london _times_ cried for quarter, and said to o'connell, "if you give up the quarrel, we will." a reliable team from "hunting the grizzly," with the permission of g. p. putnam's sons, new york and london, publishers. by theodore roosevelt in the cow country there is nothing more refreshing than the light- hearted belief entertained by the average man to the effect that any animal which by main force has been saddled and ridden, or harnessed and driven a couple of times, is a "broke horse." my present foreman is firmly wedded to this idea, as well as to its complement, the belief that any animal with hoofs, before any vehicle with wheels, can be driven across any country. one summer on reaching the ranch i was entertained with the usual accounts of the adventures and misadventures which had befallen my own men and my neighbors since i had been out last. in the course of the conversation my foreman remarked: "we had a great time out here about six weeks ago. there was a professor from ann arbor came out with his wife to see the bad lands, and they asked if we could rig them up a team, and we said we guessed we could, and foley's boy and i did; but it ran away with him and broke his leg! he was here for a month. i guess he didn't mind it, though." of this i was less certain, forlorn little medora being a "busted" cow town, concerning which i once heard another of my men remark, in reply to an inquisitive commercial traveler: "how many people lives here? eleven--counting the chickens--when they're all in town!" my foreman continued: "by george, there was something that professor said afterward that made me feel hot. i sent word up to him by foley's boy that seein' as how it had come out, we wouldn't charge him nothin' for the rig; and that professor answered that he was glad we were showing him some sign of consideration, for he'd begun to believe he'd fallen into a den of sharks, and that we gave him a runaway team apurpose. that made me hot, calling that a runaway team. why, there was one of them horses never _could_ have run away before; it hadn't never been druv but twice! and the other horse maybe had run away a few times, but there was lots of times he _hadn't_ run away. i esteemed that team full as liable not to run away as it was to run away," concluded my foreman, evidently deeming this as good a warranty of gentleness in a horse as the most exacting could possibly require. meg's marriage from a lecture entitled "clear grit," published in "modern eloquence," vol. iv, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago. by robert collyer in what we call the good old times--say, three hundred years ago--a family lived on the border between england and scotland, with one daughter of a marvelous homeliness. her name was meg. she was a capital girl, as homely girls generally are. she knew she had no beauty, so she made sure of quality and faculty. but the scotch say that "while beauty may not make the best kail, it looks best by the side of the kail-pot." so meg had no offer of a husband, and was likely to die in what we call "single blessedness." everybody on the border in those days used to steal, and their best "holt," as we say, was cattle. if they wanted meat and had no money, they would go out and steal as many beef cattle as they could lay their hands on, from somebody on the other side of the border. well, they generally had no money, and they were always wanting beef, and they could always be hung for stealing by the man they stole from if he could catch them, and so they had what an irishman would call a fine time entirely. one day a young chief, wanting some beef as usual, went out with part of his clan, came upon a splendid herd on the lands of meg's father, and went to work to drive them across to his own. but the old fellow was on the lookout, mustered his clan, bore down on the marauders, beat them, took the young chief prisoner, and then went home to his peel very much delighted. meg's mother, of course, wanted to know all about it, and then she said, "noo, laird, what are you gaun to do with the prisoner?" "i am gaun to hang him," the old man thundered, "just as soon as i have had my dinner." "but i think ye're noo wise to do that," she said. "he has got a braw place, ye ken, over the border, and he is a braw fellow. noo i'll tell ye what i would do. i would give him his chance to be hung or marry oor meg." it struck the old man as a good idea, and so he went presently down into the dungeon, told the young fellow to get ready to be hung in thirty minutes, but then got round to the alternative, and offered to spare his life if he would marry meg, and give him the beef into the bargain. he had heard something about meg's wonderful want of beauty, and so, with a fine scotch prudence, he said, "ye will let me see her, laird, before i mak' up my mind, because maybe i would rather be hung." "aye, mon, that's fair," the old chief answered, and went in to bid the mother get meg ready for the interview. the mother did her best, you may be sure, to make meg look winsome, but when the poor fellow saw his unintentional intended he turned round to the chief and said, "laird, if ye have nae objection, i think i would rather be hung." "and sae ye shall, me lad, and welcome," the old chief replied, in a rage. so they led him out, got the rope around his neck; and then the young man changed his mind, and shouted, "laird, i'll tak' her." so he was marched back into the castle, married before he had time to change his mind, if that was possible, and the tradition is that there never was a happier pair in scotland, and never a better wife in the world than meg. but i have told the story because it touches this point, of the way they hold their own over there when there are great families of children. they tell me that the family flourishes famously still; no sign of dying out or being lost about it. meg's main feature was a very large mouth, and now in the direct line in almost every generation the neighbors and friends are delighted, as they say, to get meg back. "here's meg again," they cry when a child is born with that wonderful mouth. sir walter scott was one of the descendants of the family. he had meg's mouth, in a measure, and was very proud of it when he would tell the story. outdoing mrs. partington from a speech published in brewer's "the world's best orations," vol. ix, ferd. p. kaiser, st. louis, chicago, publisher. by sidney smith i have spoken so often on this subject, that i am sure both you and the gentlemen here present will be obliged to me for saying but little, and that favor i am as willing to confer, as you can be to receive it. i feel most deeply the event which has taken place, because, by putting the two houses of parliament in collision with each other, it will impede the public business and diminish the public prosperity. i feel it as a churchman, because i cannot but blush to see so many dignitaries of the church arrayed against the wishes and happiness of the people. i feel it more than all, because i believe it will sow the seeds of deadly hatred between the aristocracy and the great mass of the people. the loss of the bill i do not feel, and for the best of all possible reasons--because i have not the slightest idea that it is lost. i have no more doubt, before the expiration of the winter, that this bill will pass, than i have that the annual tax bills will pass, and greater certainty than this no man can have, for franklin tells us there are but two things certain in this world--death and taxes. as for the possibility of the house of lords preventing ere long a reform of parliament, i hold it to be the most absurd notion that ever entered into human imagination. i do not mean to be disrespectful, but the attempt of the lords to stop the progress of reform reminds me very forcibly of the great storm of sidmouth, and of the conduct of the excellent mrs. partington on that occasion. in the winter of , there set in a great flood upon that town, the tide rose to an incredible height, the waves rushed in upon the houses, and everything was threatened with destruction. in the midst of this sublime and terrible storm, dame partington, who lived upon the beach, was seen at the top of her house with mop and pattens, trundling her mop, squeezing out the water, and vigorously pushing away the atlantic ocean. the atlantic was roused. mrs. partington's spirit was up; but i need not tell you that the contest was unequal. the atlantic ocean beat mrs. partington. she was excellent at a slop or a puddle, but she should not have meddled with a tempest. gentlemen, be at your ease--be quiet and steady. you will beat mrs. partington. circumstance not a cause from the same speech as the foregoing by sidney smith an honorable member of the honorable house, much connected with this town, and once its representative, seems to be amazingly surprised, and equally dissatisfied, at this combination of king, ministers, nobles, and people, against his opinion,--like the gentleman who came home from serving on a jury very much disconcerted, and complaining he had met with eleven of the most obstinate people he had ever seen in his life, whom he found it absolutely impossible by the strongest arguments to bring over to his way of thinking. they tell you, gentlemen, that you have grown rich and powerful with these rotten boroughs, and that it would be madness to part with them, or to alter a constitution which had produced such happy effects. there happens, gentlemen, to live near my parsonage a laboring man of very superior character and understanding to his fellow laborers, and who has made such good use of that superiority that he has saved what is (for his station in life) a very considerable sum of money, and if his existence is extended to the common period he will die rich. it happens, however, that he is (and long has been) troubled with violent stomachic pains, for which he has hitherto obtained no relief, and which really are the bane and torment of his life. now, if my excellent laborer were to send for a physician and to consult him respecting this malady, would it not be very singular language if our doctor were to say to him: "my good friend, you surely will not be so rash as to attempt to get rid of these pains in your stomach. have you not grown rich with these pains in your stomach? have you not risen under them from poverty to prosperity? has not your situation since you were first attacked been improving every year? you surely will not be so foolish and so indiscreet as to part with the pains in your stomach?" why, what would be the answer of the rustic to this nonsensical monition? "monster of rhubarb! (he would say) i am not rich in consequence of the pains in my stomach, but in spite of the pains in my stomach; and i should have been ten times richer, and fifty times happier, if i had never had any pains in my stomach at all." gentlemen, these rotten boroughs are your pains in the stomach--and you would have been a much richer and greater people if you had never had them at all. your wealth and your power have been owing not to the debased and corrupted parts of the house of commons, but to the many independent and honorable members whom it has always contained within its walls. if there had been a few more of these very valuable members for close boroughs we should, i verily believe, have been by this time about as free as denmark, sweden, or the germanized states of italy. this is the greatest measure which has ever been before parliament in my time, and the most pregnant with good or evil to the country; and though i seldom meddle with political meetings, i could not reconcile it to my conscience to be absent from this. every year for this half century, the question of reform has been pressing upon us, till it has swelled up at last into this great and awful combination; so that almost every city and every borough in england are at this moment assembled for the same purpose, and are doing the same thing we are doing. more terrible than the lions from "modern eloquence," vol. x, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by a. a. mccormick i do not want to be in the position of a man i once heard of who was a lion tamer. he was a very brave man. there was no lion, no matter how big, or strong, or vicious, that had not succumbed to this man's fearlessness. this man had a wife, and she did not like him to stay out late at night, and big as he was, and as brave, he had never dared to disrespect his wife's wishes, until one evening, meeting some old friends, he fell to talking over old times with them, their early adventures and experiences. finally, looking at his watch, to his amazement he discovered it was midnight. what to do he knew not. he didn't dare to go home. if he went to a hotel, his wife might discover him before he discovered her. finally, in desperation, he sped to the menagerie, hurriedly passed through and went to the cage of lions. entering this he closed and locked the door, and gave a sigh of relief. he quieted the dangerous brutes, and lay down with his head resting on the mane of the largest and most dangerous of them all. his wife waited. her anger increased as the night wore on. at the first sign of dawn she went in search of her recreant lord and master. not finding him in any of the haunts that he generally frequented, she went to the menagerie. she also passed through and went to the cage of the lions. peering in she saw her husband, the fearless lion tamer, crouching at the back of the cage. a look of chagrin came over her face, closely followed by one of scorn and fine contempt, as she shook her finger and hissed, "you coward!" irving, the actor from "in lighter vein," with the permission of paul elder and company, san francisco, publishers. by john de morgan henry irving, the actor, was always fond of playing practical jokes. clement scott tells of one played by irving and harry montague upon a number of their associates. irving and montague, hitherto the best of friends, began to quarrel on their way to a picnic, and their friends feared some tragic consequences. after luncheon both of the men disappeared. business manager smale's face turned pale. he felt that his worst fears had been realized. with one cry, "they're gone! what on earth has become of them?" he made a dash down the dargle, over the rocks and bowlders, with the remainder of the picnickers at his heels. at the bottom of a "dreadful hollow behind the little wood," a fearful sight presented itself to the astonished friends. there, on a stone, sat henry irving, in his shirtsleeves, his long hair matted over his eyes, his thin hands and white face all smeared with blood, and dangling an open clasp-knife. he was muttering to himself, in a savage tone: "i've done it, i've done it! i said i would, i said i would!" tom smale, in an agony of fear, rushed up to irving. "for heaven's sake, man," he screamed, "tell us where he is!" irving, scarcely moving a muscle, pointed to a heap of dead leaves, and, in that sepulchral tone of his, cried: "he's there! i've done for him! i've murdered him!" smale literally bounded to the heap, almost paralyzed with fear, and began pulling the leaves away. presently he found montague lying face downward and nearly convulsed with laughter. never was better acting seen on any stage. wendell phillips's tact from "memories of the lyceum," in "modern eloquence," vol. vi, geo. l. shuman and company, chicago, publishers. by james burton pond wendell phillips was the most polished and graceful orator our country ever produced. he spoke as quietly as if he were talking in his own parlor and almost entirely without gestures, yet he had as great a power over all kinds of audiences as any american of whom we have any record. often called before howling mobs, who had come to the lecture- room to prevent him from being heard, and who would shout and sing to drown his voice, he never failed to subdue them in a short time. one illustration of his power and tact occurred in boston. the majority of the audience were hostile. they yelled and sang and completely drowned his voice. the reporters were seated in a row just under the platform, in the place where the orchestra plays in an ordinary theater. phillips made no attempt to address the noisy crowd, but bent over and seemed to be speaking in a low tone to the reporters. by and by the curiosity of the audience was excited; they ceased to clamor and tried to hear what he was saying to the reporters. phillips looked at them and said quietly:-- "go on, gentlemen, go on. i do not need your ears. through these pencils i speak to thirty millions of people." not a voice was raised again. the mob had found its master and stayed whipped until he sat down. eloquent as he was as a lecturer, he was far more effective as a debater. debate was for him the flint and steel which brought out all his fire. his memory was something wonderful, he would listen to an elaborate speech for hours, and, without a single note of what had been said, in writing, reply to every part of it as fully and completely as if the speech were written out before him. those who heard him only on the platform, and when not confronted by an opponent, have a very limited comprehension of his wonderful resources as a speaker. he never hesitated for a word or failed to employ the word best fitted to express his thought on the point under discussion. baked beans and culture from "writings in prose and verse, by eugene field," with the permission of charles scribner's sons, new york, publishers. by eugene field the members of the boston commercial club are charming gentlemen. they are now the guests of the chicago commercial club, and are being shown every attention that our market affords. last night five or six of these boston merchants sat around the office of the hotel and discussed matters and things. pretty soon they got to talking about beans; this was the subject which they dwelt on with evident pleasure. "waal, sir," said ephraim taft, a wholesale dealer in maple sugar and flavored lozenges, "you kin talk 'bout your new-fashioned dishes an' high-falutin' vittles; but when you come right down to it, there ain't no better eatin' than a dish o' baked pork 'n' beans." "that's so, b'gosh!" chorused the others. "the truth o' the matter is," continued mr. taft, "that beans is good for everybody--'t don't make no difference whether he's well or sick. why, i've known a thousand folks--waal, mebbe not quite a thousand; but--waal, now, jest to show, take the case of bill holbrook,--you remember bill, don't ye?" "bill holbrook?" said mr. ezra eastman. "why, of course i do. used to live down to brimfield, next to moses howard farm." "that's the man," resumed mr. taft. "waal, bill fell sick--kinder moped 'round, tired-like, for a week or two, an' then tuck to his bed. his folks sent for dock smith--ol' dock smith that used to carry a pair o' leather saddlebags. gosh, they don't have no sech doctors nowadays! waal, the dock he come; an' he looked at bill's tongue, an' felt uv his pulse, an' said that bill had typhus fever." ol' dock smith was a very careful, conserv'tive man, an' he never said nothin' unless he knowed he was right. "bill began to git wuss, an' he kep' a-gittin' wuss every day. one mornin' ol' dock smith sez, 'look a-here, bill, i guess you're a goner; as i figger it, you can't hol' out till nightfall.' "bill's mother insisted on a con-sul-tation bein' held; so ol' dock smith sent over for young dock brainerd. i calc'late that, next _to_ ol' dock smith, young dock brainerd was the smartest doctor that ever lived. "waal, pretty soon along come dock brainerd; an' he an' dock smith went all over bill, an' looked at his tongue, an' felt uv his pulse, an' told him it was a gone case, an' that he had got to die. then they went on into the spare chamber to hold their con-sul-tation. "waal, bill he lay there in the front room a-pantin' an' a-gaspin', an' a wond'rin' whether it wuz true. as he wuz thinkin', up comes the girl to git a clean tablecloth out of the clothespress, an' she left the door ajar as she come in. bill he gave a sniff, an' his eyes grew more natural like; he gathered together all the strength he had, an' he raised himself up on one elbow an' sniffed again. "'sary,' says he, 'wot's that a-cookin'?' "'beans,' says she; 'beans for dinner.' "'sary,' says the dyin' man, 'i must hev a plate uv them beans!' "'sakes alive, mr. holbrook!' says she; 'if you wuz to eat any o' them beans it'd kill ye!' "'if i've got to die,' says he, 'i'm goin' to die happy; fetch me a plate uv them beans.' "waal, sary she pikes off to the doctor's. "'look a-here,' says she; 'mr. holbrook smelt the beans cookin' an' he says he's got to have some. now, what shall i do about it?' "'waal, doctor,' says dock smith, 'what do you think 'bout it?' "'he's got to die anyhow,' says dock brainerd, 'an' i don't suppose the beans 'll make any diff'rence.' "'that's the way i figger it,' says dock smith; 'in all my practice i never knew of beans hurtin' anybody.' "so sary went down to the kitchen an' brought up a plateful of hot baked beans. dock smith raised bill up in bed, an' dock brainerd put a piller under the small of bill's back. then sary sat down by the bed an' fed them beans into bill until bill couldn't hold any more. "'how air you feelin' now?' asked dock smith. "bill didn't say nuthin; he jest smiled sort uv peaceful-like and closed his eyes. "'the end hez come,'f said dock brainerd sof'ly; 'bill is dyin'.' "then bill murmured kind o' far-away like; 'i ain't dyin'; i'm dead an' in heaven.' "next mornin' bill got out uv bed an' done a big day's work on the farm, an' he ain't bed a sick spell since. them beans cured him!" secretary chase's chin-fly from "speeches and addresses of abraham lincoln," current literature publishing company, new york, publishers. by f. b. carpenter "within a month after mr. lincoln's first accession to office," says the hon. mr. raymond, "when the south was threatening civil war, and armies of office seekers were besieging him in the executive mansion, he said to a friend that he wished he could get time to attend to the southern question; he thought he knew what was wanted, and believed he could do something towards quieting the rising discontent; but the office seekers demanded all his time. 'i am,' said he, 'like a man so busy in letting rooms in one end of his house that he can't stop to put out the fire that is burning the other.' two or three years later when the people had made him a candidate for reflection, the same friend spoke to him of a member of his cabinet who was a candidate also. mr. lincoln said that he did not concern himself much about that. it was important to the country that the department over which his rival presided should be administered with vigor and energy, and whatever would stimulate the secretary to such action would do good. 'r----,' said he, 'you were brought up on a farm, were you not? then you know what a _chin-fly_ is. my brother and i,' he added, 'were once plowing corn on a kentucky farm, i driving the horse, and he holding the plow. the horse was lazy; but on one occasion rushed across the field so that i, with my long legs, could scarcely keep pace with him. on reaching the end of the furrow, i found an enormous _chin-fly_ fastened upon him, and knocked him off. my brother asked me what i did that for. i told him i didn't want the old horse bitten in that way. "why," said my brother, "_that's all that made him go!_" now,' said mr. lincoln, 'if mr. ---- has a presidential _chin-fly_ biting him, i'm not going to knock him off if it will only make his department _go_.'" review exercises exercises there exercises should be practiced in only a moderately strong voice, at times perhaps in a very soft voice, and always with a good degree of ease and naturalness. they had better be memorized, and as the technique becomes more sure, less thought may be given to that and more to the true expression of the spirit of each passage--or let the spirit from the first, if it will, help the technique. tone for rounding and expanding the voice. to be given in an even sustained tone, with rather open throat and easy low breathing. suspend the speech where pauses are marked, for a momentary recovery of breath. keep the breath easily firm. don't drive the breath through the tone. roll on, | thou deep and dark blue ocean, | roll! ten thousand fleets | sweep over thee | in vain; man marks the earth | with ruin--his control | stops | with the shore. o tiber, | father tiber | to whom the romans pray, a roman's life, | a roman's arms, take thou in charge | this day | o rome! | my country! | city of the soul! the orphans of the heart | must turn to thee, lone mother of dead empires! | and control in their shut breasts | their petty misery. ring joyous chords!-- | ring out again! a swifter still | and a wilder strain! and bring fresh wreaths!-- | we will banish all save the free in heart | from our banquet hall. o joy to the people | and joy to the throne, come to us, | love us | and make us your own: for saxon | or dane | or norman | we, teuton or celt, | or what ever we be, we are all of us danes | in our welcome of thee, alexandra! liberty! | freedom! | tyranny is dead!-- run hence, | proclaim, | cry it about the streets. some to the common pulpits, | and cry out, "liberty, | freedom, | and enfranchisement!" inflection give these with a rather vigorous colloquial effect, with clear-cut form, with point and spirit. armed, say you? armed, my lord. from top to toe? my lord, from head to foot. then saw you not his face? oh, yes, my lord; he wore his beaver up. what, looked he frowningly? a countenance more in sorrow than in anger. pale or red? nay, very pale. and fixed his eyes upon you? most constantly. but, sir, the coalition! the coalition! aye, "the murdered coalition!" the gentleman asks if i were led or frighted into this debate by the specter of the coalition. "was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, "which haunted the member from massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of banquo, would never down?" "the murdered coalition." should he have asked aguinaldo for an armistice? if so, upon what basis should he have requested it? what should he say to him? "please stop this fighting?" "what for?" aguinaldo would say; "do you propose to retire?" "no." "do you propose to grant us independence?" "no, not now." "well, why then, an armistice?" alas, poor yorick!--i knew him, horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it.--where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table in a roar? not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chop-fallen? now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favor she must come; make her laugh at that. enunciation keep first of all a good form to the vowels. make consonants definitely by sufficient action of jaw, tongue, and lips. keep the throat easy; avoid stiffening and strain. a particularly light, soft, pure tone, with fine articulation, may generally be best for practice. in these first passages, carry the tone well in the head, so as to give a pure, soft, clear sound to the _m_'s, _n_'s, _ng_'s, and _l_'s. if need be, these letters may be marked. one cry of wonder, shrill as the loon's call, rang through the forest, startling the silence, startling the mourners chanting the death-song. one after one, by the star-dogged moon, too quick for groan or sigh, each turned his face with a ghastly pang, and cursed me with his eye. four times fifty living men, (and i heard nor sigh nor groan,) with heavy thump, a lifeless lump, they dropped down one by one. these abominable principles, and this more abominable avowal of them, demand the most decisive indignation. lay the proud usurpers low! tyrants fall in every foe! liberty's in every blow! forward! let us do or die! i closed my lids, and kept them close, and the balls like pulses beat; for the sky and the sea, and the sea and the sky lay like a load on my weary eye, and the dead were at my feet. review exercises give clearly the _k_ and the _g_ forms, making a slight percussion in the back of the mouth. finish clearly all main words. with throats unslaked, with black lips baked, we could nor laugh nor wail; through utter drought all dumb we stood! i bit my arm, i sucked the blood, and cried, a sail! a sail! with throats unslaked, with black lips baked, agape they heard me call: gramercy! they for joy did grin, and all at once their breath drew in, as they were drinking all. where dwellest thou? under the canopy. under the canopy! ay! where's that? i' the city of kites and crows. i' the city of kites and crows!-- then thou dwellest with daws, too? no: i serve not thy master. strike | till the last armed foe | expires! strike | for your altars and your fires! strike | for the green graves of your sires! god | and your native land! for flexibility of the lips, form well the _o_'s and _w_'s. blow, blow, thou winter wind, thou art not so unkind as man's ingratitude. o wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful, wonderful! and yet again wonderful, and after that, out of all hooping! water, water, everywhere, and all the boards did shrink; water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink. o wedding-guest! this soul hath been alone on a wide, wide sea: so lonely 'twas, that god himself scarce seemed there to be. have care for _t_'s, _d_'s, _s_'s, the _th_ and the _st_'s. day after day, day after day, we stuck, nor breath nor motion; as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean. down dropt the breeze, the sails dropt down, 'twas sad as sad could be; and we did speak only to break the silence of the sea! what loud uproar bursts from that door! the wedding-guests are there: but in the garden-bower the bride and bride-maids singing are: and hark the little vesper bell, which biddeth me to prayer! farewell, farewell! but this i tell to thee, thou wedding-guest! he prayeth well, who loveth well both man and bird and beast. he prayeth best, who loveth best all things both great and small; for the dear god who loveth us, he made and loveth all. attend especially to _b_'s and in passage to _p_'s. give a very soft, slightly echoing continuation to the _ing_ in "dying." blow, bugle, blow, set the wild echoes flying, blow, bugle; answer, echoes, dying, dying, dying. blow, let us hear the purple glens replying: blow, bugle; answer, echoes, dying, dying, dying. hop, and mop, and drop so clear, pip, and trip, and skip that were to mab their sovereign dear, her special maids of honor; fib, and tib, and pinck, and pin, tit, and nit, and wap, and win, the train that wait upon her. emphasis determine the exact sense and express it pointedly. the primary or central emphasis takes an absolute fall from a pitch above the general level; the secondary emphasis takes a circumflex inflection--a fall and a slight rise. primary, hebrew letter yod; secondary gujarati vowel sign li. in the question, the main part of the inflection is usually rising instead of falling. the effect of suspense or of forward look requires the slightly upward final turn to the inflection. note this in passages , , and . in the gentleman told the world that the public lands "ought _not_ to be treated as a _treasure_." he now tells us that "they _must_ be treated as _so much treasure_." what the deliberate opinion of the gentleman on this subject may be, belongs not to me to determine. compare the two. this i offer to give you is _plain_ and _simple;_ the other full of perplexed and intricate _mazes_. this is mild; that _harsh_. this is found by experience _effectual for its purposes_; the other is a _new project_. this is _universal_; the other calculated for _certain colonies only._ this is _immediate in its conciliatory operation_; the other _remote, contingent_, full of _hazard_. as cæsar _loved me_, i _weep_ for him; as he was _fortunate_, i _rejoice_ at it; as he was _valiant_, i _honor_ him; but as he was _ambitious_, i _slew_ him. there is _tears_ for his _love_; _joy_ for his _fortune_; _honor_ for his _valor_; and _death_ for his _ambition_. one moment he stood erect, strong, confident in the years stretching peacefully out before him; the next he lay wounded, bleeding, _helpless_, doomed to weary weeks of torture, to silence and the grave. for no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness and wickedness, by the red hand of murder he was thrust from the full tide of this world's interest, from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories, into the visible presence of death; and he _did not quail_. there was no flinching as he charged. he had just turned to give a cheer when the fatal ball struck him. there was a convulsion of the upward hand--his eyes, pleading and loyal, turned their last glance to the flag--his lips parted--he fell _dead_, and at nightfall lay with his face to the stars. home they brought him, fairer than adonis over whom the goddess of beauty wept. but the gentleman inquires why _he_ was made the object of such a reply. why was _he_ singled out? if an attack has been made on the _east, he_, he assures us, did not _begin_ it; it was made by the gentleman from _missouri_. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to _hear_ it; and because, also, i chose to give an answer to that speech which, if _unanswered_, i thought most likely to produce _injurious impressions_. melody give musical tone and a fitting modulation, or tune, avoiding the so- called singsong. note the occasional closing cadence. observe the rhythmic movement, with beat and pause. you think me a fanatic to-night, for you read history not with your eyes, but with your prejudices. but fifty years hence, when truth gets a hearing, the muse of history will put phocian for the greek, and brutus for the roman, hampden for england, fayette for france, choose washington as the bright consummate flower of our earlier civilization, and john brown the ripe fruit of our noonday, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the soldier, the statesman, the martyr, toussaint l'ouverture. have you read in the talmud of old, in the legends the rabbins have told of the limitless realms of the air, have you read it,--the marvelous story of sandalphon, the angel of glory, sandalphon, the angel of prayer? you remember king charles' twelve good rules, the eleventh of which was, "make no long meals." now king charles lost his head, and you will have leave to make a long meal. but when, after your long meal, you go home in the wee small hours, what do you expect to find? you will find my toast--"woman, a beautiful rod!" now my advice is, "kiss the rod!" then here's to our boyhood, its gold and its gray! the stars of its winter, the dews of its may! and when we have done with our life-lasting toys, dear father, take care of thy children, the boys! feeling have great care not to put any strain upon the throat. breathe low. be moderate in force. o mighty cæsar! dost thou lie so low? are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, shrunk to this little measure? fare thee well. yes, i attack louis napoleon; i attack him openly, before all the world. i attack him before god and man. i attack him boldly and recklessly for love of the people and for love of france. i am asked what i have to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced on me according to law. i am charged with being an emissary of france! and for what end? no; i am no emissary. i see a race without disease of flesh or brain,--shapely and fair,--the married harmony of form and function,--and as i look, life lengthens, joy deepens, love canopies the earth. tone color use the imagination to see and hear. suit the voice to the sound, form or movement of your image, or to the mood of mind indicated. read with melody and pause. take plenty of time. there's a lurid light | in the clouds to-night, in the wind | there's a desolate moan, and the rage of the furious sea | is white, where it breaks | on the crags of stone. the sun's rim dips; the stars rush out: at one stride | comes the dark; with far-heard whisper, | o'er the sea, off shot | the specter-bark. is this a time to be gloomy and sad; when our mother nature | laughs around; when even the deep blue heavens | look glad, and gladness breathes from the blossoming ground? the breeze comes whispering in our ear, that dandelions | are blossoming near, that maize | has sprouted, that streams | are flowing, that the river is bluer | than the sky, that the robin | is plastering his nest | hard by; and if the breeze kept the good news back, for other couriers | we should not lack; we could guess it all | by yon heifer's | lowing,-- and hark! how clear | bold chanticleer, warmed | by the new wine | of the year, tells all | by his lusty | crowing! variety--in pitch, time, force, color, and modulation ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky; ring out the false, ring in the true. good work is the most honorable and lasting thing in the world. o thou that rollest above, round as the shield of my fathers, whence are thy beams, o sun, thy everlasting light! i am thy father's spirit, doomed for a certain term to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast in fires, till the foul crimes done in my days of nature are burnt and purg'd away. "well, gentlemen, i am a whig. if you break up the whig party, where am _i_ to go?" and, says lowell, we all held our breath, thinking where he _could_ go. but, says lowell, if he had been five feet three, we should have said, who _cares_ where you go? gesture have the action simple and unstudied, expressing the dominant purpose rather than illustrating mere words or phrases. avoid stiltedness and elaboration. try to judge where and how the gesture would be made. i nor do not _saw the air_ too much with your _hand, thus_, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as i may say, the whirlwind of passion, _you must acquire and beget a temperance_ that may give it smoothness. in my native town of athens is a monument that crowns its central hills--a plain, white shaft. _deep cut into its shining side is a name_ dear to me above the names of men, that of a brave and simple man who died in brave and simple faith. not for all the glories of new england--from plymouth rock all the way--would i exchange the heritage he left me in his soldier's death. sir, when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of alton side by side with otis and hancock, with quincy and adams, _i thought those pictured lips_ (pointing to the portraits in the hall) would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american,--the slanderer of the dead. suppose i stood at the foot of vesuvius, or Ætna, and, seeing a hamlet or a homestead planted on its slope, i said to the dwellers in that hamlet, or in that homestead, "_you see that vapor which ascends from the summit of the mountain._ that vapor may become a dense, black smoke, that will obscure the sky. _you see the trickling of lava from the crevices in the side of the mountain._ that trickling of lava may become a river of fire. _you hear that muttering in the bowels of the mountain._ that muttering may become a bellowing thunder, the voice of violent convulsion, that may shake half a continent." and what have we to oppose them? shall we try argument? sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. have we anything new to offer upon the subject? nothing. we have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? what terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? let us not, i beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. characterization learn from real life. don't go by the spelling. don't overdo the dialect. 'e carried me away to where a dooli lay, an' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean. 'e put me safe inside, an' just before 'e died: "i 'ope you liked your drink," sez gunga din. sergeant buzfuz began by saying that never, in the whole course of his experience,--never, from the very first moment of his applying himself to the study and practice of the law, had he approached a case with such a heavy sense of the responsibility imposed upon him. i'm a walkin' pedestrian, a travelin' philosopher. terry o'mulligan's me name. i'm from dublin, where many philosophers before me was raised and bred. oh, philosophy is a foine study! i don't know anything about it, but it's a foine study! it is de ladies who do sweeten de cares of life. it is de ladies who are de guiding stars of our existence. it is de ladies who do cheer but not inebriate, and, derefore, vid all homage to de dear sex, de toast dat i have to propose is, "de ladies! god bless dem all!" what tho' on hamely fare we dine, wear hoddin' gray, an' a' that; gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine-- a man's a man, for a' that. for a' that, an' a' that, their tinsel show, an' a' that, the honest man, though e'er sae poor, is king o' men for a' that! a keerless man in his talk was jim, and an awkward hand in a row, but he never flunked, and he never lied,-- i reckon he never knowed how. he seen his duty, a dead-sure thing,-- and he went for it thar and then; and christ ain't agoing to be too hard on a man that died for men. talks on talking by grenville kleiser formerly instructor in public speaking at yale divinity school, yale university; author of "how to speak in public," "how to develop power and personality in speaking," "how to develop self-confidence in speech and manner," "how to argue and win," "how to read and declaim," "complete guide to public speaking,"; etc. copyright, , by funk. & wagnalls company (printed in the united states of america) published, september, copyright under the articles of the copyright convention of the pan-american republics and the united states, august , contents page the art of talking types of talkers talkers and talking phrases for talkers the speaking voice how to tell a story talking in salesmanship men and mannerisms how to speak in public practical hints for speakers the dramatic element in speaking conversation and public speaking a talk to preachers care of the speaker's throat don'ts for public speakers do's for public speakers points for speakers the bible on speech thoughts on talking preface good conversation implies naturalness, spontaneity, and sincerity of utterance. it is not advisable, therefore, to lay down arbitrary rules to govern talking, but it is believed that the suggestions offered here will contribute to the general elevation and improvement of daily speech. considering the large number of persons who are obliged to talk in social, business, and public life, the subject of correct speech should receive more serious consideration than is usually given to it. it is earnestly hoped that this volume will be of practical value to those who are desirous of developing and improving their conversational powers. appreciative thanks are expressed to the editors of the _homiletic review_ for permission to reprint some of the extracts. grenville kleiser. new york city, may, . boys flying kites haul in their white-wing'd birds: you can't do that way when you're flying words. "careful with fire," is good advice we know; "careful with words," is ten times doubly so. thoughts unexpress'd may sometimes fall back dead, but god himself can't kill them once they're said! --_will carleton._ the first duty of a man is to speak; that is his chief business in this world; and talk, which is the harmonious speech of two or more, is by far the most accessible of pleasures. it costs nothing; it is all profit; it completes our education; it founds and fosters our friendships; and it is by talk alone that we learn our period and ourselves. --_robert louis stevenson._ vociferated logic kills me quite; a noisy man is always in the right-- i twirl my thumbs, fall back into my chair, fix on the wainscot a distressful stare; and when i hope his blunders all are out, reply discreetly, "to be sure--no doubt!" --_anon._ talks on talking the art of talking the charm of conversation chiefly depends upon the adaptability of the participants. it is a great accomplishment to be able to enter gently and agreeably into the moods of others, and to give way to them with grace and readiness. the spirit of conversation is oftentimes more important than the ideas expressed. what we are rather than what we say has the most permanent influence upon those around us. hence it is that where a group of persons are met together in conversation, it is the inner life of each which silently though none the less surely imparts tone and character to the occasion. it requires vigorous self-discipline so to cultivate the feelings of kindness and sympathy that they are always in readiness for use. these qualities are essential to agreeable and profitable intercourse, though comparatively few people possess them. burke considered manners of more importance than laws. sidney smith described manners as the shadows of virtues. dean swift defined manners as the art of putting at ease the people with whom we converse. chesterfield said manners should adorn knowledge in order to smooth its way through the world. emerson spoke of manners as composed of petty sacrifices. we all recognize that a winning manner is made up of seemingly insignificant courtesies, and of constant little attentions. a person of charming manner is usually free from resentments, inquisitiveness, and moods. personality plays a large part in interesting conversation. precisely the same phraseology expressed by two different persons may make two wholly different impressions, and all because of the difference in the personalities of the speakers. the daily mental life of a man indelibly impresses itself upon his face, where it can be unmistakably read by others. what a person is, innately and habitually, unconsciously discloses itself in voice, manner, and bearing. the world ultimately appraises a man at his true value. the best type of talker is slow to express positive opinions, is sparing in criticism, and studiously avoids a tone or word of finality. it has been well said that "a talker who monopolizes the conversation is by common consent insufferable, and a man who regulates his choice of topics by reference to what interests not his hearers but himself has yet to learn the alphabet of the art. conversation is like lawn-tennis, and requires alacrity in return at least as much as vigor in service. a happy phrase, an unexpected collocation of words, a habitual precision in the choice of terms, are rare and shining ornaments of conversation, but they do not for an instant supply the place of lively and interesting matter, and an excessive care for them is apt to tell unfavorably on the substance of discourse." when lord beaconsfield was talking his way into social fame, someone said of him, "i might as well attempt to gather up the foam of the sea as to convey an idea of the extraordinary language in which he clothed his description. there were at least five words in every sentence that must have been very much astonished at the use they were put to, and yet no others apparently could so well have expressed his idea. he talked like a racehorse approaching the winning-post--every muscle in action, and the utmost energy of expression flung out into every burst." we are told that matthew arnold combined all the characteristics of good conversation--politeness, vivacity, sympathy, interestedness, geniality, a happy choice of words, and a never-failing humor. when he was once asked what was his favorite topic for conversation, he instantly answered, "that in which my companion is most interested." courtesy, it will be noted, is the fundamental basis of good conversation. we must show habitual consideration and kindliness towards others if we would attract them to us. bluntness of manner is no longer excused on the ground that the speaker is sincere and outspoken. we expect and demand that our companion in conversation should observe the recognized courtesies of speech. there was a time when men and women indulged freely in satire, irony, and repartee. they spoke their thoughts plainly and unequivocally. there were no restraints imposed upon them by society, hence it now appears to us that many things were said which might better have been left unsaid. self-restraint is nowadays one of the cardinal virtues of good conversation. the spirit of conversation is greatly changed. we are enjoined to keep the voice low, think before we speak, repress unseasonable allusions, shun whatever may cause a jar or jolt in the minds of others, be seldom prominent in conversation, and avoid all clashing of opinion and collision of feeling. macaulay was fond of talking, but made the mistake of always choosing a subject to suit himself and monopolizing the conversation. he lectured rather than talked. his marvelous memory was perhaps his greatest enemy, for though it enabled him to pour forth great masses of facts, people listened to him helplessly rather than admiringly. carlyle was a great talker, and talked much in protest of talking. no man broke silence oftener than he to tell the world how great a curse is talking. but he told it eloquently and therein was he justified. there was in him too much vehement sternness, of hard scotch granite, to make him a pleasant talker in the popular sense. he was the evangelist of golden silence, and though he did not apparently practice it himself, his genius will never diminish. gladstone was unable to indulge in small talk. his mind was so constantly occupied with great subjects that he spoke even to one person as if addressing a meeting. it is said that in conversation with queen victoria he would invariably choose weighty subjects, and though she tried to make a digression, he would seize the first opportunity to resume his original theme, always reinforced in volume and onrush by the delay. lord morley is attractive though austere in conversation. he never dogmatizes nor obtrudes his own opinions. he is a master of phrase-making. but although he talks well he never talks much. the story is told that at a recent dinner in london ten leading public men were met together, when one suggested that each gentleman present should write down on paper the name of the man he would specially choose to be his companion on a walking tour. when the ten papers were subsequently read aloud, each bore the name of lord morley. lord rosebery is considered one of the most accomplished talkers of the day. deferential, natural, sympathetic, observant, well-informed, he easily and unconsciously commands the attention of any group of men. his voice is said to recommend what he utters, and a singularly refined accent gives distinction to anything he says. he is a supreme example of two great qualifications for effective talking: having something worth while to say, and knowing how to say it. among distinguished canadians, sir thomas white is one of the most interesting speakers. his versatile mind, and broad and varied experience, enable him to converse with almost equal facility upon politics, medicine, finance, law, science, art, literature, or business. dates, details, facts, figures, and illustrations are at his ready command. his manner is natural, courteous, and genial, but in argumentation the whole man is so thoroughly aroused to earnestness and intensity as almost to overwhelm an opponent. his greatest quality in speaking is his manifest sincerity, and it is this particularly which has ingratiated him in the hearts of his countrymen. the honorable joseph h. choate must certainly be reckoned among the best conversationalists of our time. his manner, both in conversation and in public speaking, is singularly gracious and winning. he is unsurpassed as a story-teller. his fine taste, combined with long experience as a public man, makes him an ideal after-dinner speaker. some eminent men try to mask their greatness when engaged in conversation. they do not wear their feelings nor their greatness on their sleeves. some have an utter distaste for anything like personal display. it is said of the late henry james that a stranger might talk to him for an entire evening without discovering his identity. there is an interesting account of an evening's conversation between emerson and thoreau. when thoreau returned home he wrote in his journal: "talked, or tried to talk, with r.w.e. lost my time, nay, almost my identity. he, assuming a false opposition where there was no difference of opinion, talked to the wind." emerson's version of the conversation was this: "it seemed as if thoreau's first instinct on hearing a proposition was to controvert it. that habit is chilling to the social affections; it mars conversation." conversation offers daily opportunity for intellectual exercise of high order. the reading of great books is desirable and indispensable to education, but real culture comes through the additional training one receives in conversation. the contact of mind with mind tends to stimulate and develop thoughts which otherwise would probably remain dormant. the culture of conversation is to be recommended not only for its own sake, but also as one of the best means of training in the art of public speaking. since the best form of platform address today is simply conversation enlarged and elevated, it may almost be assumed that to excel in one is to be proficient in the other. good conversation requires, among other things, mental alertness, accuracy of statement, adequate vocabulary, facility of expression, and an agreeable voice, and these qualities are most essential for effective public speaking. everyone, therefore, who aspires to speaking before an audience of hundreds or thousands, will find his best opportunity for preliminary training in everyday speech. types of talkers there is no greater affliction in modern life than the tiresome talker. he talks incessantly. presumably he talks in his sleep. talking is his constant exercise and recreation. he thrives on it. he lives for talking's sake. he would languish if he were deprived of it for a single day. his continuous practice in talking enables him easily to outdistance all ordinary competitors. there is nothing which so completely unnerves him as long periods of silence. he has the talking habit in its most virulent form. the trifling talker is equally objectionable. he talks much, but says little. he skims over the surface of things, and is timid of anything deep or philosophical. he does not tarry at one subject. he talks of the weather, clothes, plays, and sports. he puts little meaning into what he says, because there is little meaning in what he thinks. he cannot look at anything seriously. nothing is of great significance to him. he is in the class of featherweights. the tedious talker is one without terminal facilities. he talks right on with no idea of objective or destination. he rises to go, but he does not go. he knows he ought to go, but he simply cannot. he has something more to say. he keeps you standing half an hour. he talks a while longer. he assures you he really must go. you tell him not to hurry. he takes you at your word and sits down again. he talks some more. he rises again. he does not know even now how to conclude. he has no mental compass. he is a rudderless talker. probably the most obnoxious type is the tattling talker. he always has something startlingly personal to impart. it is a sacred secret for your ear. he is a wholesale dealer in gossip. he fairly smacks his lips as he relates the latest scandal. he is an expert embellisher. he adroitly supplies missing details. he has nothing of interest in his own life, since he lives wholly in the lives of others. he is a frightful bore, but you cannot offend him. he is adamant. there is the tautological talker, or the human self-repeater. he goes over the ground again and again lest you have missed something. he is very fond of himself. he tells the same story not twice, but a dozen times. "you may have heard this before," says he, "but it is so good that it will bear repetition." he tries to disguise his poverty of thought in a masquerade of ornate language. if he must repeat his words, he adds a little emphasis, a flourishing gesture, or a spirit of nonchalance. again, there is the tenacious talker, who refuses to release you though you concede his arguments. when all others tacitly drop a subject, he eagerly picks it up. he is reluctant to leave it. he would put you in possession of his special knowledge. you may successfully refute him, but he holds firmly to his own ideas. he is positive he is right. he will prove it, too, if you will only listen. he knows that he knows. you cannot convince him to the contrary, no indeed. he will talk you so blind that at last you are unable to see any viewpoint clearly. a recognized type is the tactless talker. he says the wrong thing in the right way, and the right thing in the wrong way. he is impulsive and unguarded. he reaches hasty conclusions. he confuses his tactlessness with cleverness. he is awkward and blundering. his indifference to the rights and feelings of others is his greatest enemy. he is a stranger to discretion. he speaks first, and thinks afterwards. he may have regrets, but not resolutions. he is often tolerated, but seldom esteemed. the temperamental talker is one of the greatest of nerve-destroyers. he deals in superlatives. he views everything emotionally. he talks feelingly of trifles, and ecstatically of friends. he gushes. he flatters. to him everything is "wonderful," "prodigious," "superb," "gorgeous," "heavenly," "amazing," "indescribable," "overwhelming." extravagance and exaggeration permeate his most commonplace observations. he is an incurable enthusiast. the tantalizing talker is one who likes to contradict you. he divides his attention between what you are saying and what he can summon to oppose you. he dissents from your most ordinary observations. his favorite phrases are, "i don't think so," "there is where you are wrong," "i beg to differ," and "not only that." tell him it will be a fine day, and he will declare that the signs indicate foul weather. say that the day is unpromising, and he will assure you it does not look that way to him. he cavils at trifles. he disputes even when there is no antagonist. to listen to the tortuous talker is a supreme test of patience. he slowly winds his way in and out of a subject. he traverses by-paths, allowing nothing to escape his unwearied eye. he goes a long way about, but never tires of his circuitous journey. ploddingly and perseveringly he zigzags from one point to another. he alters his course as often as the crooked way of his subject changes. he twists, turns, and diverges without the slightest inconvenience to himself. he likes nothing better than to trace out details. his talking disease is discursiveness. the tranquil talker never hurries. he has all the time there is. if you are very busy he will wait. he is uniformly moderate and polite. he is a rare combination of oil, milk, and rose-water. he would not harm a syllable of the english language. his talking has a soporific effect. it acts as a lullaby. his speech is low and gentle. he never speaks an ill-considered word. he chooses his words with measured caution. he is what is known as a smooth talker. the torpedo talker is of the rapid fire explosive variety. he bursts into a conversation. he scatters labials, dentals, and gutturals in all directions. he is a war-time talker,--boom, burst, bang, roar, crash, thud! he fills the air with vocal bullets and syllabic shrapnel. he is trumpet-tongued, ear-splitting, deafening. he fires promiscuously at all his hearers. he rends the skies asunder. he is nothing if not vociferous, stentorian, lusty. he demolishes every idea in his way. he is a napoleon of words. the tangled talker never gets anything quite straight. he inevitably spoils the best story. he always begins at the wrong end. despite your protests of face and manner he talks on. he talks inopportunely. he becomes inextricably confused. he is weak in statistics. he has no memory for names or places. he lacks not fluency but accuracy. he is a twisted talker. the triumphant talker lays claim to the star part in any conversation. he likes nothing better than to drive home his point and then look about exultingly. he says gleefully, "i told you so." that he can ever be wrong is inconceivable to him. he knows the facts since he can readily manufacture them himself. he is self-satisfied, for in his own opinion he has never lost an argument. he is a brave and bold talker. these, then, are some types of talking which we should not emulate. study the list carefully--the tiresome talker, the trifling talker, the tedious talker, the tattling talker, the tautological talker, the tenacious talker, the tactless talker, the temperamental talker, the tantalizing talker, the tangled talker, the triumphant talker--and guard yourself diligently against the faults which they represent. talking should always be a pleasure to the speaker and listener, never a bore. talkers and talking conversation is not a verbal nor vocal contest, but a mutual meeting of minds. it is not a monologue, but a reciprocal exchange of ideas. there are cardinal rules which everyone should observe in conversation. the first of these is to be prepared always to give courteous and considerate attention to the ideas of others. there is no better way to cultivate your own conversational powers than to train yourself first to be an interesting and sympathetic listener. it is in bad taste to interrupt a speaker. this is a common fault which should be resolutely guarded against. moreover, your own opportunity to speak will shortly come if you have patience, when you may reasonably expect to receive the same uninterrupted attention which you have given to others. never allow yourself to monopolize a conversation. this is a form of selfishness practiced by many persons apparently unaware of being ill-mannered. it is inexcusably bad taste to tell unduly long stories or lengthy personal experiences. if you cannot abridge a story to reasonable dimensions, it would be better to omit it entirely. the habitual long-story teller may easily become a bore. avoid the habit of eagerly matching the other person's story or experience with one of your own. there is nothing more disconcerting to a speaker than to observe the listener impatiently waiting to plunge headlong into the conversation with some marvellous tale. be particularly careful not to outdo another speaker in relating your own experiences. if, for instance, he has just told how he caught fifty fish upon a recent trip, do not succumb to the temptation to tell of the time you caught fifty-one. be careful not to give unsolicited advice. it has been well said that advice which costs nothing is worth what it costs. if people desire your counsel they will probably ask for it, in which case they will be more likely to appreciate what you have to tell them. do not voluntarily recommend doctors, dentists, osteopaths, pills, coffee substitutes, health foods, health resorts, or panaceas for the ills of mankind. if you can be of service to others in these particular respects, it will be when you are specifically asked for such information. it is most imprudent to carry an argument to extremes. if you observe an unwillingness in the other person to be convinced by what you say, you had better turn to another subject. conversation should never resolve itself into controversial debate. it is well to avoid discursiveness, over-use of parentheses, and positiveness of statement. keep your desires and feelings from over-coloring your views. a flexible attitude of mind is more likely to win an opponent to your way of thinking. take special pains to enter into the minds and feelings of others. be interested in what they want to talk about. let your interest be deep and sincere. adopt the right tone, temper, and reticence in your conversation. you should accustom yourself to look at things from the other person's standpoint. it is surprising how this habit enlarges the vision and gives a charitableness to speech which might otherwise be absent. it is well to remember that no person can possibly have a monopoly of knowledge upon any subject. good conversation demands restraint, adaptability, and reasonable brevity. there is an appalling waste of words on all sides, hence you should constantly guard yourself against this fault. when there is nothing worth-while to say, the best substitute is silence. practice self-discipline in talking. correct any fault in yourself the instant you recognize it. if, for example, you realize that you are talking at too great length, stop it at once. should you feel that you are not giving interested attention to the speaker, check your mind-wandering immediately and concentrate upon what is being said. do not be always setting other people right. this is a thankless as well as useless task. they probably do not want your assistance, or they would ask for it. besides most people are sensitive about their shortcomings, and prefer to get help and counsel in private. there is no more important suggestion than to rule your moods. ofttimes the feelings run away with the judgment. what you think and say today may be due to your present mood, rather than to matured judgment. let your common sense predominate at all times. it is not well to give too strong expression to your likes and dislikes. these, like all your feelings, should be governed with a firm hand. opinions advanced with too much emphasis may easily fail to impress other minds. remember always that your greatest ally is truth. therefore frankly and faithfully examine your important opinions before giving them expression. resist the desire to be prominent in conversation, or to say clever and surprising things. this is sometimes difficult to do, but it is the only safe course to follow. if you have something brilliant or worth-while to say, it will be best said spontaneously and with due modesty. but if there is no suitable opportunity to say it, put it back in your mind where it may improve with age. egotism is taboo in polite society. the suggestion that nothing should be allowed to pass the lips that charity would check is invaluable advice. it is unfortunately all too common to give hasty and harsh expression to personal opinions and criticisms. reticence is one of the most essential conditions of long friendship. judgment and tact are necessary to good conversation. it is not well to ask many questions, and then only those of a general character. curiosity should be curbed. quite properly people resent inquisitiveness. the best way to cultivate the rare grace of judgment is to be mindful of your own faults and to correct them with all speed and thoroughness. the word "talk" is often used in a derogatory sense, and we hear such expressions as "all talk," "empty talk," and "idle talk." but as everyone talks, we should all do our utmost to set a high example to others of the correct use of speech. it is always better to talk too little than too much. never talk for mere talking's sake. avoid being artificial or pedantic. don't antagonize, dogmatize, moralize, attitudinize, nor criticise. talk in poise,--quietly, deliberately, sincerely, and you will never lack an attentive audience. phrases for talkers it is said of macaulay that he never allowed a sentence to pass muster until it was as good as he could make it. he would write and rewrite, and even construct a paragraph or a whole chapter, in order to secure a more lucid and satisfactory arrangement. he wrote just so much each day, usually an average of six pages, and this manuscript was so erased and corrected that it was finally compressed into two pages of print. the masters of english prose have been great workers. stevenson and others like him gave hours and days to the study of words, phrases, and sentences. through unwearied application to the art of rhetorical composition they ultimately won fame as writers. the ambitious student of speech culture, whether for use in conversation or in public, will do well to emulate the example of such great writers. one of the best ways to build a large vocabulary is to note useful and striking phrases in one's general reading. it is advisable to jot down such phrases in a note-book, and to read them aloud from time to time. such phrases may be classified according to their particular application,--to business, politics, music, education, literature, or the drama. it is not recommended that such phrases should be consciously dragged into conversation, but the practice of carefully observing felicitous phrases, and of noting them in writing, cultivates the taste for better words and a sense of discrimination in their use. many phrases noted and studied in this way will unconsciously find their way into one's expression. the list of phrases which follows is offered as merely suggestive. in reading the phrases aloud it is well to think clearly what each one means, and to fit it into a sentence of one's own making. this simple exercise, practiced for a few weeks, will produce surprising results by way of increased facility and flexibility of english style. it is obviously desirable i can well imagine broadly speaking an admirable idea in a literal sense by sheer force of genius you can imagine his chagrin i hazard a guess it challenges belief he has an inscrutable face very fertile in resource i am loath to believe it is essentially undignified example is so contagious i am not in her confidence taken in the aggregate it is a reproof to shallowness there is a misconception here i strongly suspect it so he was covered with confusion it was a just rebuke a pleasing instance of this it lends dignity to life she has a desultory liking for music it seems incredible a kind of detached ideal it blunts the finer sensibilities beyond question or cavil a well-founded suspicion it has elicited great praise they are landmarks in memory superhuman vigor and activity a venerable and interesting figure it is curious and interesting gives the impression of aloofness perfectly void of offence regard with misgiving a stroke of professional luck an unscrupulous adventurer he spoke with extreme reticence robust common sense deficient in amiability done with characteristic thoroughness a vein of philanthropic zeal definite, tangible, and practical too much effusive declamation a man of keen ambition it gives infinite zest singular qualifications for public life they are bitterly hostile the despair of the official wire-puller blind and unreasoning opponent ignoble strife for power surrounded by a cohort of admiring friends in an imperative voice marked by copiousness and vivacity touched with sombre dignity a ridiculous misconception habitual austerity of demeanor ostentation and lavish expenditure a person of exquisite tact intolerant of bumptiousness the obvious danger of dallying this was grossly overstated a mass of calumny and exaggeration inimical to religion fraught with peril i venture to ask attributed to mental decrepitude a strange phenomena it argues a blind faith insatiable whirl of excitement a substratum of truth under some conceivable circumstances bubbling over with infectious joy frigid dignity and arrogant reserve a profound contempt the fine art of hospitality grim morsels of philosophy a tinge of sorrowness and jealousy due to ignorance and barbarism grave and monstrous scandal a splendid instance of self-devotion amusingly exemplified in this case recognized and powerful element a symbol of restraint an utterly fallacious idea in rapid and striking succession we learn from stern experience pictures of an inspired imagination an astonishing outbreak soothing words of sympathy a rather bold assertion the most enthusiastic adherents mere tepid conviction eminently qualified for the task almost supernatural charm in glowing and exaggerated phrases somewhat rich and austere an inexhaustible theme grave and undeniable faults perfectly chosen language all the characteristics of a mob given to grandiloquent phrase peculiar vein of sarcasm froze like ice and cut like steel a generous tribute to an eminent rival cold and stately composure fiery and passionate enthusiasm extraordinary violence of nature a brilliant and delightful play rare and striking combination preeminently qualified for the part moderate and cautious conservatism daring perversions of justice devoid of rhetorical device as a great thinker has observed almost morbid sensitiveness discreetly stifled yawn he was dumb with wonder scarcely less familiar delightfully characteristic it was a profound conviction greatly conceived and expressed blinded by its brightness i have cudgelled my memory exposed to imminent peril screening a breach of etiquette by a natural transition splendid anticipations of success a very laudable attempt lapsed into complete oblivion with most distinguished success like embarking on a shoreless sea a really pretty imitation unless i greatly err undaunted by repeated failure became a term of reproach an epoch-making achievement in the guise of verbal nonsense received with cordial sympathy with the most obvious sincerity held forth with fluency and zest gracious solicitude punctiliously civil and polite an air of sphinx-like mystery consumed by zeal awaited with lively interest sledge-hammer blows against humbug this recalls a happy retort preeminently a case in point exquisite precision and finish incomparably better informed a keen eye for incongruities polite to the point of deference to the last degree improbable people with rampant prejudices a model of chivalrous propriety by way of digression a splendid acquisition singularly attractive fashion a kind of unconscious conspiracy amid engrossing demands the speaking voice there is a widespread need for a more thorough cultivation of the speaking voice. it is astonishing how few persons give specific attention to this important subject. on all sides we are subjected to voices that are disagreeable and strident. it is the exception to hear a voice that is musical and well-modulated. most people make too much physical effort in speaking. they tighten the muscles of the throat and mouth, instead of liberating these muscles and allowing the voice to flow naturally and harmoniously. the remedy for this common fault of vocal tension is to relax all the muscles used in speech. this is easily accomplished by means of a little daily practice. the first thing to keep in mind is that we should speak through the throat and not from it. a musical quality of voice depends chiefly upon directing the tone towards the hard palate, or the bony arch above the upper teeth. from this part of the mouth the voice acquires much of its resonance. an excellent exercise for throat relaxation is yawning. it is not necessary to wait until a real yawn presents itself, but frequent practice in imitating a yawn may be indulged in with good results. immediately after practicing the yawn, it is advisable to test the voice, either in speaking or in reading, to observe improvement in freedom of tone. it is not desirable to use the voice where there is loud noise by way of opposition. many a good voice has been ruined due to the habit of continuous talking on the street or elsewhere amid clatter and hubbub. under such circumstances it is better to rest the voice, since in any contest of the kind the voice will almost surely be vanquished. what we need in our daily conversation is less emphasis, and more quietness and non-resistance. we need less eagerness and more vivacity and variety. we need a settled equanimity of mind that does not deprive us of our animation, but saves us from the petty irritations of everyday life. we need, in short, more poise and self-control in our way of speaking. it is well to remember that few things we say are of such importance as to require emphasis. the thought should be its own recommendation. but if emphasis be necessary, let it be by the intellectual means of pausing or inflection, rather than with the shoulders or the clenched fist. a very disagreeable and common fault is nasality, or "talking through the nose." many persons are guilty of this who least suspect it. this habit is so easily and unconsciously acquired that everyone should be on strict guard against it. almost equally disagreeable is the fault of throatiness, caused by holding the muscles of the throat instead of relaxing them. the best tones of the speaking voice are the middle and low keys. these should be used exclusively in daily conversation. the use of high pitch is due to habit or temperament, but may be overcome through judicious practice. the objection to a high-keyed voice is not only that it is disagreeable to the listener, but puts the speaker "out of tune" with his audience. a good speaking voice should possess the qualities of purity, resonance, flexibility, roundness, brilliancy, and adequate power. these qualities can be rapidly developed by daily reading aloud for ten minutes, giving special attention to one quality at a time. a few weeks, assiduous practice will produce most gratifying results. the voice grows through use, and it grows precisely in the way it is habitually used. distinct articulation and correct pronunciation are indications of cultivated speech. pedantry should be avoided, but every aspirant to correct speech should be a student of the dictionary. a writer has given this good counsel: "resolve that you will never use an incorrect, an inelegant, or a vulgar phrase or word, in any society whatever. if you are gifted with wit, you will soon find that it is easy to give it far better point and force in pure english than through any other medium, and that brilliant thoughts make the deepest impressions when well worded. however great it may be, the labor is never lost which earns for you the reputation of one who habitually uses the language of a gentleman, or of a lady. it is difficult for those who have not frequent opportunities for conversation with well-educated people, to avoid using expressions which are not current in society, although they may be of common occurrence in books. as they are often learned from novels, it will be well for the reader to remember that even in the best of such works dialogues are seldom sustained in a tone which would not appear affected in ordinary life. this fault in conversation is the most difficult of all to amend, and it is unfortunately the one to which those who strive to express themselves correctly are peculiarly liable. its effect is bad, for though it is not like slang, vulgar in itself, it betrays an effort to conceal vulgarity. it may generally be remedied by avoiding any word or phrase which you may suspect yourself of using for the purpose of creating an effect. whenever you imagine that the employment of any mere word or sentence will convey the impression that you are well informed, substitute for it some simple expression. if you are not positively certain as to the pronunciation of a word, never use it. if the temptation be great, resist it; for, rely upon it, if there be in your mind the slightest doubt on the subject, you will certainly make a mistake. never use a foreign word when its meaning can be given in english, and remember that it is both rude and silly to say anything to any person who possibly may not understand it. but never attempt, under any circumstances whatever, to utter a foreign word, unless you have learned to pronounce correctly the language to which it belongs." there is need for the admonition to open the mouth well. many people speak with half-closed teeth, the result being that the quality of voice and correctness of pronunciation are greatly impaired. consonants and vowels should be given proper significance. muffled speech is almost as objectionable as stammering. it enhances the pleasure and quality of conversation to speak in deliberate style. rapidity of utterance often leads a speaker into such faults as indistinctness, monotony, and incorrect breathing. deliberate speaking confers many advantages, not the least of which is increased pleasure to the listener. many voices are too thin in quality. they fail to carry conviction even when the thought is of superior character. the remedy here is to give special attention to the development of deep tones. one of the best exercises for this purpose is to practice for a few minutes daily upon the vowel sound "o," endeavoring to make it full, deep, and melodious. for all-round vocal development this practice should be done with varied force and inflection, and on high as well as low keys of the voice. the best remedy for a weak voice is to practice daily upon explosives, expelling the principal vowel sounds, on various keys, using the abdominal muscles throughout. another good exercise is to read aloud while walking upstairs or uphill. as these exercises are somewhat extreme, the student is recommended to practice them prudently. correct breathing is fundamental to correct and agreeable speaking. the breathing apparatus should be brought under control by daily practice upon exercises prescribed in any standard book on elocution. pure tone of voice depends upon the ability to convert into tone every particle of breath used. aspirated voice, in which some of the breath is allowed to escape unvocalized, is injurious to the throat, and unpleasant to the listening ear. the speaker, whether in conversation or in public, should try always to speak with an adequate supply of breath. deliberate utterance will give the necessary opportunity to replenish the lungs, so that the speaker will not suffer from unnecessary fatigue. needless to say, the habit should be formed of breathing through the nose when in repose. there is a voice of unusual roundness and fulness known as the orotund, which is indispensable to the public speaker. it is simple, pure tone, rounded out into greater fulness. it is produced mainly by an increased resonance of the chest and mouth cavities, and a more vigorous action of the abdominal muscles. it has the character of fulness, but it is not necessarily a loud tone. it is in no sense artificial, but simply an enlargement of the natural conversational voice. the use of the orotund voice varies according to the intensity of the thought and feeling being expressed. it is used in language of great dignity, power, grandeur, and sublimity. it is appropriate in certain forms of public prayer and bible reading. it enables the public speaker to vary from his conversational style. it gives vastly increased scope and power, by enabling the speaker to bring into play all the resources of vocal force and intensity. where resonance of voice is lacking, it can be rapidly developed by means of humming the letter _m_, with lips closed, and endeavoring to make the face vibrate. the tone should be kept well forward throughout the exercise, pressing firmly against the lips and hard palate. later the exercise may begin with the humming _m_, and be developed, while the lips are opened gradually, into the tone of _ah_, still aiming to maintain the original resonance. the speaking voice is capable of most wonderful development. there is a duty devolving upon everyone to cultivate beauty of vocal utterance and diction. crudities of speech so commonly in evidence are mainly due to carelessness and neglect. it is a hopeful sign, however, that greater attention is now being given to this important subject than heretofore. surely there is nothing more important than the development of the principal instrument by which men communicate with one another. as story says: "o, how our organ can speak with its many and wonderful voices!-- play on the soft lute of love, blow the loud trumpet of war, sing with the high sesquialter, or, drawing its full diapason, shake all the air with the grand storm of its pedals and stops." how to tell a story someone has wittily said that only those in their anecdotage should tell stories. de quincey wanted all story-tellers to be submerged in a horse-pond, or treated in the same manner as mad dogs. but story-telling has its legitimate and appropriate use, and if certain rules are observed may give added charm to conversation and public speaking. it requires a fine discrimination to know when to tell a story, and when not to tell one though it is urging itself to be expressed. few men have the rare gift of choosing the right story for the particular occasion. many men have no difficulty in telling stories that are insufferably long, pointless, and uninteresting. we have all been victims of a certain type of public speaker who begins by saying, "now i don't want to bore you with a long story, but this is so good, etc.," or "an incident occurred at the american consulate in shanghai, which reminds me of an awfully good story, etc." when a speaker prefaces his remarks with some such sentences as these, we know we are in for an uncomfortable time. as far as possible a story should be new, clever, short, simple, inoffensive, and appropriate. as such stories are scarce, it is advisable to set them down, when found, in a special note-book for convenient reference. it is said that chauncey m. depew, one of the most gifted of after-dinner speakers, was for many years in the habit of keeping a set of scrap-books in which were preserved stories and other interesting data clipped from newspapers and magazines. these were so classified that he could on short notice refresh his mind with ample material upon almost any general subject. anyone who essays to tell a story should have it clearly in mind. it is fatal for a speaker to hesitate midway in a story, apologize for not knowing it better, avow that it was much more humorous when told to him, and in other ways to announce his shortcomings. if he cannot tell a story fluently and interestingly, he should first practice it on his own family--provided they will tolerate it. some stories should be committed to memory, especially where the point of humor depends upon exact phraseology. in such case, it requires some training and experience to disguise the memorized effort. a story like the following, for obvious reasons, should be thoroughly memorized: the longest sermon on record occupied three hours and a half. but the shortest sermon was that of a preacher who spoke for one minute on the text: "man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward." he said: "i shall divide my discourse into three heads: ( ) man's ingress into the world; ( ) his progress through the world; ( ) his egress out of the world. "firstly, his ingress into the world is naked and bare. "secondly, his progress through the world is trouble and care. "thirdly, his egress out of the world is nobody knows where. "to conclude: "if we live well here, we shall live well there. "i can tell you no more if i preach a whole year. "the collection will now be taken up." dialect stories are usually rather difficult, and should not as a general thing be attempted by beginners. as a matter of fact, few persons know how to speak such dialects as irish, scotch, german, cockney, and negro without undue exaggeration. for most occasions it is well to keep to simple stories couched in plain english. a story should be told in simple, conversational style. concentration upon the story, and a sincere desire to give pleasure to the hearers, will keep the speaker free from self-consciousness. needless to say he should not be the first to laugh at his own story. sometimes in telling a humorous anecdote to an audience a speaker secures the greatest effect by maintaining an expression of extreme gravity. no matter how successful one may be in telling stories, he should avoid telling too many. a man who is accounted brilliant and entertaining may become an insufferable bore by continuing to tell stories when the hearers have become satiated. of all speakers, the story-teller should keep his eyes on his entire audience and be alert to detect the slightest signs of weariness. it is superfluous to say that a story should never be told which in any way might give offence. the speaker may raise a laugh, but lose a friend. hence it is that stories about stammerers, red-headed people, mothers-in-law, and the like, should always be chosen with discrimination. generally the most effective story is one in which the point of humor is not disclosed until the very last words, as in the following: an old colored man was brought up before a country judge. "jethro," said the judge, "you are accused of stealing general johnson's chickens. have you any witnesses?" "no, sah," old jethro answered, haughtily; "i hab not, sah. i never steal chickens befo' witnesses." this is a similar example, told by prime minister asquith: an english professor wrote on the blackboard in his laboratory, "professor blank informs his students that he has this day been appointed honorary physician to his majesty, king george." during the morning he had some occasion to leave the room, and found on his return that some student wag had added the words, "god save the king!" henry w. grady was a facile story-teller. one of his best stories was as follows: "there was an old preacher once who told some boys of the bible lesson he was going to read in the morning. the boys, finding the place, glued together the connecting pages. the next morning he read on the bottom of one page: 'when noah was one hundred and twenty years old he took unto himself a wife, who was'--then turning the page--'one hundred and forty cubits long, forty cubits wide, built of gopherwood, and covered with pitch inside and out.' he was naturally puzzled at this. he read it again, verified it, and then said: 'my friends, this is the first time i ever met this in the bible, but i accept it as an evidence of the assertion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.'" personalities based upon sarcasm or invective are always attended with danger, but good-humored bantering may be used upon occasion with most happy results. as an instance of this, there is a story of an annual dinner at which mr. choate was set down for the toast, "the navy," and mr. depew was to respond to "the army." mr. depew began by saying, "it's well to have a specialist: that's why choate is here to speak about the navy. we met at the wharf once and i did not see him again till we reached liverpool. when i asked how he felt he said he thought he would have enjoyed the trip over if he had had any ocean air. yes, you want to hear choate on the navy." when it was mr. choate's turn to speak, he said: "i've heard depew hailed as the greatest after-dinner speaker. if after-dinner speaking, as i have heard it described and as i believe it to be, is the art of saying nothing at all, then mr. depew is the most marvelous speaker in the universe." the medical profession can be assailed with impunity, since they have long since grown accustomed to it. there is a story of a young laborer who, on his way to his day's work, called at the registrar's office to register his father's death. when the official asked the date of the event, the son replied, "he ain't dead yet, but he'll be dead before night, so i thought it would save me another journey if you would put it down now." "oh, that won't do at all," said the registrar; "perhaps your father will live till tomorrow." "well, i don't think so, sir; the doctor says as he won't, and he knows what he has given him." while stories should be used sparingly, there is probably nothing more effective before a popular audience than the telling of a story in which the joke is on the speaker himself. thus: the last time i made a speech, i went next day to the editor of our local newspaper, and said, "i thought your paper was friendly to me?" the editor said, "so it is. what's the matter?" "well," i said, "i made a speech last night, and you didn't print a single line of it this morning." "well," said the editor, "what further proof do you want?" many of the best and most effective stories are serious in character. one that has been used successfully is this: some gentlemen from the west were excited and troubled about the commissions or omissions of the administration. president lincoln heard them patiently, and then replied: "gentlemen, suppose all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of blondin to carry across the niagara river on a rope; would you shake the cable, or keep shouting out to him--'blondin, stand up a little straighter--blondin, stoop a little more--go a little faster--lean a little more to the north--lean a little more to the south?' no, you would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hands off until he was safe over. the government is carrying an immense weight. untold treasures are in our hands. we are doing the very best we can. don't badger us. keep silence, and we'll get you safe across." punning is of course out of fashion. the best pun in the english language is tom hood's: "he went and told the sexton, and the sexton tolled the bell." dr. johnson said that the pun was the lowest order of wit. newspapers formerly indulged in it freely. one editor would say: "we don't care a straw what shakespeare said--a rose by any other name would not smell as wheat." then another paper would answer: "such puns are barley tolerable, they amaize us, they arouse our righteous corn, and they turn the public taste a-rye." but punning, when it is unusually clever and spontaneous, may be thoroughly enjoyable, as in the following: chief justice story attended a public dinner in boston at which edward everett was present. desiring to pay a delicate compliment to the latter, the learned judge proposed as a volunteer toast: "fame follows merit where everett goes." the brilliant scholar arose and responded: "to whatever heights judicial learning may attain in this country, it will never get above one story." story-telling may attain the character of a disease, in one who has a retentive memory and a voluble vocabulary. the form of humor known as repartee, however, is one that requires rare discrimination. it should be used sparingly, and not at all if it is likely to give offence. beau brummell was guilty in this respect, when he was once asked by a lady if he would "take a cup of tea." "thank you," said he, "i never _take_ anything but physic." "i beg your pardon," said the hostess, "you also take liberties." there is a story that henry luttrell had sat long in the irish parliament, but no one knew his precise age. lady holland, without regard to considerations of courtesy, one day said to him point-blank, "now, we are all dying to know how old you are. just tell me." luttrell answered very gravely, "it is an odd question, but as you, lady holland, ask it, i don't mind telling you. if i live till next year, i shall be--devilish old!" the art of story-telling is not taught specifically, hence there are comparatively few people who can tell a story without violating some of the rules which experience recommends. but the right use of story-telling should be encouraged as an ornament of conversation, and a valuable auxiliary to effective public address. many people might excel as story-tellers if they would devote a little time to suggestions such as are offered here. it is not a difficult art, but like every other subject requires study and application. the best counsel for public speakers in the matter of story-telling may be summed up as follows: know your story thoroughly; test your story by telling it to some one in advance; adapt your story to the special circumstances; be concise, omitting non-essentials; have ready more stories than you intend to use, because if you should speak at the end of the list you may find that your best story has been told by a previous speaker; and, finally, always stop when you have made a hit. talking in salesmanship the salesman depends for his success primarily upon his talking ability. obviously, what he offers for sale must have intrinsic merit, and he should possess a thorough knowledge of his wares. but in order to secure the best results from his efforts, he must know how to talk well. all the general requirements for good conversation apply equally to the needs of the salesman. he should have a pleasant speaking voice and an agreeable manner, a vocabulary of useful and appropriate words, and the ability to put things clearly and convincingly. it should be a golden rule of the salesman never to argue with the customer. he may explain and reason, and use all the persuasive phraseology at his command, but he must not permit himself for a single instant to engage in controversy. to argue is fatal to successful salesmanship. there is nothing that can be substituted for a winning personality in the salesman. what constitutes such a personality? chiefly a good voice, affability of manner, straightforward speech, manly bearing, the desire to serve and please, proper attire, and cleanliness of person. these qualifications come within the reach of anyone who aspires to success in salesmanship. every salesman has unexpected problems to solve. a sensitive or touchy customer may become unreasonably angry or offended. what is the salesman to do? he should here be particularly on his guard not to show the slightest resentment. though he may be wholly guiltless, he cannot afford to contradict the customer, nor to challenge him to a vocal duel. if he talks at all, he should talk quietly and reasonably, and always with the object of bringing the customer around to a favorable point of view. the successful salesman must have tact and discrimination. he must know when and how to check in himself the word or phrase which is trying to force its way out into expression, but which would in the end prove inadvisable. he must train himself to choose quickly the right and best course under difficult circumstances. the salesman should give his undivided attention to the customer. if the salesman is speaking, he should speak clearly, directly, concisely, and understandingly; if he is listening, he should listen interestedly and thoroughly, with all his powers alive and receptive. the salesman should know when to speak and when to be silent. some customers wish to be told much, others prefer to think for themselves. he is a wise salesman who knows when to be mute. loquacity has often killed what otherwise might have been a good sale. there is a certain tone of voice which the salesman should aim to acquire. it is neither high nor low in pitch. it is agreeable to the listening ear, and is almost sufficient in itself to win the favorable attention of the prospective buyer. every salesman should cultivate a musical and well-modulated voice as one of the chief assets in salesmanship. the salesman should cultivate dignity of speech and manner. people generally dislike familiarity, joking, and horse-play. it is well to assume that the customer is serious-minded, that he means business and nothing else. needless to say, the telling of long stories, or personal experiences, has no legitimate place in the business of salesmanship. there is a proper time and place for short story-telling. like everything else it is all right in its appropriate setting. lincoln used it to advantage, but once said: "i believe i have the popular reputation of being a story-teller, but i do not deserve the name in its general sense; for it is not the story itself, but its purpose, or effect, that interests me. i often avoid a long and useless discussion by others, or a laborious explanation on my part, by a short story that illustrates my point of view." the salesman should resolve not to lose his poise and agreeableness under any circumstances. irritability never attracts business. to say the right thing in the right place is desirable, but it is quite as important, though more difficult, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the moment of temptation. it is not the legitimate business of the salesman to force upon a customer what is really not wanted, but many times the customer does not know what he wants nor what he might be able to use. hence the competent salesman should know how to influence the customer towards a favorable decision, using all honorable and approved means to bring about such a result. the customer's unfavorable answer is not to be accepted always as final. he may not clearly understand the merits or uses of the article offered. he may need the explanations and suggestions of the salesman in order to reach a right conclusion. here it is that the salesman may fulfill one of his most important duties. there is a wide difference between self-reliance and obtrusiveness. every man should have a full degree of self-confidence. it is needed in every walk in life. but the salesman, more than most men, must have an exceptional degree of faith in himself and in what he has to sell. this self-confidence, however, is a very different thing from boldness or obtrusiveness. courtesy and considerateness are cardinal qualities of the well-equipped salesman, but boastfulness, glibness, egotism, loudness, and self-assertion, are as distasteful as they are undesirable. the eloquence and persuasiveness of silence is nowhere better exemplified than in the art of salesmanship. one man says much, and sells little; another says little, and sells much. the reason for the superior success of one over the other is mainly due to the fact that he knows best how to present the merits of what he offers for sale, knows how to say it concisely and effectively, knows how to ingratiate himself, largely through his personality, into the good graces of the prospective buyer, and knows when to stop talking. modern salesmanship is based primarily upon common sense. a man with brains, though possibly lacking in other desirable qualifications, may easily outdistance the more experienced salesman. it is a valuable thing in any man to be able to think accurately, reason deeply, and size up a situation promptly. the salesman should at all times be on his best talking behavior. it is not advisable for him to have two standards of speech, and to use an inferior one excepting for special occasions. he should cultivate as a regular daily habit discrimination in the use of voice, enunciation, expression, and language. this should be the constant aim not only of the salesman, but of every man ambitious to achieve success and distinction in the world. men and mannerisms there is a story of a politician who had acquired a mannerism of fingering a button on his coat while talking to an audience. on one occasion some friends surreptitiously cut the particular button off, and the result was that the speaker when he stood up to address the audience lost the thread of his discourse. gladstone had a mannerism of striking the palm of his left hand with the clenched fist of his other hand, so that often the emphatic word was lost in the noise of percussion. a common habit of the distinguished statesman was to reach out his right hand at full arm's length, and then to bend it back at the elbow and lightly scratch the top of his head with his thumb-nail. balfour, while speaking, used to take hold of the lapels of his coat by both hands as if he were in mortal fear of running away before he had finished. goshen, at the beginning of a speech, would sound his chest and sides with his hands, and apparently finding that his ribs were in good order, would proceed to wash his hands with invisible soap. the strange thing about mannerisms is that the speakers are usually unconscious of them, and would be the first to condemn them in others. the remedy for such defects lies in thorough and severe self-examination and self-criticism. however eminent a speaker may be with objectionable mannerisms, he would be still greater without them. every public speaker has certain characteristics of voice and manner that distinguish him from other men. in so far as this individuality gives increased power and effectiveness to the speaking style, it is desirable and should be encouraged. when, however, it is carried to excess, or in any sense offends good taste, it is merely mannerism, and should be discouraged. there is an objectionable mannerism of the voice, known as "pulpit tone," that has come to be associated with some preachers. it takes various forms, such as an unduly elevated key, a drawling monotone, a sudden transition from one extreme of pitch to another, or a tone of condescension. it is also heard in a plaintive minor inflection, imparting a quality of extreme sadness to a speaker's style. these are all departures from the natural, earnest, sincere, and direct delivery that belongs to the high office of preaching. still another undesirable mannerism of the voice is that of giving a rising inflection at the close of successive sentences that are obviously complete. here the speaker's thought is left suspended in the air, the hearer feels a sense of disappointment or doubt, and possibly the entire meaning is perverted. thoughts delivered in such a manner, unless they distinctly require a rising inflection, lack the emphasis and force of persuasive speaking. artificiality, affectation, pomposity, mouthing, undue vehemence, monotony, intoning, and everything that detracts from the simplicity and genuine fervor of the speech should be avoided. too much emphasis may drive a thought beyond the mark, and a conscious determination to make a "great speech" may keep the speaker in a state of anxiety throughout its entire delivery. a clear and correct enunciation is essential, but it should not be pedantic, nor should it attract attention to itself. "what you are prevents me from hearing what you say," might also be applied to the manner of the speaker. exaggerated opening of the mouth, audible smacking of the lips, holding tenaciously to final consonants, prolonged hissing of sibilants, are all to be condemned. hesitation, stumbling over difficult combinations, obscuring final syllables, coalescing the last sound of one word with the first sound of the following word, are inexcusable in a trained speaker. when the same modulation of the voice is repeated too often, it becomes a mannerism, a kind of monotony of variety. it reminds one of a street-piano set to but one tune, and is quite as distressing to a sensitive ear. this is not the style that is expected from a public man. what should the speaker do with his hands? do nothing with them unless they are specifically needed for the more complete expression of a thought. let them drop at the sides in their natural relaxed position, ready for instant use. to press the fist in the hollow of the back in order to "support" the speaker, to clutch the lapels of the coat, to slap the hands audibly together, to place the hands on the hips in the attitude of "vulgar ease," to put the hands into the pockets, to wring the hands as if "washing them with invisible soap," or to violently pound the pulpit--these belong to the list of undesirable mannerisms. at the beginning of a speech it may give the appearance of ease to place the hands behind the back, but this position lacks force and action and should not be long sustained. to cross the arms upon the desk is to put them out of commission for the time being. leaning or lounging of any kind, bending at the knee, or other evidence of weakness or weariness, may belong to the repose of the easy chair, but are hardly appropriate in a wide-awake speaker seeking to convince men. rocking the body to and fro, rising on the toes to emphasize, crouching, stamping the foot, springing from side to side, over-acting and impersonation, and violence and extravagance of every description may well be omitted in public speaking. beware of extremes. avoid a statue-like attitude on the one hand and a constant restlessness on the other. dignity is desirable, but one should not forget the words of the reverend sam jones, "there is nothing more dignified than a corpse!" gestures that are too frequent and alike soon lose their significance. if they are attempted at all they should be varied and complete, suggesting freedom and spontaneity. when only half made they are likely to call attention to the discrepancy, and to this extent will obscure rather than help the thought. the continuous use of gesture is displeasing to the eye, and gives the impression of lack of poise. the young speaker particularly should be warned not to imitate the speaking style of others. what is perfectly natural to one may appear ridiculous in another. cardinal newman spoke with extreme deliberateness, enunciating every syllable with care and precision; phillips brooks sent forth an avalanche of words at the rate of two hundred a minute; but it would be dangerous for the average speaker to emulate either of these examples. there is a peculiarity in a certain type of speaking, which, while not strictly a mannerism, is detrimental to the highest effect. it manifests itself in physical weakness. the speaker is uniformly tired, and his speaking has a half-hearted tone. the lifelessness in voice and manner communicates itself to the audience, and prevents all possibility of deep and enduring impression. joseph parker said that when sunday came he felt like a racehorse, and could hardly wait for the time to come for him to go into the pulpit. he longed to speak. the well-equipped speaker is one who has a superior culture of voice and body. all the instruments of expression must be made his obedient servants, but as master of them he should see to it that they perform their work naturally and spontaneously. he should be able while speaking to abandon himself wholly to his subject, confident that as a result of conscientious training his delivery may be left largely to take care of itself. how to speak in public there are two essential qualifications for making an effective public speech. first, having something worth-while to say. second, knowing how to say it. the first qualification implies a judicious choice of subject and the most thorough preparation. it means that the speaker has carefully gathered together the best available material, and has so familiarized himself with his subject that he knows more about it than anyone else in his audience. it is in this requirement of thorough preparation that many public speakers are deficient. they do not realize the need for this painstaking preliminary work, and hence they frequently stand before an audience with little information of value to impart to their hearers. their poverty of thought can not be long disguised in flamboyant rhetoric and sesquipedalian words, and hence they fail to carry conviction to serious-minded men. i would remind you that having something worth-while to say involves more than thorough preparation of the particular subject which the speaker is to present to an audience. the speaker should have a well-furnished mind. you have had the experience of listening to a public speaker who commanded your closest attention not only because of what he said, but also because of what he was. he inspired confidence in you because of his personality and reserve power. it is often what a man has within himself, rather than what he actually expresses, that carries greatest conviction to your mind. as you listen to such a man speak, you feel that he is worthy of your confidence because he draws upon broad experience and knowledge. he speaks out of the fulness of a well-furnished mind. it is important, therefore, that there should be mental culture in a broad way,--sound judgment, a sense of proportion and perspective, a fund of useful ideas, facts, arguments, and illustrations, and a large stock of common sense. every man who essays to speak in public should cultivate a judicial mind, or the habit of weighing and estimating facts and arguments. such a mind is supposedly free from prejudice and seeks the truth at any cost. such a mind does not want this or that to be necessarily true, but wants to recognize as true only that which is true. in these days of multiplied publications and books of all kinds, when printed matter of every description is soliciting our time and attention, it is particularly desirable that we should cultivate a discriminating taste in our choice of books. the highest purpose of reading is for the acquisition of useful knowledge and personal culture, and we should keep these two aims constantly before us. it is noteworthy that men who have achieved enduring greatness in the world have always had a good book at their ready command. if you are ever in doubt about the choice of books, you would do well to enlist the services of a literary friend, or ask the advice of a local librarian. but in any case, be on your guard against books and other publications of commonplace type, which can contribute nothing to the enrichment of your mind and life. it is desirable that you should own the books you read. the sense of personal possession will give an interest and pleasure to your reading which it would not otherwise have, and moreover you can freely mark such books with your pencil for subsequent reference. it is also well to have a note-book conveniently ready in which to jot down useful ideas as they occur to you. here we come to the use of the pen. all the great orators of the world have been prolific writers in the sense of writing out their thoughts. it is the only certain way to clarify your thought, to test it in advance of verbal expression and to examine it critically. the public speaker should write much in order to form a clear and flowing english style. it is surprising how many of our thoughts which appear to us clear and satisfactory, assume a peculiar vagueness when we attempt to set them down definitely in writing. the use of the pen tends to give clearness and conciseness to the speaker's style. it makes him careful and accurate. it aids, too, in fixing the ideas of his speech in his mind, so that at the moment of addressing an audience they will respond most readily to his needs. a well-furnished mind is like a well-furnished house. in furnishing a house we do not fill it up with miscellaneous furniture, bric-a-brac and antiques, gathered promiscuously, but we plan everything with a view to harmony, beauty, and utility. we furnish a particular room in a tone that will be restful and pleasing to the occupant. we choose every piece of furniture, rug, picture, and drapery with a distinct purpose in view of what the total effect will be. so with a well-furnished mind. we must choose the kind of material we intend to keep there. it should be chosen with a view to its beauty, power, and usefulness. we want no rubbish there. we want the best material available. hence the vital importance of going to the right sources for the furniture of our mind, to the great books of the world, to living authorities, to nature, to music, to art, to the best wherever it may be found. the second essential of an effective public speech is knowing how to say it. this implies a thorough training in the technique of speech. there should be a well-cultivated voice, of adequate volume, brilliancy, and carrying quality. there should be ample training in articulation, pronunciation, expression, and gesture. these so-called mechanics should be developed until they become an unconscious part of the speaker's style. your best opportunity for practice is in your everyday conversation. there you are constantly making speeches on a small scale. public speaking of the best modern type is simply elevated conversation. i do not mean elevated in pitch, but in the sense of being launched upon a higher level of thought and with greater intensity than is usually called for by ordinary conversation. in conversation you have your best opportunity for developing your public speaking style. indeed, you are there, despite yourself, forming habits which will disclose themselves in your public speaking. as you speak in your daily conversation you will largely speak when you stand before an audience. you will therefore see the importance of care in your daily speech. there should be a fastidious choice of words, care in pronunciation and articulation, and the mouth well opened so that the words may come out wholly through the mouth and not partly through the nose. culture of conversation is to be recommended for its own sake, since everyone must speak in private if not in public. one of the best plans for self-culture in speaking is to read aloud for a few minutes every day from a book of well-selected speeches. there are numerous compilations of the kind admirably suited to this purpose. the important thing here is to read in speaking style, not in what is termed reading style as usually taught in schools. when you practise in this way it would be well to imagine an audience before you and to render the speech as if emanating from your own mind. the student of public speaking will wisely guard himself against acquiring an artificial style or other mannerism. another good plan is to make short mental speeches while walking. when possible it is well to choose a country road for this purpose, or a park, or some other place where one's mind is not likely to be often diverted by passers-by. lord dufferin, the eminent british orator, was accustomed to prepare most of his speeches while riding on horseback. the habit of forming mental speeches is a great aid to actual speech-making, as it tends to give the mind a power and an adaptability which it would not otherwise have. the painter, the musician, the sculptor, the architect, and other craftsmen search out models for study and inspiration. the public speaker should do likewise, and history shows that the great orators of the world have followed this practise. you can not do better than take as your model the greatest short speech in all history, the gettysburg address. an authority on english style has critically examined this speech and acknowledges that he cannot suggest a single change in it which would add to its power and perfection. you recall the circumstances under which it was written. on the morning of november , , abraham lincoln was travelling from washington to take part next day in the consecration of the national cemetery at gettysburg. he wrote his speech on a scrap of wrapping-paper, carefully fitting word to word, changing and correcting it in minutest detail as best he could until it was finished. the next day after the speech had been delivered, edward everett, the trained and polished orator, said that he would have been content to have made in his oration of two hours the impression which lincoln had made in that many minutes. it will repay you to study this speech closely and to wrest from it its innermost secrets of power and effectiveness. the greatest underlying quality of this speech is its rare simplicity--simplicity of thought, simplicity of language, simplicity of purpose, and shining through it all, the simplicity of the great emancipator himself. this simplicity is one of the great distinguishing qualities of effective public speaking. it is characteristic of all true art. it is subtle and difficult to define, but fénelon gives a definition that will aid us when he says, "simplicity is an uprightness of soul that has no reference to self." it is another word for unselfishness. in these days of self-exploitation and self-aggrandizement, how refreshing it is to meet a man of true simplicity. we are won by his unaffected manner, his gentleness of argument, his ingratiating tones of voice, his freedom from prejudice and passion. such a man wins us almost wholly by the power of his simplicity. this supreme quality is noticeable in men who are said to have come to themselves. they have tasted and tested life, they have learned proportion and perspective, they have appraised things at their real value, and now they carry themselves in poise and power and confidence. they have found themselves in a high and true sense, and they have come to be known as men of simplicity. simplicity is not to be confounded with weakness or ignorance. it comes through long education. it does not mean the trite, or the commonplace, or the obvious. it is a strong and sturdy quality, is this simplicity of which i am speaking, and nothing else will atone for lack of it in the public speaker. longfellow calls it the supreme excellence, since it is the quality which above all others brings serenity to the soul and makes life really worth living. every man should earnestly seek to cultivate this great quality as essential to noble character. this speech is conspicuous for another indispensable quality for effective public speaking,--the quality of sincerity. it grows largely out of simplicity and is the product of integrity of mind and heart. men recognize it quickly, though they cannot easily tell whence it comes. we find it highly developed in great leaders in business and professional life. there has never been a really great public speaker who was not preeminently a sincere man. beecher said, "let no man who is a sneak try to be an orator." such a man can not be. he will shortly be found out. the world's ultimate estimate of a man is not far wrong. a politician of much promise was addressing a distinguished audience in washington. the opera house was crowded to the doors to hear him and apparently he was making a good impression upon all his hearers. but suddenly, at the very climax of his speech, while upwards of two thousand eyes were rivetted upon him, he was seen to wink at a personal friend of his sitting in a nearby box, and at that instant his future political prospects were shattered as a vase struck by lightning. in that single instant of insincerity he was appraised by that discriminating audience and his doom was sealed. still another great quality in the gettysburg speech is its directness. the speaker had a clearly-defined purpose in view. he knew what he wanted to say, and he proceeded to say it--no more, and no less. there was no straying away into by-paths, no padding of words to make up for shortage of ideas, no superfluous and big-sounding phrases, no empty rhetoric or glittering generalities. how many speakers there are who aim at nothing and hit it. how many speakers there are who are on their way but do not know whither. if this directness of quality were applied to talking in business, in committee meetings, in telephone conversations, in public speaking, it would save annually in this country millions of words and incalculable time and energy. you will note that this speech has the rare quality of conciseness. we have an illustration here of how much a man can say in about words and in the short space of two minutes, if he knows precisely what he wants to say. it is well to bear in mind that although this speech was scribbled off with seeming ease, lincoln owed his ability to do it to a long and painstaking study of words and english style. he was a profound student of the dictionary. he steeped himself in words. he scrutinized words, he studied words, he made himself a master of words. this is a valuable habit for every man to form,--to study words regularly and earnestly, and to add consciously to his working vocabulary a few words daily--so in the course of a year such a man will acquire a large and varied stock of words which will do his instant bidding. the conclusion is a vital part of a speech. it is a place of peril to many a public speaker. countless speeches have been ruined by a bad conclusion. the most important thing here is that having decided beforehand upon the particular ideas or message with which you intend to conclude your speech, not to let any influence lead you away from this preconceived purpose. some speakers are about to conclude effectively but are unwilling to omit anything which they have planned to give in their speech, and so continue in an endeavor to recall every item. at last such a speech has a loose and straggling ending. the words of the conclusion need not be memorized, but the ideas should be definitely outlined in the mind and fixed in the memory, not as words, but as ideas. the knowledge that you can turn at will to these definite ideas, and so bring your speech to a close, will confer upon you a degree of self-confidence which will be of immense service to you. you should ever bear in mind this golden rule for the conclusion of your speech: when you have finished what you have of importance to say, do not be tempted to wander off into by-paths, or to tell an additional story, or to say "and one word more," but having finished your speech, stop on the instant and sit down. practical hints for speakers cultivate as the most desirable thoughts those which are definite, clear, deep, logical, profound, strong, precise, impressive, original, significant, explicit, luminous, positive, suggestive, comprehensive, and practical. resolutely avoid all thoughts which are uncertain, recondite, obscure, immature, unimportant, shallow, weak, visionary, absurd, vague, extravagant, indefinite, or impractical. in your choice and use of words give preference to those which are definite, simple, real, significant, forcible, expressive, adequate, musical, varied, and copious. avoid those which are foreign, slangy, obsolete, unusual, extravagant, technical, long, colloquial, or commonplace. the most desirable qualities in the use of english are the simple, plain, exact, lucid, concise, trenchant, vigorous, impressive, lively, figurative, polished, graceful, fluent, rhythmical, copious, elevated, flexible, smooth, dignified, terse, epigrammatic, felicitous, euphonious, elegant, and lofty. undesirable qualities are the diffuse, verbose, redundant, inflated, prolix, ambiguous, feeble, monotonous, loose, slip-shod, dry, flowery, pedantic, pompous, rhetorical, grandiloquent, artificial, formal, ornate, halting, ponderous, ungrammatical, vague, and obscure. the qualities you should develop in your speaking voice are the pure, deep, round, flexible, resonant, musical, clear, sympathetic, smooth, sonorous, powerful, silvery, melodious, full, strong, natural, mellow, magnetic, expressive, carrying, and responsive. endeavor to keep your voice free from such undesirable qualities as the harsh, breathy, sharp, rough, rigid, throaty, guttural, thin, shrill, nasal, unmusical, discordant, muffled, explosive, strained, inaudible, hollow, strident, sepulchral, and tremulous. your articulation should be clear, distinct, and correct. avoid carelessness, lifelessness, mumbling, weakness, and exaggeration. your pronunciation should be clear-cut and accurate. avoid mouthing, lisping, hesitation, stammering, pedantry, omission of syllables, and suppression of final consonants. your delivery in public speaking should be simple, sincere, natural, varied, magnetic, earnest, forceful, attractive, energetic, animated, sympathetic, authoritative, dignified, direct, impressive, vivid, convincing, persuasive, zealous, enthusiastic, and inspiring. avoid that which is timid, familiar, violent, cold, indifferent, unreal, artificial, dull, sing-song, hesitating, feeble, unconvincing, apathetic, monotonous, pompous, formal, arbitrary, flippant, ostentatious, drawling, or languid. your gesture should be graceful, appropriate, free, forceful, and natural. avoid all gesture which is unmeaning, angular, abrupt, constrained, stilted, or amateurish. your facial expression should be varied, appropriate, pleasing, and impassioned. avoid the unpleasant, immobile, and unvaried. let your standing position be manly, erect, easy, forceful, and impressive. avoid that which is weak, shifting, stiff, inactive, and ungainly. the dramatic element in speaking there is a well-defined prejudice against the importation of anything "theatrical" into the pulpit. the art of the actor is fundamentally different from the work of the preacher. at best the actor but represents, imitates, pretends, acts. the actor seems; the preacher is. it is to be feared, however, that this prejudice has narrowed many preachers down to a pulpit style almost devoid of warmth and action. in their endeavor to avoid the dramatic and sensational, they have refined and subdued many of their most natural and effective means of expression. the function of preaching is not only to impart, but to persuade; and persuasion demands something more than an easy conversational style, an intellectual statement of facts, or the reading of a written message. the speaker must show in face, in eye, in arm, in the whole animated man, that he, himself, is moved, before he can hope successfully to persuade and inspire others. the modified movements of ordinary conversation do not fulfil all the requirements of the preacher. these are necessary and adequate for the groundwork of the sermon, but for the supreme heights of passionate appeal, when the soul of the preacher would, as it were, leap from its body in the endeavor to reach men, there must be intensified life and action--dramatic action. it is difficult to conceive of a greater tribute to a public advocate than that paid to wendell phillips by george william curtis: "the divine energy of his conviction utterly possest him, and his 'pure and eloquent blood spoke in his cheek, and so distinctly wrought, that one might almost say his body thought.'" poise is power, and reserve and repression are parts of the dignified office of the preacher, but carried too far may degenerate into weak and unproductive effort. perfection of english style, rhetorical floridness, and profundity of thought will never wholly make up for lack of appropriate action in the work of persuading men. the power of action alone is vividly illustrated in the touch of the finger to the lips to invoke silence, or the pointing to the door to command one to leave the room. the preacher might often find it profitable to stand before a mirror and deliver his sermon exclusively in pantomime to test its power and efficacy. the body must be disciplined and cultivated as assiduously as the other instruments of the speaker. there is eloquence of attitude and action no less than eloquence of voice and feeling. a preacher drawing himself up to his full height, with a significant gesture of the head, or with flashing eye pointing the finger of warning at his hearers, may rouse them from indifference when all other means fail. sixty years ago the reverend william russell emphasized the importance of visible expression. he said of the preacher: "his outward manner, in attitude and action, will be as various as his voice: he will evince the inspiration of appropriate feeling in the very posture of his frame; in uttering the language of adoration, the slow-moving, uplifted hand will bespeak the awe and solemnity which pervade his soul; in addressing his fellow men in the spirit of an ambassador of christ, the gentle yet earnest spirit of persuasive action will be evinced in the pleading hand and aspect; he will know, also, how to pass to the stern and authoritative mien of the reproved of sin; he will, on due occasions, indicate, in his kindling look, the rousing gesture, the mood of him who is empowered and commanded to summon forth all the energies of the human soul; his subdued and chastened address will carry the sympathy of his spirit into the bosom of the mourner; his moistening eye and his gentle action will manifest his tenderness for the suffering: his whole soul will, in a word, become legible in his features, in his attitude, in the expressive eloquence of his hand; his whole style will be felt to be that of heart communing with heart." dramatic action gives picturesqueness to the spoken word. it makes things vivid to slow imaginations, and by contrast invests the speaker's message with new meaning and vitality. it discloses, too, the speaker's sympathy and identification with his subject. his thought and feeling, communicating themselves to voice and face, to hand and arm, to posture and walk, satisfy and impress the hearer by a sense of adequacy and completeness. henry ward beecher, a conspicuous example of the dramatic style in preaching, was drilled for three years, while at college, in voice-culture, gesture, and action. his daily practise in the woods, during which he exploded all the vowels from the bottom to the top of his voice, gave him not only a wonderfully responsive and flexible instrument, but a freedom of bodily movement that made him one of the most vigorous and virile of american preachers. he was in the highest sense a persuasive pulpit orator. a sensible preacher will avoid the grotesque and the extremes of mere animal vivacity. incessant gesture and action, undue emphasizing with hand and head, and all suggestion of self-sufficiency in attitude or manner should be guarded against. all the various instruments of expression should be made ready and responsive for immediate use, but are to be employed with that taste and tact that characterize the well-balanced man. too much action and long-continued emotional effort lose force, and unless the law of action and reaction is applied to the preaching of the sermon the attention of the congregation may snap and the desired effect be utterly destroyed. the face as the mirror of the emotions is an important part of expression. the lips will betray determination, grief, sympathy, affection, or other feeling on the part of the speaker. the eyes, the most direct medium of psychic power, will flash in indignation, glisten in joy, or grow dim in sorrow. the brow will be elevated in surprise, or lowered in determination and perplexity. the effectiveness of the whisper in preaching should not be overlooked. if discreetly used it may serve to impress the hearer with the profundity and seriousness of the preacher's message, or to arrest and bring back to the point of contact the wandering minds of a congregation. to acquire emotional power and dramatic action the preacher should study the great dramatists. he should read them aloud with appropriate voice and movement. he should study children, and men, and nature. he should, perhaps, see the best actors, not to copy them, but in order that they may stimulate his taste and imagination. conversation and public speaking the ideal style of public speaking is, with very little modification, the ideal of good conversation. the practical age in which we live demands a colloquial rather than an oratorical style of public speaking. a man who has something to say in conversation usually has little difficulty in saying it. if he presents the facts he will speak convincingly; if he is deeply in earnest he will speak persuasively; and if he be an educated man his speech will have the unmistakable marks of culture and refinement. in the conversation of well-bred children we find the most interesting and helpful illustrations of unaffected speech. the exquisite modulation of the voice, the unstudied correctness of emphasis, and the sincerity and depth of feeling might well serve as a model for older speakers. this study of conversation, both our own and that of others, offers daily opportunity for improvement in accuracy and fluency of speech, of fitting words to the mouth as well as to the thought, and of forming habits that will unconsciously disclose themselves in the larger work of public speaking. care in conversation will guard the public speaker from inflated and unnatural tones, and restrain him from transgressing the laws of nature even in those parts of his speech demanding lofty and intensified treatment. some easily remembered suggestions regarding conversation are these: . pronounce your words distinctly and accurately, like "newly made coins" from the mint, but without pedantry. . upon no occasion allow yourself to indulge in careless or incorrect speech. . open the mouth well in conversation. much indistinct speech is due to speaking through half-closed teeth. . closely observe your conversation and that of others, to detect faults and to improve your speaking-style. . vary your voice to suit the variety of your thought. a well-modulated voice demands appropriate changes of pitch, force, perspective, and feeling. . avoid loud talking. . take care of the consonants and the vowels will take care of themselves. . cultivate the music of the conversational tones. . favor the low pitches of your voice. . remember that the purpose of conscious practise and observation in the matter of conversation is to lead ultimately to unconscious performance. the value of correct conversation as a means to effective public speaking is realized by few men. beecher said: "how much squandering there is of the voice!" meaning that this golden opportunity for improvement was generally disregarded. it is not too much to say, however, that if the sweet and gentle expression of the mother, the strong and affectionate tones of the father, and the spontaneous musical notes of the children, as heard in daily conversation, could be united in the voice of the minister and brought to the preaching of his sermon, there would be little doubt of its magical and enduring effect upon the hearts of men. the wooing tone of the lover is what the preacher needs in his pulpit style rather than the voice of declamation and denunciation. the study of conversation serves to guide the public speaker not only in the free and natural use of his voice, enunciation, and expression, but also in his use of language. he will here learn to choose the simple word instead of the complex, the short sentence instead of the involved, the concrete illustration instead of the abstract. he will acquire ease, spontaneity, simplicity, and directness, and when he rises to speak to men he will employ tones and words best known and understood by them. a preacher may spend too much time in study and solitude. if he does he will soon realize a distinct loss through lack of social intercourse with his fellow men. the faculties most needed in pulpit preaching are those very powers that are so largely exercised in ordinary conversation. the ability to think quickly, to marshal facts and arguments, to introduce a vivid story or illustration, to parry and thrust as is sometimes needed to hold one's own ground, and the general mental activity aroused in conversation, all tend to produce an interesting, vivacious, and forceful style in public speaking. we should not underestimate the value of meditation and silence to the public speaker. these are necessary for original and profound thinking, for the cultivation of the imagination, and for the accumulation of thought. but conversation offers an immediate outlet for this stored-up knowledge, testing it as a finished product in expression, and projecting it into life and reality by all the resources of voice and feeling. this exercise is as necessary to the mind as physical exercise is to the body. indeed, a full mind demands this relief in expression, lest the strain become too great. the daily newspaper and the magazines should not be allowed to usurp the place of conversation. if the art of talking is rapidly dying out, as some assert, we should do our share to revive it. we may not again have the wit and repartee, the brilliant intellectual combats of those other days, but we can at least each have a cultivated speaking-voice, an interesting manner of expressing our ideas in conversation, and a refined pronunciation of our mother tongue. a talk to preachers the aim of one who would interpret literature to others, by means of the speaking voice, should be first to assimilate its spirit. there can be no worthy or adequate rendering of a great poem or prose selection without a keen appreciation of its inner meaning and content. this is the principal safeguard against mechanical and meaningless declamation. the extent of this appreciation and grasp of the inherent spirit of thought will largely determine the degree of life, reality, and impressiveness imparted to the spoken word. the intimate relationship between the voice and the spirit of the speaker suggests that one is necessary to the fullest development of the other. the voice can interpret only what has been awakened and realized within, hence nothing discloses a speaker's grasp of a subject so accurately and readily as his attempt to give it expression in his own language. it is this spiritual power, developed principally through the intuitions and emotions, that gives psychic force to speaking, and which more than logic, rhetoric, or learning itself enables the speaker to influence and persuade men. the minister as an interpreter of the highest spiritual truth should bring to his work a thoroughly trained emotional nature and a cultivated speaking voice. it is not sufficient that he state the truth with clearness and force; he must proclaim it with such passionate enthusiasm as powerfully to move his hearers. to express adequately the infinite shades of spiritual truth, he must have the ability to play upon his voice as upon a great cathedral organ, from "the soft lute of love" to "the loud trumpet of war." to assume that the study of the art of speaking will necessarily produce consciousness of its principles while in the act of speaking in public, is as unwarranted as to say that a knowledge of the rules of grammar, rhetoric, or logic lead to artificiality and self-consciousness in the teacher, writer, and thinker. there is a "mechanical expertness preceding all art," as goethe says, and this applies to the orator no less than to the musician, the artist, the actor, and the litterateur. let the minister stand up for even five minutes each day, with chest and abdomen well expanded, and pronounce aloud the long vowel sounds of the english language, in various shades of force and feeling, and shortly he will observe his voice developing in flexibility, resonance, and power. for it should be remembered that the voice grows through use. let the minister cultivate, too, the habit of breathing exclusively through his nose while in repose, fully and deeply from the abdomen, and he will find himself gaining in health and mental resourcefulness. for the larger development of the spiritual and emotional powers of the speaker, a wide and varied knowledge of men and life is necessary. the feelings are trained through close contact with human suffering, and in the work of solving vital social problems. the speaker will do well to explore first his own heart and endeavor to read its secret meanings, preliminary to interpreting the hearts of other men. personal suffering will do more to open the well-springs of the heart than the reading of many books. care must be had, however, that this cultivating of the feelings be conducted along rational lines, lest it run not to faith but to fanaticism. there is a wide difference between emotion designed for display or for momentary effect, and that which arises from strong inner conviction and sympathetic interest in others. spurious, unnatural feeling will invariably fail to convince serious-minded men. "emotion wrought up with no ulterior object," says dr. kennard, "is both an abuse and an injury to the moral nature. when the attention is thoroughly awakened and steadily held, the hearer is like a well-tuned harp, each cord a distinct emotion, and the skilful speaker may evoke a response from one or more at his will. this lays him under a great and serious responsibility. let him keep steadily at such a time to his divine purpose, to produce a healthful action, a life in harmony with god and a symphony of service." the emotional and spiritual powers of the speaker will be developed by reading aloud each day a vigorous and passionate extract from the bible, or shakespeare, or from some great sermon by such men as bushnell, newman, beecher, maclaren, brooks, or spurgeon. the entire gamut of human feeling can be highly cultivated by thus reading aloud from the great masterpieces of literature. the speaker will know that he can make his own words glow and vibrate, after he has first tested and trained himself in some such manner as this. furthermore, by thus fitting words to his mouth, and assimilating the feelings of others, he will immeasurably gain in facility and vocal responsiveness when he attempts to utter his own thoughts. music is a powerful element in awakening emotion in the speaker and bringing to consciousness the mysterious inner voices of the soul. the minister should not only hear good music as often as possible, but he should train his ear to recognize the rhythm and melody in speech. for the fullest development of this spiritual power in the public speaker there should be frequent periods of stillness and silence. one must listen much in order to accumulate much. thought and feeling require time in which to grow. in this way the myriad sounds that arise from humanity and from nature can be caught up in the soul of the speaker and subsequently voiced by him to others. the habit of meditating much, of brooding over thought, whether it be our own or that of others, will tend to disclose new and deeper meanings, and consequently deeper shades and depths of feeling. the speaker will diligently search for unwritten meanings in words; he will study, whenever possible, masterpieces of painting and sculpture; he will closely observe the natural feeling of well-bred children, as shown in their conversation; and in many other ways that will suggest themselves, he will daily develop his emotional and spiritual powers of expression. the science of preaching is important, but so, too, is the art of preaching. a powerful pulpit is one of the needs of the times. a congregation readily recognizes a preacher of strong convictions, broad sympathies, and consecrated personality. an affectionate nature in a minister, manifesting itself in voice, face, and manner, will attract and influence men, while a harsh, rigid, vehement manner will as easily repel them. it is to be feared that many sermons are written with too much regard for "literary deportment on paper," and too little thought of their value as pulsating messages to men. the preacher should train himself to take tight hold of his thought, to grip it with mental firmness and fervor, that he may afterward convey it to others with definiteness and vigor. thoughts vaguely conceived and held tremblingly in the mind will manifest a like character when uttered. into the writing of the sermon put vitality and intensity, and these qualities will find their natural place in delivery. thrill of the pen should precede thrill of the voice. the habit of dickens of acting out the characters he was depicting on paper could be copied to advantage by the preacher, and frequently during the writing of his sermon he might stand and utter his thoughts aloud to test their power and effectiveness upon an imaginary congregation. there should be the most thorough cultivation of the inner sources of the preacher, whereby the spiritual and emotional forces are so aroused and brought under control as to respond promptly and accurately to all the speaker's requirements. there should be assiduous training of the speaking voice as the instrument of expression and the natural outlet for thought and feeling. in the combined cultivation of these two essentials of expression--spirit and voice--the minister will find the true secret of effective pulpit preaching. care of the speaker's throat the throat as a vital part of the public speaker's work in speaking is worthy of the greatest care and consideration. it is surprising that so little attention is given to vocal hygiene, when it is remembered that a serious weakness or affection of the throat may disqualify a speaker for important work. the delicate and intricate machinery of the vocal apparatus renders it peculiarly susceptible to misuse or exposure. the common defects of nasality, throatiness, and harshness, are due to wrong and careless use of the speaking-instrument. in the training of the public speaker the first step is to bring the breathing apparatus under proper control. that is to say, the speaker must accustom himself, through careful practise, to use the abdominal method of breathing, and to keep his throat free from the strain to which it is commonly subjected. this form of breathing is not difficult to acquire, since it simply means that during inhalation the abdomen is expanded, and during exhalation it is contracted. it should be no longer necessary to warn the speaker to breathe exclusively through the nose when not actually using the voice. while speaking he must so completely control the breath that not a particle of it can escape without giving up its equivalent in sound. "clergyman's sore throat" is the result of improper use or overstraining of the voice. sometimes the earnestness of the preacher causes him to "clutch" each word with the vocal muscles, instead of using the throat as an open channel through which the voice may flow with ease and freedom. many speakers, in an endeavor to be heard at a great distance, employ too loud a tone, forgetting that the essential thing is a clear and distinct articulation. to speak continuously in high pitch, or through half-closed teeth, almost invariably causes distress of throat. most throat troubles may be set down to a lack of proper elocutionary training. to keep the voice and throat in order there should be regular daily practise, if only for ten minutes. the example might profitably be followed of certain actors who make a practise of humming occasionally during the day while engaged in other duties, as a means of keeping the voice musical and resonant. when the throat becomes husky or weak it is a timely warning from nature that it needs rest and relaxation. to continue to engage in public speaking under these circumstances is often attended with great danger, resulting sometimes in total loss of voice. it is economy in the end to discontinue the use of the voice when there is a serious cold or the throat is otherwise affected. nervousness, anxiety, or unusual mental exertion may cause a vocal breakdown. for this condition rest is recommended, together with gentle massaging of the throat with cold water mixed with a little vinegar or _eau de cologne_. a public speaker should not engage in protracted conversation immediately after a speech. the sudden transition from an auditorium to the outer air should remind the speaker to keep his mouth securely closed. the general physical condition of the speaker has much to do with the vigor and clearness of his voice. a daily plunge into cold water, or at least a sponging of the entire surface of the body, besides being a tonic luxury, greatly invigorates the throat and abdominal muscles. after the "tub" a vigorous rubbing with towel and hands should produce a glow. to the frequent question whether smoking is injurious to the throat, it is safe to say that the weight of authority and experience favors abstinence. any one who has spoken for half an hour or more in a smoke-clouded room, knows the distressing effect it has had upon the sensitive lining of the throat. it must be obvious, therefore, that the constant inhaling of smoke must even more directly irritate the mucous membrane. the diet of the public speaker should be reasonably moderate, and the extremes of hot and cold avoided. the use of ice-water is to be discouraged. many drugs and lozenges are positively injurious to the throat. for habitual dryness of throat a glycerine or honey tablet will usually obviate the trouble. dr. morell mackenzie, the eminent english throat specialist, condemns the use of alcohol as pernicious, and affirms that "even in a comparatively mild form it keeps the delicate tissues in a state of congestion which makes them particularly liable to inflammation from cold or other causes." it must not be assumed that the throat is to be pampered. a reasonable amount of exposure will harden it and to this extent is desirable. to muffle the throat with a scarf, unless demanded by special conditions, may make it unduly sensitive and increase the danger of taking cold when the head is turned from side to side. a leading physician confirms the opinion that the best gargle for daily use is that of warm water and salt. this should be used every night and morning to cleanse and invigorate the throat. where there is a tendency to catarrh a solution made of peroxide of hydrogen, witch-hazel, and water, in equal parts, will prove efficacious. nothing should be snuffed up the nose except under the direction of a physician, lest it cause deafness. many speakers and singers have a favorite nostrum for improving the voice. the long and amusing list includes hot milk, tea, coffee, champagne, raw eggs, lemonade, apples, raisins,--and sardines! a good rule is to eat sparingly if the meal is taken just before speaking. it need hardly be said that serious vocal defects, such as enlarged tonsils, elongated uvula, and abnormal growths in the throat and nose are subjects for the specialist. whenever possible a speaker should test beforehand the acoustic properties of the auditorium in which he is to speak for the first time. a helpful plan is to have a friend seat himself at the back of the hall or church, and give his opinion of the quality and projecting power of the speaker's voice. it is difficult to judge one's own voice because it is conveyed to him not only from the outside but also through the eustachian tube and modified by the vibratory parts of the throat and head. a speaker never hears his own voice as it is heard by another. nothing, perhaps, is so taxing to the throat as long-continued speaking in one quality of tone. there are two distinct registers which should be judiciously alternated by the speaker. these are the "chest" register, in which the vocal cords vibrate their whole length, and the quality of tone derives most of its character from the chest cavity; and the "head" register, in which the vocal cords vibrate only in part, and the quality of tone is reenforced by the resonators of the face, mouth, and head. the first of these registers is sometimes called the "orotund" voice from its quality of roundness, and is employed principally in language of reverence, sublimity, and grandeur. the head tone is the voice of ordinary conversation and should form the basis of the public-speaking style. no one who has to speak in public should be discouraged because of limited vocal resources. many of the foremost orators began with marked disadvantages in this respect, but made these shortcomings an incentive to higher effort. one well-known speaker makes up for lack of vocal power by extreme distinctness of enunciation, while another offsets an unpleasantly heavy quality of voice by skilful modulation. a few easily remembered suggestions are: . rest the voice for an hour or two before speaking in public. . gargle the throat night and morning with salt and water. . never force the voice. . avoid all occasions that strain the voice, such as prolonged conversation, speaking against noise, or in cold and damp air. . practise deep breathing until it becomes an unconscious habit. . favor an outdoor life. . hum or sing a little every day. . discontinue public speaking when there is a severe cold or other affection of the throat. . rest the voice and body immediately after speaking in public. don'ts for public speakers don't rant. don't prate. don't fidget. don't flatter. don't declaim. don't be glib. don't hesitate. don't be nasal. don't apologize. don't dogmatize. don't be slangy. don't antagonize. don't be awkward. don't be violent. don't be personal. don't be "funny." don't attitudinize. don't be monotonous. don't speak rapidly. don't sway your body. don't be long-winded. don't "hem" and "haw." don't praise yourself. don't overgesticulate. don't pace the platform. don't clear your throat. don't "point with pride." don't tell a long story. don't rise on your toes. don't distort your words. don't stand like a statue. don't address the ceiling. don't speak in a high key. don't emphasize everything. don't drink while speaking. don't fatigue your audience. don't exceed your time limit. don't talk for talking's sake. don't wander from your subject. don't fumble with your clothes. don't speak through closed teeth. don't put your hands on your hips. don't fail to stop when you have ended. do's for public speakers be prepared. begin slowly. be modest. speak distinctly. address all your hearers. be uniformly courteous. prune your sentences. cultivate mental alertness. conceal your method. be scrupulously clear. feel sure of yourself. look your audience in the eyes. be direct. favor your deep tones. speak deliberately. get to your facts. be earnest. observe your pauses. suit the action to the word. be yourself at your best. speak fluently. use your abdominal muscles. make yourself interesting. be conversational. conciliate your opponent. rouse yourself. be logical. have your wits about you. be considerate. open your mouth. speak authoritatively. cultivate sincerity. cultivate brevity. cultivate tact. end swiftly. points for speakers as far as possible avoid the following hackneyed phrases: i rise with diffidence unaccustomed as i am to public speaking by a happy stroke of fate it becomes my painful duty in the last analysis i am encouraged to go on i point with pride on the other hand (with gesture) i hold the vox populi be that as it may i shall not detain you as the hour is growing late believe me we view with alarm as i was about to tell you the happiest day of my life it falls to my lot i can say no more in the fluff and bloom i can only hint i can say nothing i cannot find words the fact is to my mind i cannot sufficiently do justice i fear all i can say is i shall not inflict a speech on you far be it from me rise phoenix-like from his ashes but alas! what more can i say? at this late period of the evening it is hardly necessary to say i cannot allow the opportunity to pass for, mark you i have already taken up too much time i might talk to you for hours looking back upon my childhood we can imagine the scene i haven't the time nor ability ah, no, dear friends one more word and i have done i will now conclude i really must stop i have done. the bible on speech how forcible are right words! to every thing there is a season, a time to keep silence, and a time to speak. set a watch, o lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips. let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying. be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. be ye holy in all manner of conversation. let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you. know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary. let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, o lord, my strength, and my redeemer. thoughts on talking to make a good talker, genius and learning, even wit and eloquence, are insufficient; to these, in all or in part, must be added in some degree the talents of active life. the character has as much to do with colloquial power as has the intellect; the temperament, feelings, and animal spirits, even more, perhaps, than the mental gifts. "napoleon said things which tell in history like his battles. luther's table-talk glows with the fire that burnt the pope's bull." cæsar, cicero, themistocles, lord bacon, selden, talleyrand, and, in our own country, aaron burr, jefferson, webster, and choate, were all, more or less, men of action. sir walter scott tells us that, at a great dinner party, he thought the lawyers beat the bishops as talkers, and the bishops the wits. nearly all great orators have been fine talkers. lord chatham, who could electrify the house of lords by pronouncing the word "sugar," but who in private was but commonplace, was an exception; but the conversation of pitt and fox was brilliant and fascinating,--that of burke, rambling, but splendid, rich and instructive, beyond description. the latter was the only man in the famous "literary club" who could cope with johnson. the doctor confessed that in burke he had a foeman worthy of his steel. on one occasion, when debilitated by sickness, he said: "that fellow calls forth all my powers. were i to see burke now, it would kill me." at another time he said: "burke, sir, is such a man that, if you met him for the first time in the street, where you were stopped by a drove of oxen, and you and he stepped aside to take shelter but for five minutes, he'd talk to you in such a manner, that when you parted you'd say--'this is an extraordinary man.'" "can he wind into a subject like a serpent, as burke does?" asked goldsmith of a certain talker. fox said that he had derived more political information from burke's conversation alone than from books, science, and all his worldly experience put together. moore finely says of the same conversation, that it must have been like the procession of a roman triumph, exhibiting power and riches at every step, occasionally mingling the low fescennine jest with the lofty music of the march, but glittering all over with the spoils of a ransacked world. --_mathews._ * * * * * the fault of literary conversation in general is its too great tenaciousness. it fastens upon a subject, and will not let it go. it resembles a battle rather than a skirmish, and makes a toil of a pleasure. perhaps it does this from necessity, from a consciousness of wanting the more familiar graces, the power to sport and trifle, to touch lightly and adorn agreeably, every view or turn of a question _en passant_, as it arises. those who have a reputation to lose are too ambitious of shining, to please. "to excel in conversation," said an ingenious man, "one must not be always striving to say good things: to say one good thing, one must say many bad, and more indifferent ones." this desire to shine without the means at hand, often makes men silent:-- the fear of being silent strikes us dumb. a writer who has been accustomed to take a connected view of a difficult question and to work it out gradually in all its bearings, may be very deficient in that quickness and ease which men of the world, who are in the habit of hearing a variety of opinions, who pick up an observation on one subject, and another on another, and who care about none any further than the passing away of an idle hour, usually acquire. an author has studied a particular point--he has read, he has inquired, he has thought a great deal upon it: he is not contented to take it up casually in common with others, to throw out a hint, to propose an objection: he will either remain silent, uneasy, and dissatisfied, or he will begin at the beginning, and go through with it to the end. he is for taking the whole responsibility upon himself. he would be thought to understand the subject better than others, or indeed would show that nobody else knows anything about it. there are always three or four points on which the literary novice at his first outset in life fancies he can enlighten every company, and bear down all opposition: but he is cured of this quixotic and pugnacious spirit, as he goes more into the world, where he finds that there are other opinions and other pretensions to be adjusted besides his own. when this asperity wears off, and a certain scholastic precocity is mellowed down, the conversation of men of letters becomes both interesting and instructive. men of the world have no fixed principles, no groundwork of thought: mere scholars have too much an object, a theory always in view, to which they wrest everything, and not unfrequently, common sense itself. by mixing with society, they rub off their hardness of manner, and impracticable, offensive singularity, while they retain a greater depth and coherence of understanding. there is more to be learnt from them than from their books. --_hazlitt._ * * * * * there are some people whose good manners will not suffer them to interrupt you, but, what is almost as bad, will discover abundance of impatience, and lie upon the watch until you have done, because they have started something in their own thoughts, which they long to be delivered of. meantime, they are so far from regarding what passes, that their imaginations are wholly turned upon what they have in reserve, for fear it should slip out of their memory; and thus they confine their invention, which might otherwise range over a hundred things full as good, and that might be much more naturally introduced. there is a sort of rude familiarity, which some people, by practising among their intimates, have introduced into their general conversation, and would have it pass for innocent freedom or humor; which is a dangerous experiment in our northern climate, where all the little decorum and politeness we have are purely forced by art, and are so ready to lapse into barbarity. this, among the romans, was the raillery of slaves, of which we have many instances in plautus. it seems to have been introduced among us by cromwell, who, by preferring the scum of the people, made it a court entertainment, of which i have heard many particulars; and, considering all things were turned upside down, it was reasonable and judicious; although it was a piece of policy found out to ridicule a point of honor in the other extreme, when the smallest word misplaced among gentlemen ended in a duel. there are some men excellent at telling a story, and provided with a plentiful stock of them, which they can draw out upon occasion in all companies, and, considering how low conversation runs now among us, it is not altogether a contemptible talent; however, it is subject to two unavoidable defects, frequent repetition, and being soon exhausted; so, that, whoever values this gift in himself, has need of a good memory, and ought frequently to shift his company, that he may not discover the weakness of his fund; for those who are thus endued have seldom any other revenue, but live upon the main stock. --_swift._ * * * * * the highest and best of all the moral conditions for conversation is what we call tact. i say a condition, for it is very doubtful whether it can be called a single and separate quality; more probably it is a combination of intellectual quickness with lively sympathy. but so clearly is it an intellectual quality, that of all others it can be greatly improved, if not actually acquired, by long experience in society. like all social excellences it is almost given as a present to some people, while others with all possible labor never acquire it. as in billiard-playing, shooting, cricket, and all these other facilities which are partly mental and partly physical, many never can pass a certain point of mediocrity; but still even those who have the talent must practise it, and only become really distinguished after hard work. so it is in art. music and painting are not to be attained by the crowd. not even the just criticism of these arts is attainable without certain natural gifts; but a great deal of practice in good galleries and at good concerts, and years spent among artists, will do much to make even moderately-endowed people sound judges of excellence. tact, which is the sure and quick judgment of what is suitable and agreeable in society, is likewise one of those delicate and subtle qualities or a combination of qualities which is not very easily defined, and therefore not teachable by fixed precepts. some people attain it through sympathy; others through natural intelligence; others through a calm temper; others again by observing closely the mistakes of their neighbors. as its name implies, it is a sensitive touch in social matters, which feels small changes of temperature, and so guesses at changes of temper; which sees the passing cloud on the expression of one face, or the eagerness of another that desires to bring out something personal for others to enjoy. this quality of tact is of course applicable far beyond mere actual conversation. in nothing is it more useful than in preparing the right conditions for a pleasant society, in choosing the people who will be in mutual sympathy, in thinking over pleasant subjects of talk and suggesting them, in seeing that all disturbing conditions are kept out, and that the members who are to converse should be all without those small inconveniences which damage society so vastly out of proportion to their intrinsic importance. --_mahaffy._ * * * * * in the course of our life we have heard much of what was reputed to be the select conversation of the day, and we have heard many of those who figured at the moment as effective talkers; yet, in mere sincerity, and without a vestige of misanthropic retrospect, we must say that never once has it happened to us to come away from any display of that nature without intense disappointment; and it always appeared to us that this failure (which soon ceased to be a disappointment) was inevitable by a necessity of the case. for here lay the stress of the difficulty: almost all depends in most trials of skill upon the parity of those who are matched against each other. an ignorant person supposes that to an able disputant it must be an advantage to have a feeble opponent; whereas, on the contrary, it is ruin to him; for he can not display his own powers but through something of a corresponding power in the resistance of his antagonist. a brilliant fencer is lost and confounded in playing with a novice; and the same thing takes place in playing at ball, or battledore, or in dancing, where a powerless partner does not enable you to shine the more, but reduces you to mere helplessness, and takes the wind altogether out of your sails. now, if by some rare good luck the great talker, the protagonist, of the evening has been provided with a commensurate second, it is just possible that something like a brilliant "passage of arms" may be the result,--though much even in that case will depend on the chances of the moment for furnishing a fortunate theme, and even then, amongst the superior part of the company, a feeling of deep vulgarity and of mountebank display is inseparable from such an ostentatious duel of wit. on the other hand, supposing your great talker to be received like any other visitor, and turned loose upon the company, then he must do one of two things: either he will talk upon _outré_ subjects specially tabooed to his own private use,--in which case the great man has the air of a quack-doctor addressing a mob from a street stage; or else he will talk like ordinary people upon popular topics,--in which case the company, out of natural politeness, that they may not seem to be staring at him as a lion, will hasten to meet him in the same style, the conversation will become general, the great man will seem reasonable and well-bred, but at the same time, we grieve to say it, the great man will have been extinguished by being drawn off from his exclusive ground. the dilemma, in short, is this:--if the great talker attempts the plan of showing off by firing cannon-shot when everybody else is content with musketry, then undoubtedly he produces an impression, but at the expense of insulating himself from the sympathies of the company, and standing aloof as a sort of monster hired to play tricks of funambulism for the night. yet, again, if he contents himself with a musket like other people, then for us, from whom he modestly hides his talents under a bushel, in what respect is he different from the man who has no such talent? --_de quincey._ * * * * * some, in their discourse, desire rather commendation of wit, in being able to hold all arguments, than of judgment, in discerning what is true; as if it were a praise to know what might be said, and not what should be thought. some have certain commonplaces and themes wherein they are good, and want variety; which kind of poverty is for the most part tedious, and, when it is once perceived, ridiculous. the honorablest part of talk is to give the occasion; and again to moderate and pass to somewhat else; for then a man leads the dance. it is good in discourse, and speech of conversation, to vary, and intermingle speech of the present occasion with arguments, tales with reasons, asking of questions with telling of opinions, and jest with earnest; for it is a dull thing to tire, and, as we say now, to jade any thing too far. as for jest, there be certain things which ought to be privileged from it, namely, religion, matters of state, great persons, any man's present business of importance, and any case that deserveth pity; yet there be some that think their wits have been asleep, except they dart out somewhat that is piquant, and to the quick. that is a vein which would be bridled; _parce, puer, stimulis, et fortius utere loris._ and, generally, men ought to find the difference between saltness and bitterness. certainly, he that hath a satirical vein, as he maketh others afraid of his wit, so he had need be afraid of others' memory. he that questioneth much shall learn much, and content much, but especially if he apply his questions to the skill of the persons whom he asketh; for he shall give them occasion to please themselves in speaking, and himself shall continually gather knowledge: but let his questions not be troublesome, for that is fit for a poser; and let him be sure to leave other men their turns to speak: nay, if there be any that would reign and take up all the time, let him find means to take them off, and to bring others on, as musicians use to do with those that dance too long galliards. if you dissemble sometimes your knowledge of that you are thought to know, you shall be thought, another time, to know that you know not. speech of a man's self ought to be seldom, and well chosen. i knew one was wont to say in scorn, "he must needs be a wise man, he speaks so much of himself;" and there is but one case wherein a man may commend himself with good grace, and that is in commending virtue in another, especially if it be such a virtue whereunto himself pretendeth. speech of touch towards others should be sparingly used; for discourse ought to be as a field, without coming home to any man. i knew two noblemen, of the west part of england, whereof the one was given to scoff, but kept ever royal cheer in his house; the other would ask of those that had been at the other's table, "tell truly, was there never a flout or dry blow given?" to which the guest would answer, "such and such a thing passed." the lord would say, "i thought he would mar a good dinner." discretion of speech is more than eloquence; and to speak agreeably to him with whom we deal, is more than to speak in good words, or in good order. a good continued speech, without a good speech of interlocution, shows slowness; and a good reply, or second speech, without a good settled speech, showeth shallowness and weakness. as we see in beasts, that those that are weakest in the course, are yet nimblest in the turn; as it is betwixt the greyhound and the hare. to use too many circumstances, ere one come to the matter, is wearisome; to use none at all, is blunt. --_bacon._ * * * * * think as little as possible about any good in yourself; turn your eyes resolutely from any view of your acquirement, your influence, your plan, your success, your following: above all, speak as little as possible about yourself. the inordinateness of our self-love makes speech about ourselves like the putting of the lighted torch to the dried wood which has been laid in order for the burning. nothing but duty should open our lips upon this dangerous theme, except it be in humble confession of our sinfulness before our god. again, be specially upon the watch against those little tricks by which the vain man seeks to bring round the conversation to himself, and gain the praise or notice which the thirsty ears drink in so greedily; and even if praise comes unsought, it is well, whilst men are uttering it, to guard yourself by thinking of some secret cause for humbling yourself inwardly to god; thinking into what these pleasant accents would be changed if all that is known to god, and even to yourself, stood suddenly revealed to man. --_bishop wilberforce._ * * * * * in speaking of the duty of pleasing others, it will not be necessary to dwell on the ordinary courtesies and lesser kindnesses of our daily living, any further than to observe that none of these things, however trifling, is beneath the notice of a good man, ... but i mention one thing, because i think that we are most of us apt to be rather deficient in it, and that is in the trying to suit ourselves to the tastes and views of persons whose professions or inclinations, or situation in life, differ widely from our own.... as a general rule, no man can fall into conversation with another without being able to learn something valuable from him. but in order to get at this benefit there must be something of an accommodating spirit on both sides; each must be ready to hear candidly and to answer fairly; each must try to please the other. we all suffer from the want of acquaintance with the habits and opinions and feelings of different classes of society. --_dr. arnold._ * * * * * if you would be loved as a companion, avoid unnecessary criticism upon those with whom you live. the number of people who have taken out judges' patents for themselves is very large in any society. now it would be hard for a man to live with another who was always criticising his actions, even if it were kindly and just criticism. it would be like living between the glasses of a microscope. but these self-elected judges, like their prototypes, are very apt to have the persons they judge brought before them in the guise of culprits. let not familiarity swallow up old courtesy. many of us have a habit of saying to those with whom we live such things as we say about strangers behind their backs. there is no place, however, where real politeness is of more value than where we mostly think it would be superfluous. you may say more truth, or rather speak out more plainly to your associates, but not less courteously than to strangers. --_helps._ * * * * * much of the sorrow of life springs from the accumulation, day by day and year by year, of little trials--a letter written in less than courteous terms, a wrangle at the breakfast table over some arrangement of the day, the rudeness of an acquaintance on the way to the city, an unfriendly act on the part of another firm, a cruel criticism needlessly reported by some meddler, a feline amenity at afternoon tea, the disobedience of one of your children, a social slight by one of your circle, a controversy too hotly conducted. the trials within this class are innumerable, and consider, not one of them is inevitable, not one of them but might have been spared if we or our brother man had had a grain of kindliness. our social insolences, our irritating manners, our censorious judgment, our venomous letters, our pin pricks in conversation, are all forms of deliberate unkindness, and are all evidences of an ill-conditioned nature. --_john watson._ * * * * * if this be one of our chief duties--promoting the happiness of our neighbors--most certainly there is nothing which so entirely runs counter to it, and makes it impossible, as an undisciplined temper. for of all the things that are to be met with here on earth, there is nothing which can give such continual, such cutting, such useless pain. the touchy and sensitive temper, which takes offence at a word; the irritable temper, which finds offence in everything whether intended or not; the violent temper, which breaks through all bounds of reason when once roused; the jealous or sullen temper, which wears a cloud on the face all day, and never utters a word of complaint; the discontented temper, brooding over its own wrongs; the severe temper, which always looks at the worst side of whatever is done; the wilful temper, which overrides every scruple to gratify a whim,--what an amount of pain have these caused in the hearts of men, if we could but sum up their results! how many a soul have they stirred to evil impulses; how many a prayer have they stifled; how many an emotion of true affection have they turned to bitterness! how hard they sometimes make all duties! how painful they make all daily life! how they kill the sweetest and warmest of domestic charities! the misery caused by other sins is often much deeper and much keener, more disastrous, more terrible to the sight; but the accumulated pain caused by ill-temper must, i verily believe, if added together, outweigh all other pains that men have to bear from one another. --_bishop temple._ * * * * * wicked is the slander which gossips away a character in an afternoon, and runs lightly over a whole series of acquaintances, leaving a drop of poison on them all, some suspicion, or some ominous silence--"have you not heard?"--"no one would believe it, but--!" and then silence; while the shake of the head, or the shrug of the shoulders, finishes the sentence with a mute meaning worse than words. do you ever think of the irrevocable nature of speech? the things you say are often said forever. you may find, years after your light word was spoken, that it has made a whole life unhappy, or ruined the peace of a household. it was well said by st. james, "if any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, that man's religion is vain." --_stopford brooke._ * * * * * there are three kinds of silence. silence from words is good, because inordinate speaking tends to evil. silence, or rest from desires and passions, is still better, because it promotes quietness of spirit. but the best of all is silence from unnecessary and wandering thoughts, because that is essential to internal recollection, and because it lays a foundation for a proper regulation and silence in other respects. --_madame guyon._ * * * * * the example of our lord, as he humbly and calmly takes the rebuff, and turns to go to another village, may help us in the ordinary ways of ordinary daily life. the little things that vex us in the manner or the words of those with whom we have to do; the things which seem to us so inconsiderate, or wilful, or annoying, that we think it impossible to get on with the people who are capable of them; the mistakes which no one, we say, has any right to make; the shallowness, or conventionality, or narrowness, or positiveness in talk which makes us wince and tempts us towards the cruelty and wickedness of scorn;--surely in all these things, and in many others like them, of which conscience may be ready enough to speak to most of us, there are really opportunities for thus following the example of our saviour's great humility and patience. how many friendships we might win or keep, how many chances of serving others we might find, how many lessons we might learn, how much of unsuspected moral beauty might be disclosed around us, if only we were more careful to give people time, to stay judgment, to trust that they will see things more justly, speak of them more wisely, after a while. we are sure to go on closing doors of sympathy, and narrowing in the interests and opportunities of work around us, if we let ourselves imagine that we can quickly measure the capacities and sift the characters of our fellow-men. --_bishop paget._ * * * * * how much squandering there is of the voice! how little is there of the advantage that may come from conversational tones! how seldom does a man dare to acquit himself with pathos and fervor! and the men are themselves mechanical and methodical in the bad way, who are most afraid of the artificial training that is given in the schools, and who so often show by the fruit of their labor that the want of oratory is the want of education. how remarkable is sweetness of voice in the mother, in the father, in the household! the music of no chorded instruments brought together is, for sweetness, like the music of familiar affection when spoken by brother and sister, or by father and mother. conversation itself belongs to oratory. how many men there are who are weighty in argument, who have abundant resources, and who are almost boundless in their power at other times and in other places, but who, when in company among their kind, are exceedingly unapt in their methods. having none of the secret instruments by which the elements of nature may be touched, having no skill and no power in this direction, they stand as machines before living, sensitive men. a man may be as a master before an instrument; only the instrument is dead; and he has the living hand; and out of that dead instrument what wondrous harmony springs forth at his touch! and if you can electrify an audience by the power of a living man on dead things, how much more should that audience be electrified when the chords are living and the man is alive, and he knows how to touch them with divine inspiration! --_beecher._ * * * * * every one endeavors to make himself as agreeable to society as he can; but it often happens that those who most aim at shining in conversation, overshoot their mark. tho a man succeeds, he should not (as is frequently the case) engross the whole talk to himself; for that destroys the very essence of conversation, which is talking together. we should try to keep up conversation like a ball bandied to and fro from one to the other, rather than seize it all to ourselves, and drive it before us like a football. we should likewise be cautious to adapt the matter of our discourse to our company, and not talk greek before ladies, or of the last new furbelow to a meeting of country justices. but nothing throws a more ridiculous air over our whole conversation than certain peculiarities easily acquired, but very difficultly conquered and discarded. in order to display these absurdities in a truer light, it is my present purpose to enumerate such of them as are most commonly to be met with; and first to take notice of those buffons in society, the attitudinarians and face-makers. these accompany every word with a peculiar grimace or gesture; they assent with a shrug, and contradict with a twisting of the neck; are angry by a wry mouth, and pleased in a caper or minuet step. they may be considered as speaking harlequins; and their rules of eloquence are taken from the posture-master. these should be condemned to converse only in dumb show with their own persons in the looking-glass, as well as the smirkers and smilers, who so prettily set off their faces, together with their words, by a _je-ne-sais-quoi_ between a grin and a dimple. with these we may likewise rank the affected tribe of mimics, who are constantly taking off the peculiar tone of voice or gesture of their acquaintance, tho they are such wretched imitators, that (like bad painters) they are frequently forced to write the name under the picture before we can discover any likeness. next to these whose elocution is absorbed in action, and who converse chiefly with their arms and legs, we may consider the profest speakers. and first, the emphatical, who squeeze, and press, and ram down every syllable with excessive vehemence and energy. these orators are remarkable for their distinct elocution and force of expression; they dwell on the important particulars _of_ and _the_, and the significant conjunction _and_, which they seem to hawk up, with much difficulty, out of their own throats, and to cram them, with no less pain, into the ears of their auditors. these should be suffered only to syringe (as it were) the ears of a deaf man, through a hearing-trumpet; tho i must confess that i am equally offended with the whisperers or low-speakers, who seem to fancy all their acquaintance deaf, and come up so close to you that they may be said to measure noses with you, and frequently overcome you with the full exhalations of a foul breath. i would have these oracular gentry obliged to speak at a distance through a speaking-trumpet, or apply their lips to the walls of a whispering-gallery. the wits who will not condescend to utter anything but a _bon-mot_, and the whistlers or tune-hummers, who never articulate at all, may be joined very agreeably together in concert; and to these tinkling cymbals i would also add the sounding brass, the bawler, who inquires after your health with the bellowing of a town-crier. the tattlers, whose pliable pipes are admirably adapted to the "soft parts of conversation," and sweetly "prattling out of fashion," make very pretty music from a beautiful face and a female tongue; but from a rough manly voice and coarse features mere nonsense is as harsh and dissonant as a jig from a hurdy-gurdy. the swearers i have spoken of in a former paper; but the half-swearers, who split and mince, and fritter their oaths into "gad's but," "ad's fish," and "demme," the gothic humbuggers, and those who nickname god's creatures, and call a man a cabbage, a crab, a queer cub, an odd fish, and an unaccountable skin, should never come into company without an interpreter. but i will not tire my reader's patience by pointing out all the pests of conversation, nor dwell particularly on the sensibles, who pronounce dogmatically on the most trivial points, and speak in sentences; the wonderers, who are always wondering what o'clock it is, or wondering whether it will rain or no, or wondering when the moon changes; the phraseologists, who explain a thing by all that, or enter into particulars, with this and that and t'other; and lastly, the silent men, who seem afraid of opening their mouths lest they should catch cold, and literally observe the precept of the gospel, by letting their conversation be only yea and nay. the rational intercourse kept up by conversation is one of our principal distinctions from brutes. we should, therefore, endeavor to turn this peculiar talent to our advantage, and consider the organs of speech as the instruments of understanding; we should be very careful not to use them as the weapons of vice, or tools of folly, and do our utmost to unlearn any trivial or ridiculous habits, which tend to lessen the value of such an inestimable prerogative. it is, indeed, imagined by some philosophers, that even birds and beasts (tho without the power of articulation) perfectly understand one another by the sounds they utter; and that dogs, cats, etc., have each a particular language to themselves, like different nations. thus it may be supposed that the nightingales of italy have as fine an ear for their own native woodnotes as any signor or signora for an italian air; that the boars of westphalia gruntle as expressively through the nose as the inhabitants in high german; and that the frogs in the dykes of holland croak as intelligibly as the natives jabber their low dutch. however this may be, we may consider those whose tongues hardly seem to be under the influence of reason, and do not keep up the proper conversation of human creatures, as imitating the language of different animals. thus, for instance, the affinity between chatterers and monkeys, and praters and parrots, is too obvious not to occur at once; grunters and growlers may be justly compared to hogs; snarlers are curs that continually show their teeth, but never bite; and the spitfire passionate are a sort of wild cats that will not bear stroking, but will purr when they are pleased. complainers are screech-owls; and story-tellers, always repeating the same dull note, are cuckoos. poets that prick up their ears at their own hideous braying are no better than asses. critics in general are venomous serpents that delight in hissing, and some of them who have got by heart a few technical terms without knowing their meaning are no other than magpies. i, myself, who have crowed to the whole town for near three years past may perhaps put my readers in mind of a barnyard cock; but as i must acquaint them that they will hear the last of me on this day fortnight, i hope that they will then consider me as a swan, who is supposed to sing sweetly at his dying moments. --_cowper._ * * * * * it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain. this description is both refined, and, so far as it goes, accurate. he is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. his benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called the comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature--like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their best in dispelling cold and fatigue, tho nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. the true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the mind of those with whom he is cast--all clashing of opinion or collision of feeling, all restraint or suspicion or gloom or resentment, his great concern being to make every one at ease and at home. he has his eyes on all his company, he is tender toward the bashful, gentle toward the distant, and merciful toward the absurd. he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. he makes light of favors when he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. he never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motive to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. he is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. from a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves toward our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. he has too much good sense to be affronted at insults. he is too well employed to remember injuries and too indolent to bear malice. he is patient, forbearing, and resigned on philosophical principle; he submits to pain because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death because it is his destiny. if he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds, who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. he may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. nowhere shall we find greater candor, consideration, indulgence; he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. he knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province, and its limits. if he can be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. he respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. he is a friend of religious toleration, and that not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling which is attendant on civilization. --_cardinal newman._ * * * * * * advertisements by grenville kleiser how to speak in public--a practical self-instructor for lawyers, clergymen, teachers, business men, and others. cloth, pages. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . how to develop self-confidence in speech and manner--a book of practical inspiration; trains men to rise above mediocrity and fearthought to their great possibilities. commended to ambitious men. cloth, pages. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . complete guide to public speaking--the only extensive, comprehensive, encyclopedic work of its kind ever issued, with its varied and inclusive contents alphabetically arranged by topics, and made immediately accessible by a complete index. the best advice by the world's great authorities upon oratory, preaching, platform and pulpit delivery, voice building and management, argumentation, debate, reading, rhetoric, homiletics, eloquence, expression, persuasion, gesture, breathing, composition, conversation, elocution, personal power, mental development, etc. royal vo, cloth, over pages. $ . , _net_. how to develop power and personality in speaking--practical suggestions in english, word-building, imagination, memory, conversation, and extemporaneous speaking. cloth, pages. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . how to argue and win--ninety-nine men in a hundred know how to argue to one who can argue and win. this book tells how to acquire such power. cloth, pages. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . how to read and declaim--a course of instruction in reading and declamation for developing graceful carriage, correct standing, accurate enunciation, and effective expression. abundant exercise is furnished in the use of the best examples of prose and poetry. mo, cloth. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . great speeches and how to make them--in this work mr. kleiser gives practical methods by which young men may acquire and develop the essentials of forcible public speaking. mo, cloth. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . humorous hits and how to hold an audience--a collection of recitations, short stories, selections, and sketches for all occasions. cloth, pages. $ . , _net_; by mail, $ . . the world's great sermons--masterpieces of pulpit oratory and biographical sketches of the speakers. cloth, volumes. write for terms. grenville kleiser's personal lessons in public speaking and the development of self-confidence, mental power, and personality. twenty-five lessons, with special handbooks, side talks, personal letters, etc. write for terms. grenville kleiser's personal lessons in practical english--twenty lessons, with daily drills, special books, side talks, personal letters, etc. write for terms. grenville kleiser's personal lessons in business success. twenty-one lessons, with daily exercises, special books, side talks, self-appraisement charts, etc. write for terms. _published by_ funk & wagnalls company new york and london cicero's brutus, or history of famous orators: also, his orator, or accomplished speaker. now first translated into english by e. jones preface. as the following rhetorical pieces have never appeared before in the english language, i thought a translation of them would be no unacceptable offering to the public. the character of the author (marcus tullius cicero) is so universally celebrated, that it would be needless, and indeed impertinent, to say any thing to recommend them. the first of them was the fruit of his retirement, during the remains of the _civil war_ in africa; and was composed in the form of a dialogue. it contains a few short, but very masterly sketches of all the speakers who had flourished either in greece or rome, with any reputation of eloquence, down to his own time; and as he generally touches the principal incidents of their lives, it will be considered, by an attentive reader, as a _concealed epitome of the roman history_. the conference is supposed to have been held with atticus, and their common friend brutus, in cicero's garden at rome, under the statue of plato, whom he always admired, and usually imitated in his dialogues: and he seems in this to have copied even his _double titles_, calling it _brutus, or the history of famous orators_. it was intended as a _supplement_, or _fourth book_, to three former ones, on the qualifications of an orator. the second, which is intitled _the orator_, was composed a very short time afterwards (both of them in the st year of his age) and at the request of brutus. it contains a plan, or critical delineation, of what he himself esteemed the most finished eloquence, or style of speaking. he calls it _the fifth part, or book_, designed to complete his _brutus_, and _the former three_ on the same subject. it was received with great approbation; and in a letter to lepta, who had complimented him upon it, he declares, that whatever judgment he had in speaking, he had thrown it all into that work, and was content to risk his reputation on the merit of it. but it is particularly recommended to our curiosity, by a more exact account of the rhetorical _composition_, or _prosaic harmony_ of the ancients, than is to be met with in any other part of his works. as to the present translation, i must leave the merit of it to be decided by the public; and have only to observe, that though i have not, to my knowledge, omitted a single sentence of the original, i was obliged, in some places, to paraphrase my author, to render his meaning intelligible to a modern reader. my chief aim was to be clear and perspicuous: if i have succeeded in _that_, it is all i pretend to. i must leave it to abler pens to copy the _eloquence_ of cicero. _mine_ is unequal to the task. brutus, or the history of eloquence. when i had left cilicia, and arrived at rhodes, word was brought me of the death of hortensius. i was more affected with it than, i believe, was generally expected. for, by the loss of my friend, i saw myself for ever deprived of the pleasure of his acquaintance, and of our mutual intercourse of good offices. i likewise reflected, with concern, that the dignity of our college must suffer greatly by the decease of such an eminent augur. this reminded me, that _he_ was the person who first introduced me to the college, where he attested my qualification upon oath; and that it was _he_ also who installed me as a member; so that i was bound by the constitution of the order to respect and honour him as a parent. my affliction was increased, that, in such a deplorable dearth of wife and virtuous citizens, this excellent man, my faithful associate in the service of the public, expired at the very time when the commonwealth could least spare him, and when we had the greatest reason to regret the want of his prudence and authority. i can add, very sincerely, that in _him_ i lamented the loss, not (as most people imagined) of a dangerous rival and competitor, but of a generous partner and companion in the pursuit of same. for if we have instances in history, though in studies of less public consequence, that some of the poets have been greatly afflicted at the death of their contemporary bards; with what tender concern should i honour the memory of a man, with whom it is more glorious to have disputed the prize of eloquence, than never to have met with an antagonist! especially, as he was always so far from obstructing _my_ endeavours, or i _his_, that, on the contrary, we mutually assisted each other, with our credit and advice. but as _he_, who had a perpetual run of felicity, left the world at a happy moment for himself, though a most unfortunate one for his fellow- citizens; and died when it would have been much easier for him to lament the miseries of his country, than to assist it, after living in it as long as he _could_ have lived with honour and reputation;--we may, indeed, deplore his death as a heavy loss to _us_ who survive him. if, however, we consider it merely as a personal event, we ought rather to congratulate his fate, than to pity it; that, as often as we revive the memory of this illustrious and truly happy man, we may appear at least to have as much affection for him as for ourselves. for if we only lament that we are no longer permitted to enjoy him, it must, indeed, be acknowledged that this is a heavy misfortune to _us_; which it, however, becomes us to support with moderation, less our sorrow should be suspected to arise from motives of interest, and not from friendship. but if we afflict ourselves, on the supposition that _he_ was the sufferer;--we misconstrue an event, which to _him_ was certainly a very happy one. if hortensius was now living, he would probably regret many other advantages in common with his worthy fellow-citizens. but when he beheld the forum, the great theatre in which he used to exercise his genius, no longer accessible to that accomplished eloquence, which could charm the ears of a roman, or a grecian audience; he must have felt a pang of which none, or at least but few, besides himself, could be susceptible. even _i_ am unable to restrain my tears, when i behold my country no longer defensible by the genius, the prudence, and the authority of a legal magistrate,--the only weapons which i have learned to weild, and to which i have long been accustomed, and which are most suitable to the character of an illustrious citizen, and of a virtuous and well-regulated state. but if there ever was a time, when the authority and eloquence of an honest individual could have wrested their arms from the hands of his distracted fellow-citizens; it was then when the proposal of a compromise of our mutual differences was rejected, by the hasty imprudence of some, and the timorous mistrust of others. thus it happened, among other misfortunes of a more deplorable nature, that when my declining age, after a life spent in the service of the public, should have reposed in the peaceful harbour, not of an indolent, and a total inactivity, but of a moderate and becoming retirement; and when my eloquence was properly mellowed, and had acquired its full maturity;--thus it happened, i say, that recourse was then had to those fatal arms, which the persons who had learned the use of them in honourable conquest, could no longer employ to any salutary purpose. those, therefore, appear to me to have enjoyed a fortunate and a happy life, (of whatever state they were members, but especially in _our's_) who held their authority and reputation, either for their military or political services, without interruption: and the sole remembrance of them, in our present melancholy situation, was a pleasing relief to me, when we lately happened to mention them in the course of conversation. for, not long ago, when i was walking for my amusement, in a private avenue at home, i was agreeably interrupted by my friend brutus, and t. pomponius, who came, as indeed they frequently did, to visit me;--two worthy citizens who were united to each other in the closest friendship, and were so dear and so agreeable to me, that, on the first sight of them, all my anxiety for the commonwealth subsided. after the usual salutations,--"well, gentlemen," said i, "how go the times? what news have you brought?" "none," replied brutus, "that you would wish to hear, or that i can venture to tell you for truth."--"no," said atticus; "we are come with an intention that all matters of state should be dropped; and rather to hear something from you, than to say any thing which might serve to distress you." "indeed," said i, "your company is a present remedy for my sorrow; and your letters, when absent, were so encouraging, that they first revived my attention to my studies."--"i remember," replied atticus, "that brutus sent you a letter from asia, which i read with infinite pleasure: for he advised you in it like a man of sense, and gave you every consolation which the warmest friendship could suggest."-- "true," said i, "for it was the receipt of that letter which recovered me from a growing indisposition, to behold once more the cheerful face of day; and as the roman state, after the dreadful defeat near cannae, first raised its drooping head by the victory of marcellus at nola, which was succeeded by many other victories; so, after the dismal wreck of our affairs, both public and private, nothing occurred to me before the letter of my friend brutus, which i thought to be worth my attention, or which contributed, in any degree, to the anxiety of my heart."--"that was certainly my intention," answered brutus; "and if i had the happiness to succeed, i was sufficiently rewarded for my trouble. but i could wish to be informed, what you received from atticus which gave you such uncommon pleasure."--"that," said i, "which not only entertained me; but, i hope, has restored me entirely to myself."--"indeed!" replied he; "and what miraculous composition could that be?"--"nothing," answered i; "could have been a more acceptable, or a more seasonable present, than that excellent treatise of his which roused me from a state of languor and despondency." --"you mean," said he, "his short, and, i think, very accurate abridgment of universal history."--"the very same," said i; "for that little treatise has absolutely saved me."--"i am heartily glad of it," said atticus; "but what could you discover in it which was either new to you, or so wonderfully beneficial as you pretend?"--"it certainly furnished many hints," said i, "which were entirely new to me: and the exact order of time which you observed through the whole, gave me the opportunity i had long wished for, of beholding the history of all nations in one regular and comprehensive view. the attentive perusal of it proved an excellent remedy for my sorrows, and led me to think of attempting something on your own plan, partly to amuse myself, and partly to return your favour, by a grateful, though not an equal acknowledgment. we are commanded, it is true, in that precept of hesiod, so much admired by the learned, to return with the same measure we have received; or, if possible, with a larger. as to a friendly inclination, i shall certainly return you a full proportion of it; but as to a recompence in kind, i confess it to be out of my power, and therefore hope you will excuse me: for i have no first-fruits (like a prosperous husbandman) to acknowledge the obligation i have received; my whole harvest having sickened and died, for want of the usual manure: and as little am i able to present you with any thing from those hidden stores which are now consigned to perpetual darkness, and to which i am denied all access; though, formerly, i was almost the only person who was able to command them at pleasure. i must therefore, try my skill in a long- neglected and uncultivated soil; which i will endeavour to improve with so much care, that i may be able to repay your liberality with interest; provided my genius should be so happy as to resemble a fertile field, which, after being suffered to lie fallow a considerable time, produces a heavier crop than usual."--"very well," replied atticus, "i shall expect the fulfilment of your promise; but i shall not insist upon it till it suits your convenience; though, after all, i shall certainly be better pleased if you discharge the obligation."--"and i also," said brutus, "shall expect that you perform your promise to my friend atticus: nay, though i am only his voluntary solicitor, i shall, perhaps, be very pressing for the discharge of a debt, which the creditor himself is willing to submit to your own choice."--"but i shall refuse to pay you," said i, "unless the original creditor takes no farther part in the suit." --"this is more than i can promise," replied he, "for i can easily foresee, that this easy man, who disclaims all severity, will urge his demand upon you, not indeed to distress you, but yet very closely and seriously."--"to speak ingenuously," said atticus, "my friend brutus, i believe, is not much mistaken: for as i now find you in good spirits, for the first time, after a tedious interval of despondency, i shall soon make bold to apply to you; and as this gentleman has promised his assistance, to recover what you owe me, the least i can do is to solicit, in my turn, for what is due to him." "explain your meaning," said i.--"i mean," replied he, "that you must write something to amuse us; for your pen has been totally silent this long time; and since your treatise on politics, we have had nothing from you of any kind; though it was the perusal of that which fired me with the ambition to write an abridgment of universal history. but we shall, however, leave you to answer this demand, when, and in what manner you shall think most convenient. at present, if you are not otherwise engaged, you must give us your sentiments on a subject on which we both desire to be better informed."--"and what is that?" said i.--"what you gave me a hasty sketch of," replied he, "when i saw you last at tusculanum,--the history of famous orators;--_when_ they made their appearance, and _who_ and _what_ they were; which, furnished such an agreeable train of conversation, that when i related the substance of it to _your_, or i ought rather to have said our _common_ friend, brutus, he expressed a violent desire to hear the whole of it from your own mouth. knowing you, therefore, to be at leisure, we have taken the present opportunity to wait upon you; so that, if it is really convenient, you will oblige us both by resuming the subject."--"well, gentlemen," said i, "as you are so pressing, i will endeavour to satisfy you in the best manner i am able."-- "you are _able_ enough," replied he; "only unbend yourself a little, or, if you can set your mind at full liberty."--"if i remember right," said i, "atticus, what gave rise to the conversation, was my observing, that the cause of deiotarus, a most excellent sovereign, and a faithful ally, was pleaded by our friend brutus, in my hearing, with the greatest elegance and dignity."--"true," replied he, "and you took occasion from the ill success of brutus, to lament the loss of a fair administration of justice in the forum."--"i did so," answered i, "as indeed i frequently do: and whenever i see you, my brutus, i am concerned to think where your wonderful genius, your finished erudition, and unparalleled industry will find a theatre to display themselves. for after you had thoroughly improved your abilities, by pleading a variety of important causes; and when my declining vigour was just giving way, and lowering the ensigns of dignity to your more active talents; the liberty of the state received a fatal overthrow, and that eloquence, of which we are now to give the history, was condemned to perpetual silence."--"our other misfortunes," replied brutus, "i lament sincerely; and i think i ought to lament them:-- but as to eloquence, i am not so fond of the influence and the glory it bestows, as of the study and the practice of it, which nothing can deprive me of, while you are so well disposed to assist me: for no man can be an eloquent speaker, who has not a clear and ready conception. whoever, therefore, applies himself to the study of eloquence, is at the same time improving his judgment, which is a talent equally necessary in all military operations." "your remark," said i, "is very just; and i have a higher opinion of the merit of eloquence, because, though there is scarcely any person so diffident as not to persuade himself, that he either has, or may acquire every other accomplishment which, formerly, could have given him consequence in the state; i can find no person who has been made an orator by the success of his military prowess.--but that we may carry on the conversation with greater ease, let us seat ourselves."--as my visitors had no objection to this, we accordingly took our seats in a private lawn, near a statue of plato. then resuming the conversation,--"to recommend the study of eloquence," said i, "and describe its force, and the great dignity it confers upon those who have acquired it, is neither our present design, nor has any necessary connection with it. but i will not hesitate to affirm, that whether it is acquired by art or practice, or the mere powers of nature, it is the most difficult of all attainments; for each of the five branches of which it is said to consist, is of itself a very important art; from whence it may easily be conjectured, how great and arduous must be the profession which unites and comprehends them all. "greece alone is a sufficient witness of this:--for though she was fired with a wonderful love of eloquence, and has long since excelled every other nation in the practice of it, yet she had all the rest of the arts much earlier; and had not only invented, but even compleated them, a considerable time before she was mistress of the full powers of elocution. but when i direct my eyes to greece, your beloved athens, my atticus, first strikes my sight, and is the brightest object in my view: for in that illustrious city the _orator_ first made his appearance, and it is there we shall find the earliest records of eloquence, and the first specimens of a discourse conducted by rules of art. but even in athens there is not a single production now extant which discovers any taste for ornament, or seems to have been the effort of a real orator, before the time of pericles (whose name is prefixed to some orations which still remain) and his cotemporary thucydides; who flourished,--not in the infancy of the state, but when it was arrived at its full maturity of power. "it is, however, supposed, that pisistratus (who lived many years before) together with solon, who was something older, and clisthenes, who survived them both, were very able speakers for the age they lived in. but some years after these, as may be collected from the attic annals, came the above-mentioned themistocles, who is said to have been as much distinguished by his eloquence as by his political abilities;--and after him the celebrated pericles, who, though adorned with every kind of excellence, was most admired for his talent of speaking. cleon also (their cotemporary) though a turbulent citizen, was allowed to be a tolerable orator. "these were immediately succeeded by alcibiades, critias, and theramenes, whose manner of speaking may be easily inferred from the writings of thucydides, who lived at the same time: their discourses were nervous and stately, full of sententious remarks, and so excessively concise as to be sometimes obscure. but as soon as the force of a regular and a well- adjusted speech was understood, a sudden crowd of rhetoricians appeared,-- such as gorgias the leontine, thrasymachus the chalcedonian, protagoras the abderite, and hippias the elean, who were all held in great esteem,-- with many others of the same age, who professed (it must be owned, rather too arrogantly) to teach their scholars,--_how the worse might be made, by the force of eloquence, to appear the better cause_. but these were openly opposed by the famous socrates, who, by an adroit method of arguing which was peculiar to himself, took every opportunity to refute the principles of their art. his instructive conferences produced a number of intelligent men, and _philosophy_ is said to have derived her birth from him;--not the doctrine of _physics_, which was of an earlier date, but that philosophy which treats of men, and manners, and of the nature of good and evil. but as this is foreign to our present subject, we must defer the philosophers to another opportunity, and return to the orators, from whom i have ventured to make a sort digression. "when the professors therefore, abovementioned were in the decline of life, isocrates made his appearance, whos house stood open to all greece as the _school of eloquence_. he was an accomplished orator, and an excellent teacher; though he did not display his talents in the forum, but cherished and improved that glory within the walls of his academy, which, in my opinion, no poet has ever yet acquired. he composed many valuable specimens of his art, and taught the principles of it to others; and not only excelled his predecessors in every part of it, but first discovered that a certain _metre_ should be observed in prose, though totally different from the measured rhyme of the poets. before _him_, the artificial structure and harmony of language was unknown;--or if there are any traces of it to be discovered, they appear to have been made without design; which, perhaps, will be thought a beauty:--but whatever it may be deemed, it was, in the present case, the effect rather of native genius, or of accident, than of art and observation. for mere nature itself will measure and limit our sentences by a convenient compass of words; and when they are thus confined to a moderate flow of expression, they will frequently have a _numerous_ cadence:--for the ear alone can decide what is full and complete, and what is deficient; and the course of our language will necessarily be regulated by our breath, in which it is excessively disagreeable, not only to fail, but even to labour. "after isocrates came lysias, who, though not personally engaged in forensic causes, was a very artful and an elegant composer, and such a one as you might almost venture to pronounce a complete orator: for demosthenes is the man who approaches the character so nearly, that you may apply it to him without hesitation. no keen, no artful turns could have been contrived for the pleadings he has left behind him, which he did not readily discover;--nothing could have been expressed with greater nicety, or more clearly and poignantly, than it has been already expressed by him;--and nothing greater, nothing more rapid and forcible, nothing adorned with a nobler elevation either of language, or sentiment, can be conceived than what is to be found in his orations. he was soon rivalled by his cotemporaries hyperides, aeschines, lycurgus, dinarchus, and demades (none of whose writings are extant) with many others that might be mentioned: for this age was adorned with a profusion of good orators; and the genuine strength and vigour of eloquence appears to me to have subsisted to the end of this period, which was distinguished by a natural beauty of composition without disguise or affectation. "when these orators were in the decline of life, they were succeeded by phalereus; who was then in the prime of youth. he was indeed a man of greater learning than any of them, but was fitter to appear on the parade, than in the field; and, accordingly, he rather pleased and entertained the athenians, than inflamed their passions; and marched forth into the dust and heat of the forum, not from a weather-beaten tent, but from the shady recesses of theophrastus, a man of consummate erudition. he was the first who relaxed the force of eloquence, and gave her a soft and tender air: and he rather chose to be agreeable, as indeed he was, than great and striking; but agreeable in such a manner as rather charmed, than warmed the mind of the hearer. his greatest ambition was to impress his audience with a high opinion of his elegance, and not, as eupolis relates of pericles, to _sting_ as well as to _please_. "you see, then, in the very city in which eloquence was born and nurtured, how late it was before she grew to maturity; for before the time of solon and pisistratus, we meet with no one who is so much as mentioned for his talent of speaking. these, indeed, if we compute by the roman date, may be reckoned very ancient; but if by that of the athenians, we shall find them to be moderns. for though they flourished in the reign of servius tullius, athens had then subsisted much longer than rome has at present. i have not, however, the least doubt that the power of eloquence has been always more or less conspicuous. for homer, we may suppose, would not have ascribed such superior talents of elocution to ulysses, and nestor (one of whom he celebrates for his force, and the other for his sweetness) unless the art of speaking had then been held in some esteem; nor could the poet himself have been master of such an ornamental style, and so excellent a vein of oratory as we actually find in him.--the time indeed in which he lived is undetermined: but we are certain that he flourished many years before romulus: for he was at least of as early a date as the elder lycurgus, the legislator of the spartans. "but a particular attention to the art, and a greater ability in the practice of it, may be observed in pisistratus. he was succeeded in the following century by themistocles, who, according to the roman date, was a person of the remotest antiquity; but, according to that of the athenians, he was almost a modern. for he lived when greece was in the height of her power, but when the city of rome had but lately freed herself from the shackles of regal tyranny;--for the dangerous war with the volsci, who were headed by coriolanus (then a voluntary exile) happened nearly at the same time as the persian war; and we may add, that the fate of both commanders was remarkably similar. each of them, after distinguishing himself as an excellent citizen, being driven from his country by the wrongs of an ungrateful people, went over to the enemy: and each of them repressed the efforts of his resentment by a voluntary death. for though you, my atticus, have represented the exit of coriolanus in a different manner, you must give me leave to dispatch him in the way i have mentioned."--"you may use your pleasure," replied atticus with a smile: "for it is the privilege of rhetoricians to exceed the truth of history, that they may have an opportunity of embellishing the fate of their heroes: and accordingly, clitarchus and stratocles have entertained us with the same pretty fiction about the death of themistocles, which you have invented for coriolanus. thucydides, indeed, who was himself an athenian of the highest rank and merit, and lived nearly at the same time, has only informed us that he died, and was privately buried in attica, adding, that it was suspected by some that he had poisoned himself. but these ingenious writers have assured us, that, having slain a bull at the altar, he caught the blood in a large bowl, and, drinking it off, fell suddenly dead upon the ground. for this species of death had a tragical air, and might be described with all the pomp of rhetoric; whereas the ordinary way of dying afforded no opportunity for ornament. as it will, therefore, suit your purpose, that coriolanus should resemble themistocles in every thing, i give you leave to introduce the fatal bowl; and you may still farther heighten the catastrophe by a solemn sacrifice, that coriolanus may appear in all respects to have been a second themistocles." "i am much obliged to you," said i, "for your courtesy: but, for the future, i shall be more cautious in meddling with history when you are present; whom i may justly commend as a most exact and scrupulous relator of the roman history; but nearly at the time we are speaking of (though somewhat later) lived the above-mentioned pericles, the illustrious son of xantippus, who first improved his eloquence by the friendly aids of literature;--not that kind of literature which treats professedly of the art of speaking, of which there was then no regular system; but after he had studied under anaxagoras the naturalist, he easily transferred his capacity from abstruse and intricate speculations to forensic and popular debates. "all athens was charmed with the sweetness of his language; and not only admired him for his fluency, but was awed by the superior force and the _terrors_ of his eloquence. this age, therefore, which may be considered as the infancy of the art, furnished athens with an orator who almost reached the summit of his profession: for an emulation to shine in the forum is not usually found among a people who are either employed in settling the form of their government, or engaged in war, or struggling with difficulties, or subjected to the arbitrary power of kings. eloquence is the attendant of peace, the companion of ease and prosperity, and the tender offspring of a free and a well established constitution. aristotle, therefore, informs us, that when the tyrants were expelled from sicily, and private property (after a long interval of servitude) was determined by public trials, the sicilians corax and tisias (for this people, in general, were very quick and acute, and had a natural turn for controversy) first attempted to write precepts on the art of speaking. before them, he says, there was no one who spoke by method, and rules of art, though there were many who discoursed very sensibly, and generally from written notes: but protagoras took the pains to compose a number of dissertations, on such leading and general topics as are now called common places. gorgias, he adds, did the same, and wrote panegyrics and invectives on every subject: for he thought it was the province of an orator to be able either to exaggerate, or extenuate, as occasion might require. antiphon the rhamnusian composed several essays of the same species; and (according to thucydides, a very respectable writer, who was present to hear him) pleaded a capital cause in his own defence, with as much eloquence as had ever yet been displayed by any man. but lysias was the first who openly professed the _art_; and, after him, theodorus, being better versed in the theory than the practice of it, begun to compose orations for others to pronounce; but reserved the method of doing it to himself. in the same manner, isocrates at first disclaimed the art, but wrote speeches for other people to deliver; on which account, being often prosecuted for assisting, contrary to law, to circumvent one or another of the parties in judgment, he left off composing orations for other people, and wholly applied himself to writing rules and systems. "thus then we have traced the birth and origin of the orators of greece, who were, indeed, very ancient, as i have before observed, if we compute by the roman annals; but of a much later date, if we reckon by their own: for the athenian state had signalized itself by a variety of great exploits, both at home and abroad, a considerable time before she was ravished with the charms of eloquence. but this noble art was not common to greece in general, but almost peculiar to athens. for who has ever heard of an argive, a corinthian, or a theban orator at the times we are speaking of? unless, perhaps, some merit of the kind may be allowed to epaminondas, who was a man of uncommon erudition. but i have never read of a lacedemonian orator, from the earliest period of time to the present. for menelaus himself, though said by homer to have possessed a sweet elocution, is likewise described as a man of few words. brevity, indeed, upon some occasions, is a real excellence; but it is very far from being compatible with the general character of eloquence. "the art of speaking was likewise studied, and admired, beyond the limits of greece; and the extraordinary honours which were paid to oratory have perpetuated the names of many foreigners who had the happiness to excel in it. for no sooner had eloquence ventured to sail from the pireaeus, but she traversed all the isles, and visited every part of asia; till at last she infected herself with their manners, and lost all the purity and the healthy complexion of the attic style, and indeed had almost forgot her native language. the asiatic orators, therefore, though not to be undervalued for the rapidity and the copious variety of their elocution, were certainly too loose and luxuriant. but the rhodians were of a sounder constitution, and more resembled the athenians. so much, then, for the greeks; for, perhaps, what i have already said of them, is more than was necessary." "as to the necessity of it," answered brutus, "there is no occasion to speak of it: but what you have said of them has entertained me so agreeably, that instead of being longer, it has been much shorter than i could have wished."--"a very handsome compliment," said i;--"but it is time to begin with our own countrymen, of whom it is difficult to give any further account than what we are able to conjecture from our annals.--for who can question the address, and the capacity of brutus, the illustrious founder of your family? that brutus, who so readily discovered the meaning of the oracle, which promised the supremacy to him who should first salute his mother? that brutus, who concealed the most consummate abilities under the appearance of a natural defect of understanding? who dethroned and banished a powerful monarch, the son of an illustrious sovereign? who settled the state, which he had rescued from arbitrary power, by the appointment of an annual magistracy, a regular system of laws, and a free and open course of justice? and who abrogated the authority of his colleague, that he might rid the city of the smallest vestige of the _regal_ name?--events, which could never have been produced without exerting the powers of persuasion!--we are likewise informed that a few years after the expulsion of the kings, when the plebeians retired to the banks of the anio, about three miles from the city, and had possessed themselves of what is called the _sacred_ mount, m. valerius the dictator appeased their fury by a public harangue; for which he was afterwards rewarded with the highest posts of honour, and was the first roman who was distinguished by the surname of _maximus_. nor can l. valerius potitus be supposed to have been destitute of the powers of utterance, who, after the odium which had been excited against the patricians by the tyrannical government of the _decemviri_, reconciled the people to the senate, by his prudent laws and conciliatory speeches. we may likewise suppose, that appius claudius was a man of some eloquence; since he dissuaded the senate from consenting to a peace with king pyrrhus, though they were much inclined to it. the same might be said of caius fabricius, who was dispatched to pyrrhus to treat for the ransom of his captive fellow- citizens; and of titus coruncanius, who appears by the memoirs of the pontifical college, to have been a person of no contemptible genius: and likewise of m. curius (then a tribune of the people) who, when the interrex appius _the blind_, an artful speaker, held the _comitia_ contrary to law, by refusing to admit any consuls of plebeian rank, prevailed upon the senate to protest against the conduct: of his antagonist; which, if we consider that the moenian law was not then in being, was a very bold attempt. we may also conjecture, that m. popilius was a man of abilities, who, in the time of his consulship, when he was solemnizing a public sacrifice in the proper habit of his office, (for he was also a flamen carmentalis) hearing of the mutiny and insurrection of the people against the senate, rushed immediately into the midst of the assembly, covered as he was with his sacerdotal robes, and quelled the sedition by his authority and the force of his elocution. i do not pretend to have read that the persons i have mentioned were then reckoned orators, or that any fort of reward or encouragement was given to eloquence: i only conjecture what appears very probable. it is also recorded, that c. flaminius, who, when tribune of the people proposed the law for dividing the conquered territories of the gauls and piceni among the citizens, and who, after his promotion to the consulship, was slain near the lake thrasimenus, became very popular by the mere force of his address, quintus maximus verrucosus was likewise reckoned a good speaker by his cotemporaries; as was also quintus metellus, who, in the second punic war, was joint consul with l. veturius philo. but the first person we have any certain account of, who was publicly distinguished as an _orator_, and who really appears to have been such, was m. cornelius cethegus; whose eloquence is attested by q. ennius, a voucher of the highest credibility; since he actually heard him speak, and gave him this character after his death; so that there is no reason to suspect that he was prompted by the warmth of his friendship to exceed the bounds of truth. in his ninth book of annals, he has mentioned him in the following terms: "_additur orator corneliu' suaviloquenti ore cethegus marcu', tuditano collega, marci filius._" "_add the_ orator _m. cornelius cethegus, so much admired for his mellifluent tongue; who was the colleague of tuditanus, and the son of marcus_." "he expressly calls him an _orator_, you see, and attributes to him a remarkable sweetness of elocution; which, even now a-days, is an excellence of which few are possessed: for some of our modern orators are so insufferably harsh, that they may rather be said to bark than to speak. but what the poet so much admires in his friend, may certainly be considered as one of the principal ornaments of eloquence. he adds; " ----_is dictus, ollis popularibus olim, qui tum vivebant homines, atque aevum agitabant, flos delibatus populi_." "_he was called by his cotemporaries, the choicest flower of the state_." "a very elegant compliment! for as the glory of a man is the strength of his mental capacity, so the brightest ornament of that is eloquence; in which, whoever had the happiness to excel, was beautifully styled, by the ancients, the _flower_ of the state; and, as the poet immediately subjoins, "'--_suadaeque medulla:' "the very marrow and quintessence of persuasion_." "that which the greeks call [greek: peitho], _(i.e. persuasion)_ and which it is the chief business of an orator to effect, is here called _suada_ by ennius; and of this he commends cethegus as the _quintessence_; so that he makes the roman orator to be himself the very substance of that amiable goddess, who is said by eupolis to have dwelt on the lips of pericles. this cethegus was joint-consul with p. tuditanus in the second punic war; at which time also m. cato was quaestor, about one hundred and forty years before i myself was promoted to the consulship; which circumstance would have been absolutely lost, if it had not been recorded by ennius; and the memory of that illustrious citizen, as has probably been the case of many others, would have been obliterated by the rust of antiquity. the manner of speaking which was then in vogue, may easily be collected from the writings of _naevius_: for naevius died, as we learn from the memoirs of the times, when the persons above-mentioned were consuls; though varro, a most accurate investigator of historical truth, thinks there is a mistake in this, and fixes the death of naevius something later. for plautus died in the consulship of p. claudius and l. porcius, twenty years after the consulship of the persons we have been speaking of, and when cato was censor. cato, therefore, must have been younger than cethegus, for he was consul nine years after him: but we always consider him as a person of the remotest antiquity, though he died in the consulship of lucius marcius and m. manilius, and but eighty-three years before my own promotion to the same office. he is certainly, however, the most ancient orator we have, whose writings may claim our attention; unless any one is pleased with the above-mentioned speech of appius, on the peace with pyrrhus, or with a set of panegyrics on the dead, which, i own, are still extant. for it was customary in most families of note to preserve their images, their trophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when any of the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, or prove their own nobility. but the truth of history has been much corrupted by these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in them which never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession of consulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rank were confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if i myself should pretend that i am descended from m. tullius, who was a patrician, and shared the consulship with servius sulpicius, about ten years after the expulsion of the kings. "but the real speeches of cato are almost as numerous as those of lysias the athenian; a great number of whose are still extant. for lysias was certainly an athenian; because he not only died but received his birth at athens, and served all the offices of the city; though timaesus, as if he acted by the licinian or the mucian law, remands him back to syracuse. there is, however, a manifest resemblance between _his_ character and that of _cato_: for they are both of them distinguished by their acuteness, their elegance, their agreeable humour, and their brevity. but the greek has the happiness to be most admired: for there are some who are so extravagantly fond of him, as to prefer a graceful air to a vigorous constitution, and who are perfectly satisfied with a slender and an easy shape, if it is only attended with a moderate share of health. it must, however, be acknowledged, that even lysias often displays a strength of arm, than which nothing can be more strenuous and forcible; though he is certainly, in all respects, of a more thin and feeble habit than cato, notwithstanding he has so many admirers, who are charmed with his very slenderness. but as to cato, where will you find a modern orator who condescends to read him?--nay, i might have said, who has the least knowledge of him?--and yet, good gods! what a wonderful man! i say nothing of his merit as a citizen, a senator, and a general; we must confine our attention to the orator. who, then, has displayed more dignity as a panegyrist?--more severity as an accuser?--more ingenuity in the turn of his sentiments?--or more neatness and address in his narratives and explanations? though he composed above a hundred and fifty orations, (which i have seen and read) they are crowded with all the beauties of language and sentiment. let us select from these what deserves our notice and applause: they will supply us with all the graces of oratory. not to omit his _antiquities_, who will deny that these also are adorned with every flower, and with all the lustre of eloquence? and yet he has scarcely any admirers; which some ages ago was the case of philistus the syracusan, and even of thucydides himself. for as the lofty and elevated style of theopompus soon diminished the reputation of their pithy and laconic harangues, which were sometimes scarcely intelligible through their excessive brevity and quaintness; and as demosthenes eclipsed the glory of lysias, so the pompous and stately elocution of the moderns has obscured the lustre of cato. but many of us are shamefully ignorant and inattentive; for we admire the greeks for their antiquity, and what is called their attic neatness, and yet have never noticed the same quality in cato. it was the distinguishing character, say they, of lysias and hyperides. i own it, and i admire them for it: but why not allow a share of it to cato? they are fond, they tell us, of the _attic_ style of eloquence: and their choice is certainly judicious, provided they borrow the blood and the healthy juices, as well as the bones and membranes. what they recommend, however, is, to do it justice, an agreeable quality. but why must lysias and hyperides be so fondly courted, while cato is entirely overlooked? his language indeed has an antiquated air, and some of his expressions are rather too harsh and crabbed. but let us remember that this was the language of the time: only change and modernize it, which it was not in his power to do;--add the improvements of number and cadence, give an easier turn to his sentences, and regulate the structure and connection of his words, (which was as little practised even by the older greeks as by him) and you will discover no one who can claim the preference to cato. the greeks themselves acknowledge that the chief beauty of composition results from the frequent use of those _translatitious_ forms of expression which they call _tropes_, and of those various attitudes of language and sentiment which they call _figures_: but it is almost incredible in what numbers, and with what amazing variety, they are all employed by cato. i know, indeed, that he is not sufficiently polished, and that recourse must be had to a more perfect model for imitation: for he is an author of such antiquity, that he is the oldest now extant, whose writings can be read with patience; and the ancients in general acquired a much greater reputation in every other art, than in that of speaking. but who that has seen the statues of the moderns, will not perceive in a moment, that the figures of canachus are too stiff and formal, to resemble life? those of calamis, though evidently harsh, are somewhat softer. even the statues of myron are not sufficiently alive; and yet you would not hesitate to pronounce them beautiful. but those of polycletes are much finer, and, in my mind, completely finished. the case is the same in painting; for in the works of zeuxis, polygnotus, timanthes, and several other masters who confined themselves to the use of four colours, we commend the air and the symmetry of their figures; but in aetion, nicomachus, protogenes, and apelles, every thing is finished to perfection. this, i believe, will hold equally true in all the other arts; for there is not one of them which was invented and completed at the same time. i cannot doubt, for instance, that there were many poets before homer: we may infer it from those very songs which he himself informs us were sung at the feasts of the phaeacians, and of the profligate suitors of penelope. nay, to go no farther, what is become of the ancient poems of our own countrymen?" "such as the fauns and rustic bards compos'd, when none the rocks of poetry had cross'd, nor wish'd to form his style by rules of art, before this vent'rous man: &c. "old ennius here speaks of himself; nor does he carry his boast beyond the bounds of truth: the case being really as he describes it. for we had only an odyssey in latin, which resembled one of the rough and unfinished statues of daedalus; and some dramatic pieces of livius, which will scarcely bear a second reading. this livius exhibited his first performance at rome in the consulship of m. tuditanus, and c. clodius the son of caecus, the year before ennius was born, and, according to the account of my friend atticus, (whom i choose to follow) the five hundred and fourteenth from the building of the city. but historians are not agreed about the date of the year. attius informs us that livius was taken prisoner at tarentum by quintus maximus in his fifth consulship, about thirty years after he is said by atticus, and our ancient annals, to have introduced the drama. he adds that he exhibited his first dramatic piece about eleven years after, in the consulship of c. cornelius and q. minucius, at the public games which salinator had vowed to the goddess of youth for his victory over the senones. but in this, attius was so far mistaken, that ennius, when the persons above-mentioned were consuls, was forty years old: so that if livius was of the same age, as in this case he would have been, the first dramatic author we had must have been younger than plautus and naevius, who had exhibited a great number of plays before the time he specifies. if these remarks, my brutus, appear unsuitable to the subject before us, you must throw the whole blame upon atticus, who has inspired me with a strange curiosity to enquire into the age of illustrious men, and the respective times of their appearance."--"on the contrary," said brutus, "i am highly pleased that you have carried your attention so far; and i think your remarks well adapted to the curious task you have undertaken, the giving us a history of the different classes of orators in their proper order."--"you understand me right," said i; "and i heartily wish those venerable odes were still extant, which cato informs us in his antiquities, used to be sung by every guest in his turn at the homely feasts of our ancestors, many ages before, to commemorate the feats of their heroes. but the _punic war_ of that antiquated poet, whom ennius so proudly ranks among the _fauns and rustic bards_, affords me as exquisite a pleasure as the finest statue that was ever formed by myron. ennius, i allow, was a more finished writer: but if he had really undervalued the other, as he pretends to do, he would scarcely have omitted such a bloody war as the first _punic_, when he attempted professedly to describe all the wars of the republic. nay he himself assigns the reason. "others" (said he) "that cruel war have sung:" very true, and they have sung it with great order and precision, though not, indeed, in such elegant strains as yourself. this you ought to have acknowledged, as you must certainly be conscious that you have borrowed many ornaments from naevius; or if you refuse to own it, i shall tell you plainly that you have _pilfered_ them. "cotemporary with the cato above-mentioned (though somewhat older) were c. flaminius, c. varro, q. maximus, q. metellus, p. lentulus, and p. crassus who was joint consul with the elder africanus. this scipio, we are told, was not destitute of the powers of elocution: but his son, who adopted the younger scipio (the son of paulus aemilius) would have stood foremost in the list of orators, if he had possessed a firmer constitution. this is evident from a few speeches, and a greek history of his, which are very agreeably written. in the same class we may place sextus aelius, who was the best lawyer of his time, and a ready speaker. a little after these, was c. sulpicius gallus, who was better acquainted with the grecian literature than all the rest of the nobility, and was reckoned a graceful orator, being equally distinguished, in every other respect, by the superior elegance of his taste; for a more copious and splendid way of speaking began now to prevail. when this sulpicius, in quality of praetor, was celebrating the public shews in honour of apollo, died the poet ennius, in the consulship of q. marcius and cn. servilius, after exhibiting his tragedy of _thyestes_. at the same time lived tiberius gracchus, the son of publius, who was twice consul and censor: a greek oration of his to the rhodians is still extant, and he bore the character of a worthy citizen, and an eloquent speaker. we are likewise told that p. scipio nasica, surnamed the darling of the people, and who also had the honor to be twice chosen consul and censor, was esteemed an able orator: to him we may add l. lentulus, who was joint consul with c. figulus;--q. nobilior, the son of marcus, who was inclined to the study of literature by his father's example, and presented ennius (who had served under his father in aetolia) with the freedom of the city, when he founded a colony in quality of triumvir: and his colleague, t. annius luscus, who is said to have been tolerably eloquent. we are likewise informed that l. paulus, the father of africanus, defended the character of an eminent citizen in a public speech; and that cato, who died in the d year of his age, was then living, and actually pleaded, that very year, against the defendant servius galba, in the open forum, with great energy and spirit:--he has left a copy of this oration behind him. but when cato was in the decline of life, a crowd of orators, all younger than himself, made their appearance at the same time: for a. albinus, who wrote a history in greek, and shared the consulship with l. lucullus, was greatly admired for his learning and elocution: and almost equal to him were servius fulvius, and servius fabius pictor, the latter of whom was well acquainted with the laws of his country, the belles lettres, and the history of antiquity. quintus fabius labeo was likewise adorned with the same accomplishments. but q. metellus whose four sons attained the consular dignity, was admired for his eloquence beyond the rest;--he undertook the defence of l. cotta, when he was accused by africanus,--and composed many other speeches, particularly that against tiberius gracchus, which we have a full account of in the annals of c. fannius. l. cotta himself was likewise reckoned a _veteran_; but c. laelius, and p. africanus were allowed by all to be more finished speakers: their orations are still extant, and may serve as specimens of their respective abilities. but servius galba, who was something older than any of them, was indisputably the best speaker of the age. he was the first among the romans who displayed the proper and distinguishing talents of an orator, such as, digressing from his subject to embellish and diversify it,--soothing or alarming the passions, exhibiting every circumstance in the strongest light,--imploring the compassion of his audience, and artfully enlarging on those topics, or general principles of prudence or morality, on which the stress of his argument depended: and yet, i know not how, though he is allowed to have been the greatest orator of his time, the orations he has left are more lifeless, and have a more antiquated air, than those of laelius, or scipio, or even of cato himself: in short, the strength and substance of them has so far evaporated, that we have scarcely any thing of them remaining but the bare skeletons. in the same manner, though both laelius and scipio are greatly extolled for their abilities; the preference was given to laelius as a speaker; and yet his oration, in defence of the privileges of the sacerdotal college, has no greater merit than any one you may please to fix upon of the numerous speeches of scipio. nothing, indeed, can be sweeter and milder than that of laelius, nor could any thing have been urged with greater dignity to support the honour of religion: but, of the two, laelius appears to me to be rougher, and more old-fashioned than scipio; and, as different speakers have different tastes, he had in my mind too strong a relish for antiquity, and was too fond of using obsolete expressions. but such is the jealousy of mankind, that they will not allow the same person to be possessed of too many perfections. for as in military prowess they thought it impossible that any man could vie with scipio, though laelius had not a little distinguished himself in the war with viriathus; so for learning, eloquence, and wisdom, though each was allowed to be above the reach of any other competitor, they adjudged the preference to laelius. nor was this only the opinion of the world, but it seems to have been allowed by mutual consent between themselves: for it was then a general custom, as candid in this respect as it was fair and just in every other, to give his due to each. i accordingly remember that p. rutilius rufus once told me at smyrna, that when he was a young man, the two consuls p. scipio and d. brutus, by order of the senate, tried a capital cause of great consequence. for several persons of note having been murdered in the silan forest, and the domestics, and some of the sons, of a company of gentlemen who farmed the taxes of the pitch-manufactory, being charged with the fact, the consuls were ordered to try the cause in person. laelius, he said, spoke very sensibly and elegantly, as indeed he always did, on the side of the farmers of the customs. but the consuls, after hearing both sides, judging it necessary to refer the matter to a second trial, the same laelius, a few days after, pleaded their cause again with more accuracy, and much better than at first. the affair, however, was once more put off for a further hearing. upon this, when his clients attended laelius to his own house, and, after thanking him for what he had already done, earnestly begged him not to be disheartened by the fatigue he had suffered;--he assured them he had exerted his utmost to defend their reputation; but frankly added, that he thought their cause would be more effectually supported by servius galba, whose manner of speaking was more embellished and more spirited than his own. they, accordingly, by the advice of laelius, requested galba to undertake it. to this he consented; but with the greatest modesty and reluctance, out of respect to the illustrious advocate he was going to succeed:--and as he had only the next day to prepare himself, he spent the whole of it in considering and digesting his cause. when the day of trial was come, rutilius himself, at the request of the defendants, went early in the morning to galba, to give him notice of it, and conduct him to the court in proper time. but till word was brought that the consuls were going to the bench, he confined himself in his study, where he suffered no one to be admitted; and continued very busy in dictating to his amanuenses, several of whom (as indeed he often used to do) he kept fully employed at once. while he was thus engaged, being informed that it was high time for him to appear in court, he left his house with so much life in his eyes, and such an ardent glow upon his countenance, that you would have thought he had not only _prepared_ his cause, but actually _carried_ it. rutilius added, as another circumstance worth noticing, that his scribes, who attended him to the bar, appeared excessively fatigued: from whence he thought it probable that he was equally warm and vigorous in the composition, as in the delivery of his speeches. but to conclude the story, galba pleaded his cause before laelius himself, and a very numerous and attentive audience, with such uncommon force and dignity, that every part of his oration received the applause of his hearers: and so powerfully did he move the feelings, and affect the pity of the judges, that his clients were immediately acquitted of the charge, to the satisfaction of the whole court. "as, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them; we may conjecture from the above narrative, which i was favoured with by rutilius, that laelius was most admired for his elegance, and galba for his pathetic force. but this force of his was most remarkably exerted, when, having in his praetorship put to death some lusitanians, contrary (it was believed) to his previous and express engagement;--t. libo the tribune exasperated the people against him, and preferred a bill which was to operate against his conduct as a subsequent law. m. cato (as i have before mentioned) though extremely old, spoke in support of the bill with great vehemence; which speech he inserted in his book of _antiquities_, a few days, or at most only a month or two, before his death. on this occasion, galba refusing to plead to the charge, and submitting his fate to the generosity of the people, recommended his children to their protection, with tears in his eyes; and particularly his young ward the son of c. gallus sulpicius his deceased friend, whose orphan state and piercing cries, which were the more regarded for the sake of his illustrious father, excited their pity in a wonderful manner;--and thus (as cato informs us in his history) he escaped the flames which would otherwise have consumed him, by employing the children to move the compassion of the people. i likewise find (what may be easily judged from his orations still extant) that his prosecutor libo was a man of some eloquence." as i concluded these remarks with a short pause;--"what can be the reason," said brutus, "if there was so much merit in the oratory of galba, that there is no trace of it to be seen in his orations;--a circumstance which i have no opportunity to be surprized at in others, who have left nothing behind them in writing."--"the reasons," said i, "why some have not wrote any thing, and others not so well as they spoke, are very different. some of our orators have writ nothing through mere indolence, and because they were loath to add a private fatigue to a public one: for most of the orations we are now possessed of were written not before they were spoken, but some time afterwards. others did not choose the trouble of improving themselves; to which nothing more contributes than frequent writing; and as to perpetuating the fame of their eloquence, they thought it unnecessary; supposing that their eminence in that respect was sufficiently established already, and that it would be rather diminished than increased by submitting any written specimen of it to the arbitrary test of criticism. some also were sensible that they spoke much better than they were able to write; which is generally the case of those who have a great genius, but little learning, such as servius galba. when he spoke, he was perhaps so much animated by the force of his abilities, and the natural warmth and impetuosity of his temper, that his language was rapid, bold, and striking; but afterwards, when he took up the pen in his leisure hours, and his passion had sunk into a calm, his elocution became dull and languid. this indeed can never happen to those whose only aim is to be neat and polished; because an orator may always be master of that discretion which will enable him both to speak and write in the same agreeable manner: but no man can revive at pleasure the ardour of his passions; and when that has once subsided, the fire and pathos of his language will be extinguished. this is the reason why the calm and easy spirit of laelius seems still to breathe in his writings, whereas the force of galba is entirely withered and lost. "we may also reckon in the number of middling orators, the two brothers l. and sp. mummius, both whose orations are still in being:--the style of lucius is plain and antiquated; but that of spurius, though equally unembellished, is more close, and compact; for he was well versed in the doctrine of the stoics. the orations of sp. alpinus, their cotemporary, are very numerous: and we have several by l. and c. aurelius oresta, who were esteemed indifferent speakers. p. popilius also was a worthy citizen, and had a tolerable share of utterance: but his son caius was really eloquent. to _these_ we may add c. tuditanus, who was not only very polished, and genteel, in his manners and appearance, but had an elegant turn of expression; and of the same class was m. octavius, a man of inflexible constancy in every just and laudable measure; and who, after being affronted and disgraced in the most public manner, defeated his rival tiberius gracchus by the mere dint of his perseverance. but m. aemilius lepidus, who was surnamed porcina, and flourished at the same time as galba, though he was indeed something younger, was esteemed an orator of the first eminence; and really appears, from his orations which are still extant, to have been a masterly writer. for he was the first speaker, among the romans, who gave us a specimen of the easy gracefulness of the greeks; and who was distinguished by the measured flow of his language, and a style regularly polished and improved by art. his manner was carefully studied by c. carbo and tib. gracchus, two accomplished youths who were nearly of an age: but we must defer their character as public speakers, till we have finished our account of their elders. for q. pompeius, according to the style of the time, was no contemptible orator; and actually raised himself to the highest honours of the state by his own personal merit, and without being recommended, as usual, by the quality of his ancestors. lucius cassius too derived his influence, which was very considerable, not indeed from his _eloquence_, but from his manly way of speaking: for it is remarkable that he made himself popular, not, as others did, by his complaisance and liberality, but by the gloomy rigour and severity of his manners. his law for collecting the votes of the people by way of ballot, was strongly opposed by the tribune m. antius briso, who was supported by m. lepidus one of the consuls: and it was afterwards objected to africanus, that briso dropped the opposition by his advice. at this time the two scipios were very serviceable to a number of clients by their superior judgment, and eloquence; but still more so by their extensive interest and popularity. but the written speeches of pompeius (though it must be owned they have rather an antiquated air) discover an amazing sagacity, and are very far from being dry and spiritless. to these we must add p. crassus, an orator of uncommon merit, who was qualified for the profession by the united efforts of art and nature, and enjoyed some other advantages which were almost peculiar to his family. for he had contracted an affinity with that accomplished speaker servius galba above-mentioned, by giving his daughter in marriage to galba's son; and being likewise himself the son of mucius, and the brother of p. scaevola, he had a fine opportunity at home (which he made the best use of) to gain a thorough knowledge of the civil law. he was a man of unusual application, and was much beloved by his fellow-citizens; being constantly employed either in giving his advice, or pleading causes in the forum. cotemporary with the speakers i have mentioned were the two c. fannii, the sons of c. and m. one of whom, (the son of c.) who was joint consul with domitius, has left us an excellent speech against gracchus, who proposed the admission of the latin and italian allies to the freedom of rome."--"do you really think, then," said atticus, "that fannius was the author of that oration? for when we were young, there were different opinions about it. some asserted it was wrote by c. persius, a man of letters, and the same who is so much extolled for his learning by lucilius: and others believed it was the joint production of a number of noblemen, each of whom contributed his best to complete it."--"this i remember," said i; "but i could never persuade myself to coincide with either of them. their suspicion, i believe, was entirely founded on the character of fannius, who was only reckoned among the _middling_ orators; whereas the speech in question is esteemed the best which the time afforded. but, on the other hand, it is too much of a piece to have been the mingled composition of many: for the flow of the periods, and the turn of the language, are perfectly similar, throughout the whole of it.--and as to _persius_, if _he_ had composed it for fannius to pronounce, gracchus would certainly have taken some notice of it in his reply; because fannius rallies gracchus pretty severely, in one part of it, for employing menelaus of marathon, and several others, to manufacture his speeches. we may add that fannius himself was no contemptible orator: for he pleaded a number of causes, and his tribuneship, which was chiefly conducted under the management and direction of p. africanus, was very far from being an idle one. but the other c. fannius, (the son of m.) and son- in-law of c. laelius, was of a rougher cast, both in his temper, and manner of speaking. by the advice of his father-in-law, (of whom, by the bye, he was not remarkably fond, because he had not voted for his admission into the college of augurs, but gave the preference to his younger son-in-law q. scaevola; though laelius genteely excused himself, by saying that the preference was not given to the youngest son, but to his wife the eldest daughter,) by his advice, i say, he attended the lectures of panaetius. his abilities as a speaker may be easily conjectured from his history, which is neither destitute of elegance, nor a perfect model of composition. as to his brother mucius the augur, whenever he was called upon to defend himself, he always pleaded his own cause; as, for instance, in the action which was brought against him for bribery by t. albucius. but he was never ranked among the orators; his chief merit being a critical knowledge of the civil law, and an uncommon accuracy of judgment. l. caelius antipater likewise (as you may see by his works) was an elegant and a handsome writer for the time he lived in; he was also an excellent lawyer, and taught the principles of jurisprudence to many others, particularly to l. crassus. as to caius carbo and t. gracchus, i wish they had been as well inclined to maintain peace and good order in the state, as they were qualified to support it by their eloquence: their glory would then have been out-rivaled by no one. but the latter, for his turbulent tribuneship, which he entered upon with a heart full of resentment against the great and good, on account of the odium he had brought upon himself by the treaty of numantia, was slain by the hands of the republic: and the other, being impeached of a seditious affectation of popularity, rescued himself from the severity of the judges by a voluntary death. that both of them were excellent speakers, is very plain from the general testimony of their cotemporaries: for as to their speeches now extant, though i allow them to be very artful and judicious, they are certainly defective in elocution. gracchus had the advantage of being carefully instructed by his mother cornelia from his very childhood, and his mind was enriched with all the stores of grecian literature: for he was constantly attended by the ablest masters from greece, and particularly, in his youth, by diophanes of mitylene, who was the most eloquent grecian of his age: but though he was a man of uncommon genius, he had but a short time to improve and display it. as to carbo, his whole life was spent in trials, and forensic debates. he is said by very sensible men who heard him, and, among others, by our friend l. gellius who lived in his family in the time of his consulship, to have been a sonorous, a fluent, and a spirited speaker, and likewise, upon occasion, very pathetic, very engaging, and excessively humorous: gellius used to add, that he applied himself very closely to his studies, and bestowed much of his time in writing and private declamation. he was, therefore, esteemed the best pleader of his time; for no sooner had he began to distinguish himself in the forum, but the depravity of the age gave birth to a number of law-suits; and it was first found necessary, in the time of his youth, to settle the form of public trials, which had never been done before. we accordingly find that l. piso, then a tribune of the people, was the first who proposed a law against bribery; which he did when censorinus and manilius were consuls. this piso too was a professed pleader, and the proposer and opposer of a great number of laws: he left some orations behind him, which are now lost, and a book of annals very indifferently written. but in the public trials, in which carbo was concerned, the assistance of an able advocate had become more necessary than ever, in consequence of the law for voting by ballots, which was proposed and carried by l. cassius, in the consulship of lepidus and mancinus. "i have likewise been often assured by the poet attius, (an intimate friend of his) that your ancestor d. brutus, the son of m. was no inelegant speaker; and that for the time he lived in, he was well versed both in the greek and roman literature. he ascribed the same accomplishments to q. maximus, the grandson of l. paulus: and added that, a little prior to maximus, the scipio, by whose instigation (though only in a private capacity) t. gracchus was assassinated, was not only a man of great ardour in all other respects, but very warm and spirited in his manner of speaking. p. lentulus too, the father of the senate, had a sufficient share of eloquence for an honest and useful magistrate. about the same time l. furius philus was thought to speak our language as elegantly, and more correctly than any other man; p. scaevola to be very artful and judicious, and rather more fluent than philus; m. manilius to possess almost an equal share of judgment with the latter; and appius claudius to be equally fluent, but more warm and pathetic. m. fulvius flaccus, and c. cato the nephew of africanus, were likewise tolerable orators: some of the writings of flaccus are still in being, in which nothing, however, is to be seen but the mere scholar. p. decius was a professed rival of flaccus; he too was not destitute of eloquence; but his style, as well as his temper, was too violent. m. drusus the son of c. who, in his tribuneship, baffled [footnote: _laffiea_. in the original it runs, "_caium gracchum collegam, iterum tribinum fecit_." but this was undoubtedly a mistake of the transcriber, as being contrary not only to the truth of history, but to cicero's own account of the matter in lib. iv. _di finibus_. pighius therefore has very properly recommended the word _fregit_ instead of _fecit_.] his colleague gracchus (then raised to the same office a second time) was a nervous speaker, and a man of great popularity: and next to him was his brother c. drusus. your kinsman also, my brutus, (m. pennus) successfully opposed the tribune gracchus, who was something younger than himself. for gracchus was quaestor, and pennus (the son of that m. who was joint consul with q. aelius) was tribune, in the consulship of m. lepidus and l. orestes: but after enjoying the aedileship, and a prospect: of succeeding to the highest honours, he was snatched off by an untimely death. as to t. flaminius, whom i myself have seen, i can learn nothing but that he spoke our language with great accuracy. to these we may join c. curio, m. scaurus, p. rutilius, and c. gracchus. it will not be amiss to give a short account of scaurus and rutilius; neither of whom, indeed, had the reputation of being a first- rate orator, though each of them pleaded a number of causes. but some deserving men, who were not remarkable for their genius, may be justly commended for their industry; not that the persons i am speaking of were really destitute of genius, but only of that particular kind of it which distinguishes the orator. for it is of little consequence to discover what is proper to be said, unless you are able to express it in a free and agreeable manner: and even that will be insufficient, if not recommended by the voice, the look, and the gesture. it is needless to add that much depends upon _art_: for though, even without this, it is possible, by the mere force of nature, to say many striking things; yet, as they will after all be nothing more than so many lucky hits, we shall not be able to repeat them at our pleasure. the style of scaurus, who was a very sensible and honest man, was remarkably serious, and commanded the respect of the hearer: so that when he was speaking for his client, you would rather have thought he was giving evidence in his favour, than pleading his cause. this manner of speaking, however, though but indifferently adapted to the bar, was very much so to a calm, debate in the senate, of which scaurus was then esteemed the father: for it not only bespoke his prudence, but what was still a more important recommendation, his credibility. this advantage, which it is not easy to acquire by art, he derived entirely from nature: though you know that even _here_ we have some precepts to assist us. we have several of his orations still extant, and three books inscribed to l. fufidius containing the history of his own life, which, though a very useful work, is scarcely read by any body. but the _institution of cyrus_, by xenophon, is read by every one; which, though an excellent performance of the kind, is much less adapted to our manners and form of government, and not superior in merit to the honest simplicity of scaurus. fufidius himself was likewise a tolerable pleader. but rutilius was distinguished by his solemn and austere way of speaking; and both of them were naturally warm, and spirited. accordingly, after they had rivalled each other for the consulship, he who had lost his election, immediately sued his competitor for bribery; and scaurus, the defendant, being honourably acquitted of the charge, returned the compliment to rutilius, by commencing a similar prosecution against _him_. rutilius was a man of great industry and application; for which he was the more respected, because, besides his pleadings, he undertook the office (which was a very troublesome one) of giving advice to all who applied to him, in matters of law. his orations are very dry, but his juridical remarks are excellent: for he was a learned man, and well versed in the greek literature, and was likewise an attentive and constant hearer of panaetius, and a thorough proficient in the doctrine of the stoics; whose method of discoursing, though very close and artful, is too precise, and not at all adapted to engage the attention of common people. that self- confidence, therefore, which is so peculiar to the sect, was displayed by _him_ with amazing firmness and resolution; for though he was perfectly innocent of the charge, a prosecution was commenced against him for bribery (a trial which raised a violent commotion in the city)--and yet though l. crassus and m. antonius, both of consular dignity, were, at that time, in very high repute for their eloquence, he refused the assistance of either; being determined to plead his cause himself, which he accordingly did. c. cotta, indeed, who was his nephew, made a short speech in his vindication, which he spoke in the true style of an orator, though he was then but a youth. q. mucius too said much in his defence, with his usual accuracy and elegance; but not with that force, and extension, which the mode of trial, and the importance of the cause demanded. rutilius, therefore, was an orator of the _stoical_, and scaurus of the _antique_ cast: but they are both entitled to our commendation; because, in _them_, even this formal and unpromising species of elocution has appeared among us with some degree of merit. for as in the theatre, so in the forum, i would not have our applause confined to those alone who act the busy, and more important characters; but reserve a share of it for the quiet and unambitious performer who is distinguished by a simple truth of gesture, without any violence. as i have mentioned the stoics, i must take some notice of q. aelius tubero, the grandson of l. paullus, who made his appearance at the time we are speaking of. he was never esteemed an orator, but was a man of the most rigid virtue, and strictly conformable to the doctrine he professed: but, in truth, he was rather too crabbed. in his triumvirate, he declared, contrary to the opinion of p. africanus his uncle, that the augurs had no right of exemption from sitting in the courts of justice: and as in his temper, so in his manner of speaking, he was harsh, unpolished, and austere; on which account, he could never raise himself to the honourable ports which were enjoyed by his ancestors. but he was a brave and steady citizen, and a warm opposer of gracchus, as appears from an oration of gracchus against him: we have likewise some of tubero's speeches against gracchus. he was not indeed a shining orator: but he was a learned, and a very skilfull disputant. "i find," said brutus, "that the case is much the same among us, as with the greeks; and that the stoics, in general, are very judicious at an argument, which they conduct by certain rules of art, and are likewise very neat and exact in their language; but if we take them from this, to speak in public, they make a poor appearance. cato, however, must be excepted; in whom, though as rigid a stoic as ever existed, i could not wish for a more consummate degree of eloquence: i can likewise discover a moderate share of it in fannius,--not so much in rutilius;--but none at all in tubero."--"true," said i; "and we may easily account for it: their whole attention was so closely confined to the study of logic, that they never troubled themselves to acquire the free, diffusive, and variegated style which is so necessary for a public speaker. but your uncle, you doubtless know, was wise enough to borrow only that from the stoics, which they were able to furnish for his purpose (the art of reasoning:) but for the art of speaking, he had recourse to the masters of rhetoric, and exercised himself in the manner they directed. if, however, we must be indebted for everything to the philosophers, the peripatetic discipline is, in my mind, much the properest to form our language. for which reason, my brutus, i the more approve your choice, in attaching yourself to a sect, (i mean the philosophers of the old academy,) in whose system, a just and accurate way of reasoning is enlivened by a perpetual sweetness and fluency of expression: but even the delicate and flowing style of the peripatetics, and academics, is not sufficient to complete an orator; nor yet can he be complete without it. for as the language of the stoics is too close, and contracted, to suit the ears of common people; so that of the latter is too diffusive and luxuriant for a spirited contest in the forum, or a pleading at the bar. who had a richer style than plato? the philosophers tell us, that if jupiter himself was to converse in greek, he would speak like _him_. who also was more nervous than aristotle? who sweeter than theophrastus? we are told that even demosthenes attended the lectures of plato, and was fond of reading what he published; which, indeed, is sufficiently evident from the turn, and the majesty of his language and he himself has expressly mentioned it in one of his letters. but the style of this excellent orator is, notwithstanding, much too fierce for the academy; as that of the philosophers is too mild and placid for the forum. i shall now, with your leave, proceed to the age and merits of the rest of the roman orators."--"nothing," said atticus, "(for i can safely answer for my friend brutus) would please us better."--"curio, then," said i, "was nearly of the age i have just mentioned,--a celebrated speaker, whose genius may be easily decided from his orations. for, among several others, we have a noble speech of his for ser. fulvius, in a prosecution for incest. when we were children, it was esteemed the best then extant; but now it is almost overlooked among the numerous performances of the same kind which have been lately published."--"i am very sensible," replied brutus, "to whom we are obliged for the numerous performances you speak of."--"and i am equally sensible," said i, "who is the person you intend: for i have at least done a service to my young countrymen, by introducing a loftier, and more embellished way of speaking, than was used before: and, perhaps, i have also done some harm, because after _mine_ appeared, the speeches of our ancestors and predecessors began to be neglected by most people; though never by _me_, for i can assure you, i always prefer them to my own."--"but you must reckon me," said brutus, "among the _most people_; though i now see, from your recommendation, that i have a great many books to read, of which before i had very little opinion."--"but this celebrated oration," said i, "in the prosecution for incest, is in some places excessively puerile; and what is said in it of the passion of love, the inefficacy of questioning by tortures, and the danger of trusting to common hear-say, is indeed pretty enough, but would be insufferable to the tutored ears of the moderns, and to a people who are justly distinguished for the solidity of their knowledge. he likewise wrote several other pieces, spoke a number of good orations, and was certainly an eminent pleader; so that i much wonder, considering how long he lived, and the character he bore, that he was never preferred to the consulship. but i have a man here, [footnote: he refers, perhaps, to the works of gracchus, which he might then have in his hand; or, more probably, to a statue of him, which stood near the place where he and his friends were sitting.] (c. gracchus) who had an amazing genius, and the warmest application; and was a scholar from his very childhood: for you must not imagine, my brutus, that we have ever yet had a speaker, whose language was richer and more copious than his."--"i really think so," answered brutus; "and he is almost the only author we have, among the ancients, that i take the trouble to read." "and he well _deserves_ it," said i; "for the roman name and literature were great losers by his untimely fate. i wish he had transferred his affection for his brother to his country! how easily, if he had thus prolonged his life, would he have rivalled the glory of his father, and grandfather! in eloquence, i scarcely know whether we should yet have had his equal. his language was noble; his sentiments manly and judicious; and his whole manner great and striking. he wanted nothing but the finishing touch: for though his first attempts were as excellent as they were numerous, he did not live to complete them. in short, my brutus, _he_, if any one, should be carefully studied by the roman youth: for he is able, not only to edge, but to feed and ripen their talents. after _him_ appeared c. galba, the son of the eloquent servius, and the son-in-law of p. crassus, who was both an eminent speaker, and a skilful civilian. he was much commended by our fathers, who respected him for the sake of _his_: but he had the misfortune to be stopped in his career. for being tried by the mamilian law, as a party concerned in the conspiracy to support jugurtha, though he exerted all his abilities to defend himself, he was unhappily cast. his peroration, or, as it is often called, his epilogue, is still extant; and was so much in repute, when we were school-boys, that we used to learn it by heart: he was the first member of the sacerdotal college, since the building of rome, who was publicly tried and condemned. as to p. scipio, who died in his consulship, he neither spoke much, nor often: but he was inferior to no one in the purity of his language, and superior to all in wit and pleasantry. his colleague l. bestia, who begun his tribuneship very successfully, (for, by a law which he preferred for the purpose, he procured the recall of popillius, who had been exiled by the influence of caius gracchus) was a man of spirit, and a tolerable speaker: but he did not finish his consulship so happily. for, in consequence of the invidious law of mamilius above-mentioned, c. galba one of the priests, and the four consular gentlemen l. bestia, c. cato, sp. albinus, and that excellent citizen l. opimius, who killed gracchus; of which he was acquitted by the people, though he had constantly sided against them,--were all condemned by their judges, who were of the gracchan party. very unlike him in his tribuneship, and indeed in every other part of his life, was that infamous citizen c. licinius nerva; but he was not destitute of eloquence. nearly at the same time, (though, indeed, he was somewhat older) flourished c. fimbria, who was rather rough and abusive, and much too warm and hasty: but his application, and his great integrity and firmness made him a serviceable speaker in the senate. he was likewise a tolerable pleader, and civilian, and distinguished by the same rigid freedom in the turn of his language, as in that of his virtues. when we were boys, we used to think his orations worth reading; though they are now scarcely to be met with. but c. sextius calvinus was equally elegant both in his taste, and his language, though, unhappily, of a very infirm constitution:--when the pain in his feet intermitted, he did not decline the trouble of pleading, but he did not attempt it very often. his fellow-citizens, therefore, made use of his advice, whenever they had occasion for it; but of his patronage, only when his health permitted. cotemporary with these, my good friend, was your namesake m. brutus, the disgrace of your noble family; who, though he bore that honourable name, and had the best of men, and an eminent civilian, for his father, confined his practice to accusations, as lycurgus is said to have done at athens. he never sued for any of our magistracies; but was a severe, and a troublesome prosecutor: so that we easily see that, in _him_, the natural goodness of the flock was corrupted by the vicious inclinations of the man. at the same time lived l. caesulenus, a man of plebeian rank, and a professed accuser, like the former: i myself heard him in his old age, when he endeavoured, by the aquilian law, to subject l. sabellius to a fine, for a breach of justice. but i should not have taken any notice of such a low-born wretch, if i had not thought that no person i ever heard, could give a more suspicious turn to the cause of the defendant, or exaggerate it to a higher degree of criminality. t. albucius, who lived in the same age, was well versed in the grecian literature, or, rather, was almost a greek himself. i speak of him, as i think; but any person, who pleases, may judge what he was by his orations. in his youth, he studied at athens, and returned from thence a thorough proficient in the doctrine of epicurus; which, of all others, is the least adapted to form an orator. his cotemporary, q. catulus, was an accomplished speaker, not in the ancient taste, but (unless any thing more perfect can be exhibited) in the finished style of the moderns. he had a plentiful stock of learning; an easy, winning elegance, not only in his manners and disposition, but in his very language; and an unblemished purity and correctness of style. this may be easily seen by his orations; and particularly, by the history of his consulship, and of his subsequent transactions, which he composed in the soft and agreeable manner of xenophon, and made a present of to the poet, a. furius, an intimate acquaintance of his: but this performance is as little known, as the three books of scaurus before-mentioned."--"indeed, i must confess," said brutus, "that both the one and the other, are perfectly unknown to me: but that is entirely my _own_ fault. i shall now, therefore, request a sight of them from _you_; and am resolved, in future, to be more careful in collecting such valuable curiosities."--"this catulus," said i, "as i have just observed, was distinguished by the purity of his language; which, though a material accomplishment, is too much neglected by most of the roman orators; for as to the elegant tone of his voice, and the sweetness of his accent, as you knew his son, it will be needless to take any notice of them. his son, indeed, was not in the list of orators: but whenever he had occasion to deliver his sentiments in public, he neither wanted judgment, nor a neat and liberal turn of expression. nay, even the father himself was not reckoned the foremost in the list of orators: but still he had that kind of merit, that notwithstanding, after you had heard two or three speakers, who were particularly eminent in their profession, you might judge him inferior; yet, whenever you heard him _alone_, and without an immediate opportunity of making a comparison, you would not only be satisfied with him, but scarcely wish for a better advocate. as to q. metellus numidicus, and his colleague m. silanus, they spoke, on matters of government, with as much eloquence as was really necessary for men of their illustrious character, and of consular dignity. but m. aurelius scaurus, though he spoke in public but seldom, always spoke very neatly, and he had a more elegant command of the roman language than most men. a. albinus was a speaker of the same kind; but albinus, the flamen, was esteemed an _orator_. q. capio too had a great deal of spirit, and was a brave citizen: but the unlucky chance of war was imputed to him as a crime, and the general odium of the people proved his ruin. c. and l. memmius were likewise indifferent orators, and distinguished by the bitterness and asperity of their accusations: for they prosecuted many, but seldom spoke for the defendant. sp. torius, on the other hand, was distinguished by his _popular_ way of speaking; the very same man, who, by his corrupt and frivolous law, diminished [footnote: by dividing great part of them among the people.] the taxes which were levied on the public lands. m. marcellus, the father of aeserninus, though not reckoned a professed pleader, was a prompt, and, in some degree, a practised speaker; as was also his son p. lentulus. l. cotta likewise, a man of praetorian rank, was esteemed a tolerable orator; but he never made any great progress; on the contrary, he purposely endeavoured, both in the choice of his words, and the rusticity of his pronunciation, to imitate the manner of the ancients. i am indeed sensible that in this instance of cotta, and in many others, i have, and shall again insert in the list of orators, those who, in reality, had but little claim to the character. for it was, professedly, my design, to collect an account of all the romans, without exception, who made it their business to excel in the profession of _eloquence_: and it may be easily seen from this account, by what slow gradations they advanced, and how excessively difficult it is, in every thing, to rise to the summit of perfection. as a proof of this, how many orators have been already recounted, and how much time have we bestowed upon them, before we could force our way, after infinite fatigue and drudgery, as, among the greek's, to _demosthenes_ and _hyperides_, so now, among our own countrymen, to _antonius_ and _crassus_! for, in my mind, these were consummate orators, and the first among the romans whose diffusive eloquence rivalled the glory of the greeks. antonius discovered every thing which could be of service to his cause, and that in the very order in which it would be most so: and as a skilful general posts the cavalry, the infantry, and the light troops, where each of them can act to most advantage; so antonius drew up his arguments in those parts of his discourse, where they were likely to have the best effect. he had a quick and retentive memory, and a frankness of manner which precluded any suspicion of artifice. all his speeches were, in appearance, the unpremeditated effusions of an honest heart; and yet, in reality, they were preconcerted with so much skill, that the judges were, sometimes, not so well prepared, as they should have been, to withstand the force of them. his language, indeed, was not so refined as to pass for the standard of elegance; for which reason he was thought to be rather a careless speaker; and yet, on the other hand, it was neither vulgar nor incorrect, but of that solid and judicious turn, which constitutes the real merit of an orator, as to the choice of his words. for, as to a purity of style, though this is certainly (as before observed) a very commendable quality, it is not so much so for its intrinsic consequence, as because it is too generally neglected. in short, it is not so meritorious to speak our native tongue correctly, as it is scandalous to speak it otherwise; nor is it so much the property of a good orator, as of a well-bred citizen. but in the choice of his words (in which he had more regard to their weight than their brilliance) and likewise in the structure of his language, and the compass of his periods, antonius conformed himself to the dictates of reason, and, in a great measure, to the nicer rules of art: though his chief excellence was a judicious management of the figures and decorations of sentiment. this was likewise the distinguishing excellence of demosthenes; in which he was so far superior to all others, as to be allowed, in the opinion of the best judges, to be the prince of orators. for the _figures_ (as they are called by the greeks) are the principal ornaments of an able speaker, i mean those which contribute not so much to paint and embellish our language, as to give a lustre to our sentiments. but besides these, of which antonius had a great command, he had a peculiar excellence in his manner of delivery, both as to his voice and gesture; for the latter was such as to correspond to the meaning of every sentence, without beating time to the words. his hands, his shoulders, the turn of his body, the stamp of his foot, his posture, his air, and, in short, his every motion, was adapted to his language and sentiments: and his voice was strong and firm, though naturally hoarse;--a defect which he alone was capable of improving to his advantage; for in capital causes, it had a mournful dignity of accent, which was exceedingly proper, both to win the assent of the judges, and excite their compassion for a suffering client: so that in _him_ the observation of demosthenes was eminently verified, who being asked what was the _first_ quality of a good orator, what the _second_, and what the _third_, constantly replied, a good enunciation. "but many thought that he was equalled, and others that he was even excelled by lucius crassus. all, however, were agreed in this, that whoever had either of them for his advocate, had no cause to wish for a better. for my own part, notwithstanding the uncommon merit i have ascribed to antonius, i must also acknowlege, that there cannot be a more finished character than that of crassus. he possessed a wonderful dignity of elocution, with an agreeable mixture of wit and pleasantry, which was perfectly genteel, and without the smallest tincture of scurrility. his style was correct and elegant without stiffness or affectation: his method of reasoning was remarkably clear and distinct: and when his cause turned upon any point of law, or equity, he had an inexhaustible fund of arguments, and comparative illustrations. for as antonius had an admirable turn for suggesting apposite hints, and either suppressing or exciting the suspicions of the hearer; so no man could explain and define, or discuss a point of equity, with a more copious facility than crassus; as sufficiently appeared upon many other occasions, but particularly in the cause of m. curius, which was tried before the centum viri. for he urged a great variety of arguments in the defence of right and equity, against the literal _jubeat_ of the law; and supported them by such a numerous series of precedents, that he overpowered q. scaevola (a man of uncommon penetration, and the ablest civilian of his time) though the case before them was only a matter of legal right. but the cause was so ably managed by the two advocates, who were nearly of an age, and both of consular rank, that while each endeavoured to interpret the law in favour of his client, crassus was universally allowed to be the best lawyer among the orators, and scaevola to be the most eloquent civilian of the age: for the latter could not only discover with the nicest precision what was agreeable to law and equity; but had likewise a conciseness and propriety of expression, which was admirably adapted to his purpose. in short, he had such a wonderful vein of oratory in commenting, explaining, and discussing, that i never beheld his equal; though in amplifying, embellishing, and refuting, he was rather to be dreaded as a formidable critic, than admired as an eloquent speaker."--"indeed," said brutus, "though i always thought i sufficiently understood the character of scaevola, by the account i had heard of him from c. rutilius, whose company i frequented for the sake of his acquaintance with him, i had not the least idea of his merit as an orator. i am now, therefore, not a little pleased to be informed, that our republic has had the honour of producing so accomplished a man, and such an excellent genius."--"really, my brutus," said i, "you may take it from me, that the roman state had never been adorned with two finer characters than these. for, as i have before observed, that the one was the best lawyer among the orators, and the other the best speaker among the civilians of his time; so the difference between them, in all other respects, was of such a nature, that it would almost be impossible for you to determine which of the two you would rather choose to resemble. for, as crassus was the closest of all our elegant speakers, so scaevola was the most elegant among those who were distinguished by the frugal accuracy of their language: and as crassus tempered his affability with a proper share of severity, so the rigid air of scaevola was not destitute of the milder graces of an affable condescension. though this was really their character, it is very possible that i may be thought to have embellished it beyond the bounds of truth, to give an agreeable air to my narrative: but as your favourite sect, my brutus, the old academy, has defined all virtue to be a just mediocrity, it was the constant endeavour of these two eminent men to pursue this golden mean; and yet it so happened, that while each of them shared a part of the other's excellence, he preserved his own entire."--"to speak what i think," replied brutus, "i have not only acquired a proper acquaintance with their characters from your account of them, but i can likewise discover, that the same comparison might be drawn between _you_ and serv. sulpicius, which you have just been making between crassus and scaevola." --"in what manner?" said i.--"because _you_," replied brutus, "have taken the pains to acquire as extensive a knowledge of the law as is necessary for an orator; and sulpicius, on the other hand, took care to furnish himself with sufficient eloquence to support the character of an able civilian. besides, your age corresponded as nearly to his, as the age of crassus did to that of scaevola."--"as to my own abilities," said i, "the rules of decency forbid me to speak of them: but your character of servius is a very just one, and i may freely tell you what i think of him. there are few, i believe, who have applied themselves more assiduously to the art of speaking than he did, or indeed to the study of every useful science. in our youth, we both of us followed the same liberal exercises; and he afterwards accompanied me to rhodes, to pursue those studies which might equally improve him as a man and a scholar; but when he returned from thence, he appears to me to have been rather ambitious to be the foremost man in a secondary profession, than the second in that which claims the highest dignity. i will not pretend to say that he could not have ranked himself among the foremost in the latter profession; but he rather chose to be, what he actually made himself, the first lawyer of his time."--"indeed!" said brutus: "and do you really prefer servius to q. scaevola?"--"my opinion," said i, "brutus, is, that q. scaevola, and many others, had a thorough practical knowledge of the law; but that servius alone understood it as _science_: which he could never have done by the mere study of the law, and without a previous acquaintance with the art which teaches us to divide a whole into its subordinate parts, to, decide an indeterminate idea by an accurate definition: to explain what is obscure, by a clear interpretation; and first to discover what things are of a _doubtful_ nature, then to distinguish them by their different degrees of probability; and lastly, to be provided with a certain rule or measure by which we may judge what is true, and what false, and what inferences fairly may, or may not be deduced from any given premises. this important art he applied to those subjects which, for want of it, were necessarily managed by others without due order and precision."--"you mean, i suppose," said brutus, "the art of logic."--"you suppose very right," answered i: "but he added to it an extensive acquaintance with polite literature, and an elegant manner of expressing himself; as is sufficiently evident from the incomparable writings he has left behind him. and as he attached himself, for the improvement of his eloquence, to l. lucilius balbus, and c. aquilius gallus, two very able speakers; he effectually thwarted the prompt celerity of the latter (though a keen, experienced man) both in supporting and refuting a charge, by his accuracy and precision, and overpowered the deliberate formality of balbus (a man of great learning and erudition) by his adroit and dextrous method of arguing: so that he equally possessed the good qualities of both, without their defects. as crassus, therefore, in my mind, acted more prudently than scaevola; (for the latter was very fond of pleading causes, in which he was certainly inferior to crassus; whereas the former never engaged himself in an unequal competition with scaevola, by assuming the character of a civilian;) so servius pursued a plan which sufficiently discovered his wisdom; for as the profession of a pleader, and a lawyer, are both of them held in great esteem, and give those who are masters of them the most extensive influence among their fellow-citizens; he acquired an undisputed superiority in the one, and improved himself as much in the other as was necessary to support the authority of the civil law, and promote him to the dignity of a consul."--"this is precisely the opinion i had formed of him," said brutus. "for, a few years ago i heard him often and very attentively at samos, when i wanted to be instructed by him in the pontifical law, as far as it is connected with the civil; and i am now greatly confirmed in my opinion of him, by finding that it coincides so exactly with yours. i am likewise not a little pleased to observe, that the equality of your ages, your sharing the same honours and preferments, and the vicinity of your respective studies and professions, has been so far from precipitating either of you into that envious detraction of the other's merit, which most people are tormented with, that, instead of wounding your mutual friendship, it has only served to increase and strengthen it; for, to my own knowlege, he had the same affection for, and the same favourable sentiments of _you_, which i now discover in you towards _him_. i cannot, therefore, help regretting very sincerely, that the roman state has so long been deprived of the benefit of his advice, and of your eloquence;--a circumstance which is indeed calamitous enough in itself; but must appear much more so to him who considers into what hands that once respectable authority has been of late, i will not say transferred, but forcibly wrested."--"you certainly forget," said atticus, "that i proposed, when we began the conversation, to drop all matters of state; by all means, therefore, let us keep to our plan: for if we once begin to repeat our grievances, there will be no end, i need not say to our inquiries, but to our sighs and lamentations."--"let us proceed, then," said i, "without any farther digression, and pursue the plan we set out upon. crassus (for he is the orator we were just speaking of) always came into the forum ready prepared for the combat. he was expected with impatience, and heard with pleasure. when he first began his oration (which he always did in a very accurate style) he seemed worthy of the great expectations he had raised. he was very moderate in the sway of his body, had no remarkable variation of voice, never advanced from the ground he stood upon, and seldom stamped his foot: his language was forcible, and sometimes warm and pathetic; he had many strokes of humour, which were always tempered with a becoming dignity; and, what is a difficult character to hit, he was at once very florid, and very concise. in a close contest, he never met with his equal; and there was scarcely any kind of causes, in which he had not signalized his abilities; so that he enrolled himself very early among the first orators of the time. he accused c. carbo, though a man of great eloquence, when he was but a youth;--and displayed his talents in such a manner, that they were not only applauded, but admired by every body. he afterwards defended the virgin licinia, when he was only twenty-seven years of age; on which occasion he discovered an uncommon share of eloquence, as is evident from those parts of his oration which he left behind him in writing. as he was then desirous to have the honour of settling the colony of narbonne (as he afterwards did) he thought it adviseable to recommend himself, by undertaking the management of some popular cause. his oration, in support of the act which was proposed for that purpose, is still extant; and discovers a greater maturity of genius than might have been expected at that time of life. he afterwards pleaded many other causes: but his tribuneship was such a remarkably silent one, that if he had not supped with granius the beadle when he enjoyed that office (a circumstance which has been twice mentioned by lucilius) we should scarcely have known that a tribune of that name had existed."--"i believe so," replied brutus: "but i have heard as little of the tribuneship of scaevola, though i must naturally suppose that he was the colleague of crassus."--"he was so," said i, "in all his other preferments; but he was not tribune till the year after him; and when he sat in the rostrum in that capacity, crassus spoke in support of the servilian law. i must observe, however, that crassus had not scaevola for his colleague in the censorship; for none of the scaevolas ever sued for that office. but when the last-mentioned oration of crassus was published (which i dare say you have frequently read) he was thirty-four years of age, which was exactly the difference between his age and mine. for he supported the law i have just been speaking of, in the very consulship under which i was born; whereas he himself was born in the consulship of q. caepio, and c. laelius, about three years later than antonius. i have particularly noticed this circumstance, to specify the time when the roman eloquence attained its first _maturity_; and was actually carried to such a degree of perfection, as to leave no room for any one to carry it higher, unless by the assistance of a more complete and extensive knowledge of philosophy, jurisprudence, and history."--"but does there," said brutus, "or will there ever exist a man, who is furnished with all the united accomplishments you require?"--"i really don't know," said i; "but we have a speech made by crassus in his consulship, in praise of q. caepio, intermingled with a defence of his conduct, which, though a short one if we consider it as an oration, is not so as a panegyric;--and another, which was his last, and which he spoke in the th year of his age, at the time he was censor. in these we have the genuine complexion of eloquence, without any painting or disguise: but his periods (i mean crassus's) were generally short and concise; and he was fond of expressing himself in those minuter sentences, or members, which the greeks call colons."--"as you have spoken so largely," said brutus, "in praise of the two last-mentioned orators, i heartily wish that antonius had left us some other specimen of his abilities, than his trifling essay on the art of speaking, and crassus more than he has: by so doing, they would have transmitted their fame to _posterity_; and to us a valuable system of eloquence. for as to the elegant language of scaevola, we have sufficient proofs of it in the orations he has left behind him."--"for my part," said i, "the oration i was speaking of, on caepio's case, has been my pattern, and my tutoress, from my very childhood. it supports the dignity of the senate, which was deeply interested in the debate; and excites the jealousy of the audience against the party of the judges and accusers, whose power it was necessary to expose in the most popular terms. many parts of it are very strong and nervous, many others very cool and composed; and some are distinguished by the asperity of their language, and not a few by their wit and pleasantry: but much more was said than was committed to writing, as is sufficiently evident from several heads of the oration, which are merely proposed without any enlargement or explanation. but the oration in his censorship against his colleague cn. domitius, is not so much an oration, as an analysis of the subject, or a general sketch of what he had said, with here and there a few ornamental touches, by way of specimen: for no contest was ever conducted with greater spirit than this. crassus, however, was eminently distinguished by the popular turn of his language: but that of antonius was better adapted to judicial trials, than to a public debate. as we have had occasion to mention him, domitius himself must not be left unnoticed: for though he is not enrolled in the list of orators, he had a sufficient share both of utterance and genius, to support his character as a magistrate and his dignity as a consul. i might likewise observe of c. caelius, that he was a man of great application, and many eminent qualities, and had eloquence enough to support the private interests of his friends, and his own dignity in the state. at the same time lived m. herennius, who was reckoned among the middling orators, whose principal merit was the purity and correctness of their language; and yet, in a suit for the consulship, he got the better of l. philippus, a man of the first rank and family, and of the most extensive connections, and who was likewise a member of the college, and a very eloquent speaker. _then_ also lived c. clodius, who, besides his consequence as a nobleman of the first distinction, and a man of the most powerful influence, was likewise possessed of a moderate share of eloquence. nearly of the same age was c. titius, a roman knight, who, in my judgment, arrived at as high a degree of perfection as a roman orator was able to do, without the assistance of the grecian literature, and a good share of practice. his orations have so many delicate turns, such a number of well-chosen examples, and such an agreeable vein of politeness, that they almost seem to have been composed in the true attic style. he likewise transferred his delicacies into his very tragedies, with ingenuity enough, i confess, but not in the tragic taste. but the poet l. afranius, whom he studiously imitated, was a very smart writer, and, as you well know, a man of great expression in the dramatic way. q. rubrius varro, who with c. marius, was declared an enemy by the senate, was likewise a warm, and a very spirited prosecutor. my relation, m. gratidius, was a plausible speaker of the same kind, well versed in the grecian literature, formed by nature for the profession of eloquence, and an intimate acquaintance of m. antonius: he commanded under him in cilicia, where he lost his life: and he once commenced a prosecution against c. fimbria, the father of m. marius gratidianus. there have likewise been several among the allies, and the latins, who were esteemed good orators; as, for instance, q. vettius of vettium, one of the marsi, whom i myself was acquainted with, a man of sense, and a concise speaker; --the q. and d. valerii of sora, my neighbours and acquaintances, who were not so remarkable for their talent of speaking, as for their skill both in the greek and roman literature; and c. rusticellus of bononia, an experienced orator, and a man of great natural volubility. but the most eloquent of all those who were not citizens of rome, was t. betucius barrus of asculum, some of whose orations, which were spoken in that city, are still extant: that which he made at rome against caepio, is really an excellent one: the speech which caepio delivered in answer to it, was made by aelius, who composed a number of orations, but pronounced none himself. but among those of a remoter date, l. papirius of fregellae in latium, who was almost cotemporary with ti. gracchus, was universally esteemed the most eloquent: we have a speech of his in vindication of the fregellani, and the latin colonies, which was delivered before the senate."--"and what then is the merit," said brutus, "which you mean to ascribe to these provincial orators?"--"what else," replied i, "but the very same which i have ascribed to the city-orators; excepting that their language is not tinctured with the same fashionable delicacy?"--"what fashionable delicacy do you mean?" said he.--"i cannot," said i, "pretend to define it: i only know that there is such a quality existing. when you go to your province in gaul, you will be convinced of it. you will there find many expressions which are not current in rome; but these may be easily changed, and corrected. but, what is of greater importance, our orators have a particular accent in their manner of pronouncing, which is more elegant, and has a more agreeable effect than any other. this, however, is not peculiar to the orators, but is equally common to every well-bred citizen. i myself remember that t. tineas, of placentia, who was a very facetious man, once engaged in a repartee skirmish with my old friend q. granius, the public crier."--"do you mean that granius," said brutus, "of whom lucilius has related such a number of stories?"--"the very same," said i: "but though tineas said as many smart things as the other, granius at last overpowered him by a certain vernacular _goût_, which gave an additional relish to his humour: so that i am no longer surprised at what is said to have happened to theophrastus, when he enquired of an old woman who kept a stall, what was the price of something which he wanted to purchase. after telling him the value of it,--"honest _stranger_," said she, "i cannot afford it for less": "an answer which nettled him not a little, to think that _he_ who had resided almost all his life at athens, and spoke the language very correctly, should be taken at last for a foreigner. in the same manner, there is, in my opinion, a certain accent as peculiar to the native citizens of rome, as the other was to those of athens. but it is time for us to return home; i mean to the orators of our own growth. next, therefore, to the two capital speakers above-mentioned, (that is crassus and antonius) came l. philippus,--not indeed till a considerable time afterwards; but still he must be reckoned the next. i do not mean, however, though nobody appeared in the interim who could dispute the prize with him, that he was entitled to the second, or even the third post of honour. for, as in a chariot-race i cannot properly consider _him_ as either the second, or third winner, who has scarcely got clear of the starting-post, before the first has reached the goal; so, among orators, i can scarcely honour him with the name of a competitor, who has been so far distanced by the foremost as hardly to appear on the same ground with him. but yet there were certainly some talents to be observed in philippus, which any person who considers them, without subjecting them to a comparison with the superior merits of the two before-mentioned, must allow to have been respectable. he had an uncommon freedom of address, a large fund of humour, great facility in the invention of his sentiments, and a ready and easy manner of expressing them. he was likewise, for the time he lived in, a great adept in the literature of the greeks; and, in the heat of a debate, he could sting, and gash, as well as ridicule his opponents. almost cotemporary with these was l. gellius, who was not so much to be valued for his positive, as for his negative merits: for he was neither destitute of learning, nor invention, nor unacquainted with the history and the laws of his country; besides which, he had a tolerable freedom of expression. but he happened to live at a time when many excellent orators made their appearance; and yet he served his friends upon many occasions to good purpose: in short, his life was so long, that he was successively cotemporary with a variety of orators of different dates, and had an extensive series of practice in judicial causes. nearly at the same time lived d. brutus, who was fellow-consul with mamercus;-- and was equally skilled both in the grecian and roman literature. l. scipio likewise was not an unskilful speaker; and cnaeus pompeius, the son of sextus, had some reputation as an orator; for his brother sextus applied the excellent genius he was possessed of, to acquire a thorough knowledge of the civil law, and a complete acquaintance with geometry and the doctrine of the stoics. a little before these, m. brutus, and very soon after him, c. bilienus, who was a man of great natural capacity, made themselves, by nearly the same application, equally eminent in the profession of the law;--the latter would have been chosen consul, if he had not been thwarted by the repeated promotion of marius, and some other collateral embarrassments which attended his suit. but the eloquence of cn. octavius, which was wholly unknown before his elevation to the consulship, was effectually displayed, after his preferment to that office, in a great variety of speeches. it is, however, time for us to drop those who were only classed in the number of good _speakers_, and turn our attention to such as were really _orators_."--"i think so too," replied atticus; "for i understood that you meant to give us an account, not of those who took great pains to be eloquent, but of those who were so in reality."--"c. julius then," said i, (the son of lucius) was certainly superior, not only to his predecessors, but to all his cotemporaries, in wit and humour: he was not, indeed, a nervous and striking orator, but, in the elegance, the pleasantry, and the agreeableness of his manner, he has not been excelled by any man. there are some orations of his still extant, in which, as well as in his tragedies, we may discover a pleasing tranquillity of expression with very little energy. p. cethegus, his cotemporary, had always enough to say on matters of civil regulation; for he had studied and comprehended them with the minutest accuracy; by which means he acquired an equal authority in the senate with those who had served the office of consul, and though he made no figure in a public debate, he was a serviceable veteran in any suit of a private nature. q. lucretius vispillo was an acute speaker, and a good civilian in the same kind of causes: but osella was better qualified for a public harangue, than to conduct a judicial process. t. annius velina was likewise a man of sense, and a tolerable pleader; and t. juventius had a great deal of practice in the same way:--the latter indeed was rather too heavy and unanimated, but at the same time he was keen and artful, and knew how to seize every advantage which was offered by his antagonist; to which we may add, that he was far from being a man of no literature, and had an extensive knowledge of the civil law. his scholar, p. orbius, who was almost cotemporary with me, had no great practice as a pleader; but his skill in the civil law was nothing inferior to his master's. as to titus aufidius, who lived to a great age, he was a professed imitator of both; and was indeed a worthy inoffensive man, but seldom spoke at the bar. his brother, m. virgilius, who when he was a tribune of the people, commenced a prosecution against l. sylla, then advanced to the rank of general, had as little practice as aufidius. virgilius's colleague, p. magius, was more copious and diffusive. but of all the orators, or rather _ranters_, i ever knew, who were totally illiterate and unpolished, and (i might have added) absolutely coarse and rustic, the readiest and keenest, were q. sertorius, and c. gorgonius, the one of consular, and the other of equestrian rank. t. junius (the son of l.) who had served the office of tribune, and prosecuted and convicted p. sextius of bribery, when he was praetor elect, was a prompt and an easy speaker: he lived in great splendor, and had a very promising genius; and, if he had not been of a weak, and indeed a sickly constitution, he would have advanced much farther than he did in the road to preferment. i am sensible, however, that in the account i have been giving, i have included many who were neither real, nor reputed orators; and that i have omitted others, among those of a remoter date, who well deserved not only to have been mentioned, but to be recorded with honour. but this i was forced to do, for want of better information: for what could i say concerning men of a distant age, none of whose productions are now remaining, and of whom no mention is made in the writings of other people? but i have omitted none of those who have fallen within the compass of my own knowledge, or that i myself remember to have heard. for i wish to make it appear, that in such a powerful and ancient republic as ours, in which the greatest rewards have been proposed to eloquence, though all have desired to be good speakers, not many have attempted the talk, and but very few have succeeded. but i shall give my opinion of every one in such explicit terms, that it may be easily understood whom i consider as a mere declaimer, and whom as an orator." "about the same time, or rather something later than the above-mentioned julius, but almost cotemporary with each other, were c. cotta, p. sulpicius, q. varius, cn. pomponius, c. curio, l. fufius, m. drusus, and p. antistius; for no age whatsoever has been distingushed by a more numerous progeny of orators. of these, cotta and sulpicius, both in my opinion, and in that of the public at large, had an evident claim to the preference."--"but wherefore," interrupted atticus, "do you say, _in your own opinion, and in that of the public at large?_ in deciding the merits of an orator, does the opinion of the vulgar, think you, always coincide with that of the learned? or rather does not one receive the approbation of the populace, while another of a quite opposite character is preferred by those who are better qualified to give their judgment?"--"you have started a very pertinent question," said i; "but, perhaps, _the public at large_ will not approve my answer to it."--"and what concern need _that_ give you," replied atticus, "if it meets the approbation of brutus?"-- "very true," said i; "for i had rather my _sentiments_ on the qualifications of an orator would please you and brutus, than all the world besides: but as to my _eloquence_, i should wish _this_ to please every one. for he who speaks in such a manner as to please the people, must inevitably receive the approbation of the learned. as to the truth and propriety of what i hear, i am indeed to judge of this for myself, as well as i am able: but the general merit of an orator must and will be decided by the effects which his eloquence produces. for (in my opinion at least) there are three things which an orator should be able to effect; _viz_. to _inform_ his hearers, to _please_ them, and to _move their passions_. by what qualities in the speaker each of these, effects may be produced, or by what deficiencies they are either lost, or but imperfectly performed, is an enquiry which none but an artist can resolve: but whether an audience is really so affected by an orator as shall best answer his purpose, must be left to their own feelings, and the decision of the public. the learned, therefore, and the people at large, have never disagreed about who was a good orator, and who was otherwise. for do you suppose, that while the speakers above-mentioned were in being, they had not the same degree of reputation among the learned as among the populace? if you had enquired of one of the latter, _who was the most eloquent man in the city_, he might have hesitated whether to say _antonius_ or _crassus_; or this man, perhaps, would have mentioned the one, and that the other. but would any one have given the preference to _philippus_, though otherwise a smooth, a sensible, and a facetious speaker?--that _philippus_ whom we, who form our judgment upon these matters by rules of art, have decided to have been the next in merit? nobody would, i am certain. for it is the invariable, property of an accomplished orator, to be reckoned such in the opinion of the people. though antigenidas, therefore, the musician, might say to his scholar, who was but coldly received by the public, play on, to please me and the muses;--i shall say to my friend brutus, when he mounts the rostra, as he frequently does,-- play to me and the people;--that those who hear him may be sensible of the effect of his eloquence, while i can likewise amuse myself with remarking the causes which produce it. when a citizen hears an able orator, he readily credits what is said;--he imagines every thing to be true, he believes and relishes the force of it; and, in short, the persuasive language of the speaker wins his absolute, his hearty assent. you, who are possessed of a critical knowledge of the art, what more will you require? the listening multitude is charmed and captivated by the force of his eloquence, and feels a pleasure which is not to be resisted. what here can you find to censure? the whole audience is either flushed with joy, or overwhelmed with grief;--it smiles, or weeps,--it loves, or hates,--it scorns or envies,--and, in short, is alternately seized with the various emotions of pity, shame, remorse, resentment, wonder, hope, and fear, according as it is influenced by the language, the sentiments, and the action of the speaker. in this case, what necessity is there to await the sanction of a critic? for here, whatever is approved by the feelings of the people, must be equally so by men of taste and erudition: and, in this instance of public decision, there can be no disagreement between the opinion of the vulgar, and that of the learned. for though many good speakers have appeared in every species of oratory, which of them who was thought to excel the rest in the judgment of the populace, was not approved as such by every man of learning? or which of our ancestors, when the choice of a pleader was left to his own option, did not immediately fix it either upon crassus or antonius? there were certainly many others to be had: but though any person might have hesitated to which of the above two he should give the preference, there was nobody, i believe, who would have made choice of a third. and in the time of my youth, when cotta and hortensius were in such high reputation, who, that had liberty to choose for himself, would have employed any other?"--"but what occasion is there," said brutus, "to quote the example of other speakers to support your assertion? have we not seen what has always been the wish of the defendant, and what the judgment of hortensius, concerning yourself? for whenever the latter shared a cause with you, (and i was often present on those occasions) the peroration, which requires the greatest exertion of the powers of eloquence, was constantly left to _you_."--"it was," said i; "and hortensius (induced, i suppose, by the warmth of his friendship) always resigned the post of honour to me. but, as to myself, what rank i hold in the opinion of the people i am unable to determine: as to others, however, i may safely assert, that such of them as were reckoned most eloquent in the judgment of the vulgar, were equally high in the estimation of the learned. for even demosthenes himself could not have said what is related of antimachus, a poet of claros, who, when he was rehearsing to an audience assembled for the purpose, that voluminous piece of his which you are well acquainted with, and was deserted by all his hearers except plato, in the midst of his performance, cried out, "i shall proceed notwithstanding_; for plato alone is of _more consequence to me than many thousands_." "the remark was very just. for an abstruse poem, such as his, only requires the approbation of the judicious few; but a discourse intended for the people should be perfectly suited to their taste. if demosthenes, therefore, after being deserted by the rest of his audience, had even plato left to hear him, and no one else, i will answer for it, he could not have uttered another syllable. 'nay, or could you yourself, my brutus, if the whole assembly was to leave you, as it once did curio?"--"to open my whole mind to you," replied he, "i must confess that even in such causes as fall under the cognizance of a few select judges, and not of the people at large, if i was to be deserted by the casual crowd who came to hear the trial, i should not be able to proceed."--"the case, then, is plainly this," said i: "as a flute, which will not return its proper sound when it is applied to the lips, would be laid aside by the musician as useless; so, the ears of the people are the instrument upon which an orator is to play: and if these refuse to admit the breath he bestows upon them, or if the hearer, like a restive horse, will not obey the spur, the speaker must cease to exert himself any farther. there is, however, the exception to be made; the people sometimes give their approbation to an orator who does not deserve it. but even here they approve what they have had no opportunity of comparing with something better: as, for instance, when they are pleased with an indifferent, or, perhaps, a bad speaker. his abilities satisfy their expectation: they have seen nothing preferable: and, therefore, the merit of the day, whatever it may happen to be, meets their full applause. for even a middling orator, if he is possessed of any degree of eloquence, will always captivate the ear; and the order and beauty of a good discourse has an astonishing effect upon the human mind. accordingly, what common hearer who was present when q. scaevola pleaded for m. coponius, in the cause above- mentioned, would have wished for, or indeed thought it possible to find any thing which was more correct, more elegant, or more complete? when he attempted to prove, that, as m. curius was left heir to the estate only in case of the death of his future ward before he came of age, he could not possibly be a legal heir, when the expected ward was never born;--what did he leave unsaid of the scrupulous regard which should be paid to the literal meaning of every testament? what of the accuracy and preciseness of the old and established forms; of law? and how carefully did he specify the manner in which the will would have been expressed, if it had intended that curius should be the heir in case of a total default of issue? in what a masterly manner did he represent the ill consequences to the public, if the letter of a will should be disregarded, its intention decided by arbitrary conjectures, and the written bequests of plain illiterate men, left to the artful interpretation of a pleader? how often did he urge the authority of his father, who had always been an advocate for a strict adherence to the letter of a testament? and with what emphasis did he enlarge upon the necessity of supporting the common forms of law? all which particulars he discussed not only very artfully, and skilfully; but in such a neat,--such a close,--and, i may add, in so florid, and so elegant a style, that there was not a single person among the common part of the audience, who could expect any thing more complete, or even think it possible to exist. but when crassus, who spoke on the opposite side, began with the story of a notable youth, who having found a cock-boat as he was rambling along the shore, took it into his head immediately that he would build a ship to it;--and when he applied the tale to scaevola, who, from the cock-boat of an argument [which he had deduced from certain imaginary ill consequences to the public] represented the decision of a private will to be a matter of such importance as to deserve he attention of the _centum-viri_;--when crassus, i say, in the beginning of his discourse, had thus taken off the edge of the strongest plea of his antagonist, he entertained his hearers with many other turns of a similar kind; and, in a short time, changed the serious apprehensions of all who were present into open mirth and good-humour; which is one of those three effects which i have just observed an orator should be able to produce. he then proceeded to remark that it was evidently the intention and the will of the testator, that in cafe, either by death, or default of issue, there should happen to be no son to fall to his charge, the inheritance should devolve to curius:--'that most people in a similar case would express themselves in the same manner, and that it would certainly stand good in law, and always had. by these, and many other observations of the same kind, he gained the assent of his hearers; which is another of the three duties of an orator. lastly, he supported, at all events, the true meaning and spirit of a will, against the literal construction: justly observing, that there would be an endless cavilling about words, not only in wills, but in all other legal deeds, if the real intention of the party was to be disregarded: and hinting very smartly, that his friend scaevola had assumed a most unwarrantable degree of importance, if no person must afterwards presume to indite a legacy, but in the musty form which he himself might please to prescribe. as he enlarged on each of these arguments with great force and propriety, supported them by a number of precedents, exhibited them in a variety of views, and enlivened them with many occasional turns of wit and pleasantry, he gained so much applause, and gave such general satisfaction, that it was scarcely remembered that any thing had been said on the contrary side of the question. this was the third, and the most important duty we assigned to an orator. "here, if one of the people was to be judge, the same person who had heard the first speaker with a degree of admiration, would, on hearing the second, despise himself for his former want of judgment:--whereas a man of taste and erudition, on hearing scaevola, would have observed that he was really master of a rich and ornamental style; but if, on comparing the manner in which each of them concluded his cause, it was to be enquired which of the two was the best orator, the decision of the man of learning would not have differed from that of the vulgar. what advantage, then, it will be said, has the skilful critic over the illiterate hearer? a great and very important advantage; if it is indeed a matter of any consequence, to be able to discover by what means that which is the true and real end of speaking, is either obtained or lost. he has likewise this additional superiority, that when two or more orators, as has frequently happened, have shared the applauses of the public, he can judge, on a careful observation of the principal merits of each, what is the most perfect character of eloquence: since whatever does not meet the approbation of the people, must be equally condemned by a more intelligent hearer. for as it is easily understood by the sound of a harp, whether the strings are skilfully touched; so it may likewise be discovered from the manner in which the passions of an audience are affected, how far the speaker is able to command them. a man, therefore, who is a real connoisseur in the art, can sometimes by a single glance as he passes through the forum, and without stopping to listen attentively to what is said, form a tolerable judgment of the ability of the speaker. when he observes any of the bench either yawning, or speaking to the person who is next to him, or looking carelessly about him, or sending to enquire the time of day, or teazing the quaestor to dismiss the court; he concludes very naturally that the cause upon trial is not pleaded by an orator who understands how to apply the powers of language to the passions of the judges, as a skilful musician applies his fingers to the harp. on the other hand, if, as he passes by, he beholds the judges looking attentively before them, as if they were either receiving some material information, or visibly approved what they had already heard--if he sees them listening to the voice of the pleader with a kind of extasy like a fond bird to some melodious tune;-- and, above all, if he discovers in their looks any strong indications of pity, abhorrence, or any other emotion of the mind;--though he should not be near enough to hear a single word, he immediately discovers that the cause is managed by a real orator, who is either performing, or has already played his part to good purpose." after i had concluded these digressive remarks, my two friends were kind enough to signify their approbation, and i resumed my subject.--"as this digression," said i, "took its rise from cotta and sulpicius, whom i mentioned as the two most approved orators of the age they lived in, i shall first return to _them,_ and afterwards notice the rest in their proper order, according to the plan we began upon. i have already observed that there are two classes of _good_ orators (for we have no concern with any others) of which the former are distinguished by the simple neatness and brevity of their language, and the latter by their copious dignity and elevation: but although the preference must always be given to that which is great and striking; yet, in speakers of real merit, whatever is most perfect of the kind, is justly entitled to our commendation. it must, however, be observed, that the close and simple orator should be careful not to sink into a driness and poverty of expression; while, on the other hand, the copious and more stately speaker should be equally on his guard against a swelling and empty parade of words. "to begin with cotta, he had a ready, quick invention, and spoke correctly and freely; and as he very prudently avoided every forcible exertion of his voice on account of the weakness of his lungs, so his language was equally adapted to the delicacy of his constitution. there was nothing in his style but what was neat, compact, and healthy; and (what may justly be considered as his greatest excellence) though he was scarcely able, and therefore never attempted to force the passions of the judges by a strong and spirited elocution, yet he managed them so artfully, that the gentle emotions he raised in them, answered exactly the same purpose, and produced the same effect, as the violent ones which were excited by sulpicius. for sulpicius was really the most striking, and, if i may be allowed the expression, the most tragical orator i ever heard:--his voice was strong and sonorous, and yet sweet, and flowing:--his gesture, and the sway of his body, was graceful and ornamental, but in such a style as to appear to have been formed for the forum, and not for the stage:--and his language, though rapid and voluble, was neither loose nor exuberant. he was a professed imitator of crassus, while cotta chose antonius for his model: but the latter wanted the force of antonius, and the former the agreeable humour of crassus."--"how extremely difficult, then," said brutus, "must be the art of speaking, when such consummate orators as these were each of them destitute of one of its principal beauties!"--"we may likewise observe," said i, "in the present instance, that two orators may have the highest degree of merit, who are totally unlike each other: for none could be more so than cotta and sulpicius, and yet both of them were far superior to any of their cotemporaries. it is therefore the business of every intelligent matter to take notice what is the natural bent of his pupil's capacity; and, taking that for his guide, to imitate the conduct of socrates with his two scholars theopompus and ephorus, who, after remarking the lively genius of the former, and the mild and timid bashfulness of the latter, is reported to have said that he applied a spur to the one, and a curb to the other. the orations now extant, which bear the name of sulpicius, are supposed to have been written after his decease by my cotemporary p. canutius, a man indeed of inferior rank, but who, in my mind, had a great command of language. but we have not a single speech of sulpicius that was really his own: for i have often heard him say, that he neither had, nor ever could commit any thing of the kind to writing. and as to cotta's speech in defence of himself, called a vindication of the _varian law_, it was composed, at his own request, by l. aelius. this aelius was a man of merit, and a very worthy roman knight, who was thoroughly versed in the greek and roman literature. he had likewise a critical knowledge of the antiquities of his country, both as to the date and particulars of every new improvement, and every memorable transaction, and was perfectly well read in the ancient writers;--a branch of learning in which he was succeeded by our friend varro, a man of genius, and of the most extensive erudition, who afterwards enlarged the plan by many valuable collections of his own, and gave a much fuller and more elegant system of it to the public. for aelius himself chose to assume the character of a stoic, and neither aimed to be, nor ever was an orator: but he composed several orations for other people to pronounce; as for q. metellus, f. q. caepio, and q. pompeius rufus; though the latter composed those speeches himself which he spoke in his own defence, but not without the assistance of aelius. for i myself was present at the writing of them, in the younger part of my life, when i used to attend aelius for the benefit of his instructions. but i am surprised, that cotta, who was really an excellent orator, and a man of good learning, should be willing that the trifling speeches of aelius mould be published to the world as _his_. "to the two above-mentioned, no third person of the same age was esteemed an equal: pomponius, however, was a speaker much to my taste; or, at least, i have very little fault to find with him. but there was no employment for any in capital causes, excepting for those i have already mentioned; because antonius, who was always courted on these occasions, was very ready to give his service; and crassus, though not so compliable, generally consented, on any pressing sollicitation, to give _his_. those who had not interest enough to engage either of these, commonly applied to philip, or caesar; but when cotta and sulpicius were at liberty, they generally had the preference: so that all the causes in which any honour was to be acquired, were pleaded by these six orators. we may add, that trials were not so frequent then as they are at present; neither did people employ, as they do now, several pleaders on the same side of the question,--a practice which is attended with many disadvantages. for hereby we are often obliged to speak in reply to those whom we had not an opportunity of hearing; in which case, what has been alledged on the opposite side, is often represented to us either falsely or imperfectly; and besides, it is a very material circumstance, that i myself should be present to see with what countenance my antagonist supports his allegations, and, still more so, to observe the effect of every part of his discourse upon the audience. and as every defence should be conducted upon one uniform plan, nothing can be more improperly contrived, than to re-commence it by assigning the peroration, or pathetical part of it, to a second advocate. for every cause can have but one natural introduction and conclusion; and all the other parts of it, like the members of an animal body, will best retain their proper strength and beauty, when they are regularly disposed and connected. we may add, that as it is very difficult in a single oration of any length, to avoid saying something which does not comport with the rest of it so well as it ought to do, how much more difficult must it be to contrive that nothing shall be said, which does not tally exactly with the speech of another person who has spoken before you? but as it certainly requires more labour to plead a whole cause, than only a part of it, and as many advantageous connections are formed by assisting in a suit in which several persons are interested, the custom, however preposterous in itself, has been readily adopted. "there were some, however, who esteemed curio the third best orator of the age; perhaps, because his language was brilliant and pompous, and because he had a habit (for which i suppose he was indebted to his domestic education) of expressing himself with tolerable correctness: for he was a man of very little learning. but it is a circumstance of great importance, what sort of people we are used to converse with at home, especially in the more early part of life; and what sort of language we have been accustomed to hear from our tutors and parents, not excepting the mother. we have all read the letters of cornelia, the mother of the gracchi; and are satisfied, that her sons were not so much nurtured in their mother's lap, as in the elegance and purity of her language. i have often too enjoyed the agreeable conversation of laelia, the daughter of caius, and observed in her a strong tincture of her father's elegance. i have likewise conversed with his two daughters, the muciae, and his granddaughters, the two liciniae, with one of whom (the wife of scipio) you, my brutus, i believe, have sometimes been in company."--"i have," replied he, "and was much pleased with her conversation; and the more so, because she was the daughter of crassus."--"and what think you," said i, "of crassus, the son of that licinia, who was adopted by crassus in his will?"--"he is said," replied he, "to have been a man of great genius: and the scipio you have mentioned, who was my colleague, likewise appears to me to have been a good speaker, and an elegant companion."--"your opinion, my brutus," said i, "is very just. for this family, if i may be allowed the expression, seems to have been the offspring of wisdom. as to their two grandfathers, scipio and crassus, we have taken notice of them already: as we also have of their great grandfathers, q. metellus, who had four sons,--p. scipio, who, when a private citizen, freed the republic from the arbitrary influence of t. gracchus,--and q. scaevola, the augur, who was the ablest and most affable civilian of his time. and lastly, how illustrious are the names of their next immediate progenitors, p. scipio, who was twice consul, and was called the darling of the people,--and c. laelius, who was esteemed the wisest of men?"--"a generous stock indeed!" cries brutus, "into which the wisdom of many has been successively ingrafted, like a number of scions on the same tree!"--"i have likewise a suspicion," replied i, "(if we may compare small things with great) that curio's family, though he himself was left an orphan, was indebted to his father's instruction, and good example, for the habitual purity of their language: and so much the more, because, of all those who were held in any estimation for their eloquence, i never knew one who was so totally rude and unskilled in every branch of liberal science. he had not read a single poet, or studied a single orator; and he knew little or nothing either of public, civil, or common law. we might say almost the same, indeed, of several others, and some of them very able orators, who (we know) were but little acquainted with these useful parts of knowledge; as, for instance, of sulpicius and antonius. but this deficiency was supplied in them by an elaborate knowledge of the art of speaking; and there was not one of them who was totally unqualified in any of the five [footnote: invention, disposition, elocution, memory, and pronunciation.] principal parts of which it is composed; for whenever this is the case, (and it matters not in which of those parts it happens) it intirely incapacitates a man to shine as an orator. some, however, excelled in one part, and some in another. thus antonius could readily invent such arguments as were most in point, and afterwards digest and methodize them to the best advantage; and he could likewise retain the plan he had formed with great exactness: but his chief merit was the goodness of his delivery, in which he was justly allowed to excel. in some of these qualifications he was upon an equal footing with crassus, and in others he was superior: but then the language of crassus was indisputably preferable to _his_. in the same manner, it cannot be said that either sulpicius or cotta, or any other speaker of repute, was absolutely deficient in any one of the five parts of oratory. but we may justly infer from the example of curio, that nothing will more recommend an orator, than a brilliant and ready flow of expression; for he was remarkably dull in the invention, and very loose and unconnected in the disposition of his arguments. the two remaining parts are pronunciation and memory; in each of which he was so poorly qualified, as to excite the laughter and the ridicule of his hearers. his gesture was really such as c. julius represented it, in a severe sarcasm, that will never be forgotten; for as he was swaying and reeling his whole body from side to side, julius enquired very merrily, _who it was that was speaking from a boat_. to the same purpose was the jest of cn. sicinius, a very vulgar sort of man, but exceedingly humourous, which was the only qualification he had to recommend him as an orator. when this man, as tribune of the people, had summoned curio and octavius, who were then consuls, into the forum, and curio had delivered a tedious harangue, while octavius sat silently by him, wrapt up in flannels, and besmeared with ointments, to ease the pain of the gout;"--"_octavius," said he, "you are infinitely obliged to your colleague; for if he had not tossed and flung himself about to-day, in the manner he did, you would have certainly have been devoured by the flies._"--"as to his memory, it was so extremely treacherous, that after he had divided his subject into three general heads, he would sometimes, in the course of speaking, either add a fourth, or omit the third. in a capital trial, in which i had pleaded for titinia, the daughter of cotta, when he attempted to reply to me in defence of serv. naevius, he suddenly forgot every thing he had intended to say, and attributed it to the pretended witchcraft, and magic artifices of titinia. these were undoubted proofs of the weakness of his memory. but, what is still more inexcusable, he sometimes forgot, even in his written treatises, what he had mentioned but a little before. thus, in a book of his, in which he introduces himself as entering into conversation with our friend pansa, and his son curio, when he was walking home from the senate- house; the senate is supposed to have been summoned by caesar in his first consulship; and the whole conversation arises from the son's enquiry what the house had resolved upon. curio launches out into a long invective against the conduct of caesar, and, as is generally the custom in dialogues, the parties are engaged in a close dispute on the subject: but very unhappily, though the conversation commences at the breaking up of the senate which caesar held when he was first consul, the author censures those very actions of the same caesar, which did not happen till the next, and several other succeeding years of his government in gaul."--"is it possible then," said brutus, with an air of surprize, "that any man, (and especially in a written performance) could be so forgetful as not to discover, upon a subsequent perusal of his own work, what an egregious blunder he had committed?"--"very true," said i; "for if he wrote with a design to discredit the measures which he represents in such an odious light, nothing could be more stupid than not to commence his dialogue at a period which was subsequent to those measures. but he so entirely forgets himself, as to tell us, that he did not choose to attend a senate which was held in one of caesar's future consulships, in the very same dialogue in which he introduces himself as returning home from a senate which was held in his first consulship. it cannot, therefore, be wondered at, that he who was so remarkably defective in a faculty which is the steward of our other intellectual powers, as to forget, even in a written treatise, a material circumstance which he had mentioned but a little before, should find his memory fail him, as it generally did, in a sudden and unpremeditated harangue. it accordingly happened, though he had many connections, and was fond of speaking in public, that few causes were intrusted to his management. but, among his cotemporaries, he was esteemed next in merit to the first orators of the age; and that merely, as i said before, for his good choice of words, and his uncommon readiness, and great fluency of expression. his orations, therefore, may deserve a cursory perusal. it is true, indeed, they are much too languid and spiritless; but they may yet be of service to enlarge and improve an accomplishment, of which he certainly had a moderate share; and which has so much force and efficacy, that it gave curio the appearance and reputation of an orator, without the assistance of any other good quality. "but to return to our subject,--c. carbo, of the same age, was likewise reckoned an orator of the second class: he was the son, indeed, of the truly eloquent man before-mentioned, but was far from being an acute speaker himself: he was, however, esteemed an orator. his language was tolerably nervous, he spoke with ease,--and there was an air of authority in his address that was perfectly natural. but q. varius was a man of quicker invention, and, at the same time, had an equal freedom of expression: besides which, he had a bold and spirited delivery, and a vein of elocution which was neither poor, nor coarse and vulgar;--in short, you need not hesitate to pronounce him an _orator_. cn. pomponius was a vehement, a rousing, and a fierce and eager speaker, and more inclined to act the part of a prosecutor, than of an advocate. but far inferior to these was l. fufius; though his application was, in some measure, rewarded by the success of his prosecution against m. aquilius. for as to m. drusus, your great uncle, who spoke like an orator only upon matters of government;--l. lucullus, who was indeed an artful speaker, and your father, my brutus, who was well acquainted with the common and civil law; --m. lucullus, and m. octavius, the son of cnaeus, who was a man of so much authority and address, as to procure the repeal of sempronius's corn-act, by the suffrages of a full assembly of the people;--cn. octavius, the son of marcus,--and m. cato, the father, and q. catulus, the son;--we must excuse these (if i may so express myself) from the fatigues and dangers of the field,--that is, from the management of judicial causes, and place them in garison over the general interests of the republic, a duty to which they seem to have been sufficiently adequate. i should have assigned the same post to q. caepio, if he had not been so violently attached to the equestrian order, as to set himself at variance with the senate. i have also remarked, that cn. carbo, m. marius, and several others of the same stamp, who would not have merited the attention of an audience that had any taste for elegance, were extremely well suited to address a tumultuous crowd. in the same class, (if i may be allowed to interrupt the series of my narrative) l. quintius lately made his appearance: though palicanus, it must be owned, was still better adapted to please the ears of the populace. but, as i have mentioned this inferior kind of speakers, i must be so just to l. apuleius saturninus, as to observe that, of all the factious declaimers since the time of the gracchi, he was generally esteemed the ablest: and yet he caught the attention of the public, more by his appearance, his gesture, and his dress, than by any real fluency of expression, or even a tolerable share of good sense. but c. servilius glaucia, though the most abandoned wretch that ever existed, was very keen and artful, and excessively humourous; and notwithstanding the meanness of his birth, and the depravity of his life, he would have been advanced to the dignity of a consul in his praetorship, if it had been judged lawful to admit his suit: for the populace were entirely at his devotion, and he had secured the interest of the knights, by an act he had procured in their favour. he was slain in the open forum, while he was praetor, on the same day as the tribune saturninus, in the consulship of marius and flaccus; and bore a near resemblance to hyperbolus, the athenian, whose profligacy was so severely stigmatized in the old attic comedies. these were succeeded by sext. titius, who was indeed a voluble speaker, and possessed a ready comprehension, but he was so loose and effeminate in his gesture, as to furnish room for the invention of a dance, which was called the _titian jigg_: so careful should we be to avoid every oddity in our manner of speaking, which may afterwards be exposed to ridicule by a ludicrous imitation. "but we have rambled back insensibly to a period which has been already examined: let us, therefore, return to that which we were reviewing a little before. cotemporary with sulpicius was p. antistius,--a plausible declaimer, who, after being silent for several years, and exposed, (as he often was) not only to the contempt, but the derision of his hearers, first spoke with applause in his tribuneship, in a real and very interesting protest against the illegal application of c. julius for the consulship; and that so much the more, because though sulpicius himself, who then happened to be his colleague, spoke on the same side of the debate, antistius argued more copiously, and to better purpose. this raised his reputation so high, that many, and (soon afterwards) every cause of importance, was eagerly recommended to his patronage. to speak the truth, he had a quick conception, a methodical judgment, and a retentive memory; and though his language was not much embellished, it was very far from being low. in short, his style was easy, and flowing, and his appearance rather genteel than otherwise: but his action was a little defective, partly through the disagreeable tone of his voice, and partly by a few ridiculous gestures, of which he could not entirely break himself. he flourished in the time between the flight and the return of sylla, when the republic was deprived of a regular administration of justice, and of its former dignity and splendor. but the very favourable reception he met with was, in some measure, owing to the great scarcity of good orators which then prevailed in the forum. for sulpicius was dead; cotta and curio were abroad; and no pleaders of any eminence were left but carbo and pomponius, from each of whom he easily carried off the palm. his nearest successor in the following age was l. sisenna, who was a man of learning, had a taste for the liberal sciences, spoke the roman language with accuracy, was well acquainted with the laws and constitution of his country, and had a tolerable share of wit; but he was not a speaker of any great application, or extensive practice; and as he happened to live in the intermediate time between the appearance of sulpicius and hortensius, he was unable to equal the former, and forced to yield to the superior talents of the latter. we may easily form a judgment of his abilities from the historical works he has left behind him; which, though evidently preferable to any thing of the kind which had appeared before, may serve as a proof that he was far below the standard of perfection, and that this species of composition had not then been improved to any great degree of excellence among the romans. but the genius of q. hortensius, even in his early youth, like one of phidias's statues, was no sooner beheld than it was universally admired! he spoke his first oration in the forum in the consulship of l. crassus and q. scaevola, to whom it was personally adressed; and though he was then only nineteen years old, he descended from the rostra with the hearty approbation not only of the audience in general, but of the two consuls themselves, who were the most intelligent judges in the whole city. he died in the consulship of l. paulus and c. marcellus; from which it appears that he was four-and-forty years a pleader. we shall review his character more at large in the sequel: but in this part of my history, i chose to include him in the number of orators who were rather of an earlier date. this indeed must necessarily happen to all whose lives are of any considerable length: for they are equally liable to a comparison with their elders and their juniors; as in the case of the poet attius, who says that both he and pacuvius applied themselves to the cultivation of the drama under the fame aediles; though, at the time, the one was eighty, and the other only thirty years old. thus hortensius may be paralleled not only with those who were properly his contemporaries, but with me, and you, my brutus, and with others of a prior date. for he began to speak in public while crassus was living but his fame increased when he appeared as a joint advocate with antonius and philip (at that time in the decline of life) in defence of cn. pompeius,-- a cause in which (though a mere youth) he distinguished himself above the rest. he may therefore be included in the lift of those whom i have placed in the time of sulpicius; but among his proper coëvals, such as m. piso, m. crassus, cn. lentulus, and p. lentulus sura, he excelled beyond the reach of competition; and after these he happened upon me, in the early part of my life (for i was eight years younger than himself) and spent a number of years with me in pursuit of the same forensic glory: and at last, (a little before his death) he once pleaded with _you_, in defence of appius claudius, as i have frequently done for others. thus you see, my brutus, i am come insensibly to _yourself_, though there was undoubtedly a great variety of orators between my first appearance in the forum, and yours. but as i determined, when we began the conversation, to make no mention of those among them who are still living, to prevent your enquiring too minutely what is my opinion concerning each; i shall confine myself to such as are now no more."--"that is not the true reason," said brutus, "why you choose to be silent about the living."--"what then do you suppose it to be," said i?--"you are only fearful," replied he, "that your remarks should afterwards be mentioned by us in other company, and that, by this means, you should expose yourself to the resentment of those, whom you may not think it worth your while to notice."--"indeed," answered i, "i have not the least doubt of your secresy."--"neither have you any reason," said he; "but after all, i suppose, you had rather be silent _yourself_, than rely upon our taciturnity."--"to confess the truth," replied i, "when i first entered upon the subject, i never imagined that i should have extended it to the age now before us; whereas i have been drawn by a continued series of history among the moderns of latest date." --"introduce, then," said he, "those intermediate orators you may think worthy of our notice: and afterwards let us return to yourself, and hortensius."--"to hortensius," replied i, "with all my heart; but as to my _own_ character, i shall leave it to other people to examine, if they choose to take the trouble."--"i can by no means agree to _that_," said he: "for though every part of the account you have favoured us with, has entertained me very agreeably, it now begins to seem tedious, because i am impatient to hear something of _yourself_: i do not mean the wonderful qualities, but the _progressive steps_, and advances of your eloquence; for the former are sufficiently known already both to me, and the whole world."--"as you do not require me," said i, "to sound the praises of my own genius, but only to describe my labour and application to improve it, your request shall be complied with. but to preserve the order of my narrative, i shall first introduce such other speakers as i think ought to be previously noticed: and i shall begin with m. crassus, who was contemporary with hortensius. with a tolerable share of learning, and a very moderate capacity, his application, assiduity, and interest, procured him a place among the ablest pleaders of the time for several years. his language was pure, his expression neither low nor ungenteel, and his ideas well digested: but he had nothing in him that was florid, and ornamental; and the real ardor of his mind was not supported by any vigorous exertion of his voice, so that he pronounced almost every thing in the same uniform tone. his equal, and professed antagonist c. fimbria was not able to maintain his character so long; and though he always spoke with a strong and elevated voice, and poured forth a rapid torrent of well-chosen expressions, he was so immoderately vehement that you might justly be surprised that the people should have been so absent and inattentive as to admit a _madman_, like him, into the lift of orators. as to cn. lentulus, his action acquired him a reputation for his eloquence very far beyond his real abilities: for though he was not a man of any great penetration (notwithstanding he carried the appearance of it in his countenance) nor possessed any real fluency of expression (though he was equally specious in this respect as in the former)--yet by his sudden breaks, and exclamations, he affected such an ironical air of surprize, with a sweet and sonorous turn of voice, and his whole action was so warm and lively, that his defects were scarcely noticed. for as curio acquired the reputation of an orator with no other quality than a tolerable freedom of elocution; so cn. lentulus concealed the mediocrity of his other accomplishments by his _action_, which was really excellent. much the same might be said of p. lentulus, whose poverty of invention and expression was secured from notice by the mere dignity of his presence, his correct and graceful gesture, and the strength and sweetness of his voice: and his merit depended so entirely upon his action, that he was more deficient in every other quality than his namesake. but m. piso derived all his talents from his erudition; for he was much better versed in the grecian literature than any of his predecessors. he had, however, a natural keenness of discernment, which he greatly improved by art, and exerted with great address and dexterity, though in very indifferent language: but he was frequently warm and choleric, sometimes cold and insipid, and now and then rather smart and humourous. he did not long support the fatigue, and emulous contention of the forum; partly, on account of the weakness of his constitution; and partly, because he could not submit to the follies and impertinencies of the common people (which we orators are forced to swallow) either, as it was generally supposed, from a peculiar moroseness of temper, or from a liberal and ingenuous pride of heart. after acquiring, therefore, in his youth, a tolerable degree of reputation, his character began to sink: but in the trial of the vestals, he again recovered it with some additional lustre, and being thus recalled to the theatre of eloquence, he kept his rank, as long as he was able to support the fatigue of it; after which his credit declined, in proportion as he remitted his application.--p. murena had a moderate genius, but was passionately fond of the study of antiquity; he applied himself with equal diligence to the belles lettres, in which he was tolerably versed; in short, he was a man of great industry, and took the utmost pains to distinguish himself.--c. censorinus had a good stock of grecian literature, explained whatever he advanced with great neatness and perspicuity, and had a graceful action, but was too cold and unanimated for the forum.--l. turius with a very indifferent genius, but the most indefatigable application, spoke in public very often, in the best manner he was able; and, accordingly, he only wanted the votes of a few centuries to promote him to the consulship.--c. macer was never a man of much interest or authority, but was one of the most active pleaders of his time; and if his life, his manners, and his very looks, had not ruined the credit of his genius, he would have ranked higher in the lift of orators. he was neither copious, nor dry and barren; neither eat and embellished, nor wholly inelegant; and his voice, his gesture, and every part of his action, was without any grace: but in inventing and digesting his ideas, he had a wonderful accuracy, such as no man i ever saw either possessed or exerted in a more eminent degree; and yet, some how, he displayed it rather with the air of a quibbler, than of an orator. though he had acquired some reputation in public causes, he appeared to most advantage and was most courted and employed in private ones.--c. piso, who comes next in order, had scarcely any exertion, but he was a speaker of a very convertible style; and though, in fact, he was far from being slow of invention, he had more penetration in his look and appearance than he really possessed.--his cotemporary m. glabrio, though carefully instructed by his grandfather scaevola, was prevented from distinguishing himself by his natural indolence and want of attention.--l. torquatus, on the contrary, had an elegant turn of expression, and a clear comprehension, and was perfectly genteel and well-bred in his whole manner.--but cn. pompeius, my coeval, a man who was born to excel in every thing, would have acquired a more distinguished reputation for his eloquence, if he had not been diverted from the pursuit of it by the more dazzling charms of military fame. his language was naturally bold and elevated, and he was always master of his subject; and as to his powers of enunciation, his voice was sonorous and manly, and his gesture noble, and full of dignity. --d. silanus, another of my cotemporaries, and your father-in-law, was not a man of much application, but he had a very competent share of discernment, and elocution.--q. pompeius, the son of aulus, who had the title of _bithynicus_, and was about two years older than myself, was, to my own knowledge, remarkably fond of the study of eloquence, had an uncommon stock of learning, and was a man of indefatigable industry and perseverance: for he was connected with me and m. piso, not only as an intimate acquaintance, but as an associate in our studies, and private exercises. his elocution was but poorly recommended by his action: for though the former was sufficiently copious and diffusive, there was nothing graceful in the latter.--his contemporary, p. autronius, had a very clear, and strong voice; but he was distinguished by no other accomplishment.--l. octavius reatinus died in his youth, while he was in full practice: but he ascended the rostra with more assurance, than ability.--c. staienus, who changed his name into aelius by a kind of self- adoption, was a warm, an abusive, and indeed a furious speaker; which was so agreeable to the taste of many, that he would have risen to some rank in the state, if it had not been for a crime of which he was clearly convicted, and for which he afterwards suffered.--at the same time were the two brothers c. and l. caepasius, who, though men of an obscure family, and little previous consequence, were yet, by mere dint of application, suddenly promoted to the quaestorship, with no other recommendation than a provincial and unpolished kind of oratory.--that i may not seem to have put a wilful slight on any of the vociferous tribe, i must also notice c. cosconius calidianus, who, without any discernment, amused the people with a rapidity of language (if such it might be called) which he attended with a perpetual hurry of action, and a most violent exertion of his voice.--of much the same cast was q. arrius, who may be considered as a second-hand m. crassus. he is a striking proof of what consequence it is in such a city as ours to devote one's-self to the occasions of _the many_, and to be as active as possible in promoting their safety, or their honour. for by these means, though of the lowest parentage, having raised himself to offices of rank, and to considerable wealth and influence, he likewise acquired the reputation of a tolerable patron, without either learning or abilities. but as inexperienced champions, who, from a passionate desire to distinguish themselves in the circus, can bear the blows of their opponents without shrinking, are often overpowered by the heat of the sun, when it is increased by the reflection of the sand; so _he_, who had hitherto supported even the sharpest encounters with good success, could not stand the severity of that year of judicial contest, which blazed upon him like a summer's sun." "upon my word," cried atticus, "you are now treating us with the very _dregs_ of oratory, and you have entertained us in this manner for some time: but i did not offer to interrupt you, because i never dreamed you would have descended so low as to mention the _staieni_ and _autronii_!"-- "as i have been speaking of the dead, you will not imagine, i suppose," said i, "that i have done it to court their favour: but in pursuing the order of history, i was necessarily led by degrees to a period of time which falls within the compass of our own knowledge. but i wish it to be noticed, that after recounting all who ever ventured to speak in public, we find but few, (very few indeed!) whose names are worth recording; and not many who had even the repute of being orators. let us, however, return to our subject. t. torquatus, then, the son of titus, was a man of learning, (which he first acquired in the school of molo in rhodes,) and of a free and easy elocution which he received from nature. if he had lived to a proper age, he would have been chosen consul, without any canvassing; but he had more ability for speaking than inclination; _so_ that, in fact, he did not do justice to the art he professed; and yet he was never wanting to his duty, either in the private causes of his friends and dependents, or in his senatorial capacity.--my townsman too, p. pontidius, pleaded a number of private causes. he had a rapidity of expression, and a tolerable quickness of comprehension: but he was very warm, and indeed rather too choleric and irascible; so that he often wrangled not only with his antagonist, but (what appears very strange) with the judge himself, whom it was rather his business to sooth and gratify.--m. messala, who was something younger than myself, was far from being a poor and an abject pleader, and yet he was not a very embellished one. he was judicious, penetrating, and wary, very exact in digesting and methodizing his subject, and a man of uncommon diligence and application, and of very extensive practice.--as to the two metelli (celer and nepos) these also had a moderate share of employment at the bar; but being destitute neither of learning nor abilities, they chiefly applied themselves (and with some success) to debates of a more popular kind.--but caius lentulus marcellinus, who was never reckoned a bad speaker, was esteemed a very eloquent one in his consulship. he wanted neither sentiment, nor expression; his voice was sweet and sonorous; and he had a sufficient stock of humour.--c. memmius, the son of lucius, was a perfect adept in the _belles lettres_ of the greeks; for he had an insuperable disgust to the literature of the romans. he was a neat and polished speaker, and had a sweet and harmonious turn of expression; but as he was equally averse to every laborious effort either of the mind or the tongue, his eloquence declined in proportion as he lessened his application."-- "but i heartily wish," said brutus, "that you would give us your opinion of those orators who are still living; or, if you are determined to say nothing of the rest, there are two at least, (that is caesar and marcellus, whom i have often heard you speak of with the highest approbation) whose characters would give me as much entertainment as any of those you have already specified."--"but why," answered i, "would you expect that i would give you my opinion of men who are as well known to yourself as to me?"--"marcellus, indeed," replied he, "i am very well acquainted with; but as to caesar, i know little of _him_. for i have _heard_ the former very often: but, by the time i was able to judge for myself, the latter had set out for his province."--"mighty well," said i; "and what think you of him you have heard so often?"--"what else can i think," replied he, "but that you will soon have an orator, who will very nearly resemble yourself?"--"if that is the case," answered i, "pray think of him as favourably as you can." "i do," said he; "for he pleases me very highly; and not without reason. he is absolutely master of his trade, and, neglecting every other profession, has applied himself solely to _this_; and, for that purpose, has persevered in the rigorous task of composing a daily essay in writing. his words are well chosen; his language is full and copious; and every thing he says receives an additional ornament from the graceful tone of his voice, and the dignity of his action. in short, he is so compleat an orator, that there is no quality i know of, in which i can think him deficient. but he is still more to be admired, for being able, in these unhappy times, (which are marked with a distress that, by some cruel fatality, has overwhelmed us all) to console himself, as opportunity offers, with the consciousness of his own integrity, and by the frequent renewal of his literary pursuits. i saw him lately at mitylene; and then (as i have already hinted) i saw him a thorough man. for though i had before discovered in him a strong resemblance of yourself, the likeness was much improved, after he was enriched by the instructions of your learned, and very intimate friend cratippus."-- "though i acknowledge," said i, "that i have listened with pleasure to your elogies on a very worthy man, for whom i have the warmest esteem, they have led me insensibly to the recollection of our common miseries, which our present conversation was intended to suspend. but i would willingly hear what is atticus's opinion of caesar."--"upon my word," replied atticus, "you are wonderfully consistent with your plan, to say nothing _yourself_ of the living: and indeed, if you was to deal with _them_, as you already have with the _dead_, and say something of every paltry fellow that occurs to your memory, you would plague us with _autronii_ and _steiani_ without end. but though you might possibly have it in view not to incumber yourself with such a numerous crowd of insignificant wretches; or perhaps, to avoid giving any one room to complain that he was either unnoticed, or not extolled according to his imaginary merit; yet, certainly, you might have said something of caesar; especially, as your opinion of _his_ abilities is well known to every body, and his concerning _your's_ is very far from being a secret. but, however," said he, (addressing himself to brutus) "i really think of caesar, and every body else says the same of this accurate connoisseur in the art of speaking, that he has the purest and the most elegant command of the roman language of all the orators that have yet appeared: and that not merely by domestic habit, as we have lately heard it observed of the families of the laelii and the mucii, (though even here, i believe, this might partly have been the case) but he chiefly acquired and brought it to its present perfection, by a studious application to the most intricate and refined branches of literature, and by a careful and constant attention to the purity of his style. but that _he_, who, involved as he was in a perpetual hurry of business, could dedicate to _you_, my cicero, a laboured treatise on the art of speaking correctly; that _he_, who, in the first book of it, laid it down as an axiom, that an accurate choice of words is the foundation of eloquence; and who has bestowed," said he, (addressing himself again to brutus) "the highest encomiums on this friend of ours, who yet chooses to leave caesar's character to _me_;--that _he_ should be a perfect master of the language of polite conservation, is a circumstance which is almost too obvious to be mentioned." "i said, _the highest encomiums_," pursued atticus, "because he says in so many words, when he addresses himself to cicero--_if others have bestowed all their time and attention to acquire a habit of expressing themselves with ease and correctness, how much is the name and dignity of the roman people indebted to you, who are the highest pattern, and indeed the first inventor of that rich fertility of language which distinguishes your performances?_"--indeed," said brutus, "i think he has extolled your merit in a very friendly, and a very magnificent style: for you are not only the _highest pattern_, and even the _first inventor_ of all our _fertility_ of language, which alone is praise enough to content any reasonable man, but you have added fresh honours to the name and dignity of the roman people; for the very excellence in which we had hitherto been conquered by the vanquished greeks, has now been either wrested from their hands, or equally shared, at least, between us and them. so that i prefer this honourable testimony of caesar, i will not say to the public thanksgiving, which was decreed for your _own_ military services, but to the triumphs of many heroes."--"very true," replied i, "provided this honourable testimony was really the voice of caesar's judgment, and not of his friendship: for _he_ certainly has added more to the dignity of the roman people, whoever he may be (if indeed any such man has yet existed) who has not only exemplified and enlarged, but first produced this rich fertility of expression, than the doughty warrior who has stormed a few paltry castles of the ligurians, which have furnished us, you know, with many repeated triumphs. in reality, if we can submit to hear the truth, it may be asserted (to say nothing of those god-like plans, which, supported by the wisdom of our generals, has frequently saved the sinking state both abroad and at home) that an orator is justly entitled to the preference to any commander in a petty war. but the general, you will say, is the more serviceable man to the public. nobody denies it: and yet (for i am not afraid of provoking your censure, in a conversation which leaves each of us at liberty to say what he thinks) i had rather be the author of the single oration of crassus, in defence of curius, than be honoured with two ligurian triumphs. you will, perhaps, reply, that the storming a castle of the ligurians was a thing of more consequence to the state, than that the claim of curius should be ably supported. this i own to be true. but it was also of more consequence to the athenians, that their houses should be securely roofed, than to have their city graced with a most beautiful statue of minerva: and yet, notwithstanding this, i would much rather have been a phidias, than the most skilful joiner in athens. in the present case, therefore, we are not to consider a man's usefulness, but the strength of his abilities; especially as the number of painters and statuaries, who have excelled in their profession, is very small; whereas, there can never be any want of joiners and mechanic labourers. but proceed, my atticus, with caesar; and oblige us with the remainder of his character."--"we see then," said he, "from what has just been mentioned, that a pure and correct style is the groundwork, and the very basis and foundation, upon which an orator must build his other accomplishments: though, it is true, that those who had hitherto possessed it, derived it more from early habit, than from any principles of art. it is needless to refer you to the instances of laelius and scipio; for a purity of language, as well as of manners, was the characteristic of the age they lived in. it could not, indeed, be applied to every one; for their two cotemporaries, caecilius and pacuvius, spoke very incorrectly: but yet people in general, who had not resided out of the city, nor been corrupted by any domestic barbarisms, spoke the roman language with purity. time, however, as well at rome as in greece, soon altered matters for the worse: for this city, (as had formerly been the case at athens) was resorted to by a crowd of adventurers from different parts, who spoke very corruptly; which shews the necessity of reforming our language, and reducing it to a certain standard, which shall not be liable to vary like the capricious laws of custom. though we were then very young, we can easily remember t. flaminius, who was joint-consul with q. metellus: he was supposed to speak his native language with correctness, but was a man of no literature. as to catulus, he was far indeed from being destitute of learning, as you have already observed: but his reputed purity of diction was chiefly owing to the sweetness of his voice, and the delicacy of his accent. cotta, who, by his broad pronunciation, threw off all resemblance of the elegant tone of the greeks, and affected a harsh and rustic utterance, quite opposite to that of catulus, acquired the same reputation of correctness by pursuing a wild and unfrequented path. but sisenna, who had the ambition to think of reforming our phraseology, could not be lashed out of his whimsical and new-fangled turns of expression, by all the raillery of c. rufius."--"what do you refer to?" said brutus; "and who was the caius rufius you are speaking of?"--"he was a noted prosecutor," replied he, "some years ago. when this man had supported an indictment against one christilius, sisenna, who was counsel for the defendant, told him, that several parts of his accusation were absolutely _spitatical_. [footnote: in the original _sputatilica_, worthy to be spit upon. it appears, from the connection, to have been a very unclassical word, whimsically derived by the author of it from _sputa_, spittle.] _my lords_, cried rufius to the judges, _i shall be cruelly over-reached, unless you give me your assistance. his charge overpowers my comprehension; and i am afraid he has some unfair design upon me. what, in the name of heaven, can be intend by_ spitatical? _i know the meaning of_ spit, _or_ spittle; _but this horrid_ atical, _at the end of it, absolutely puzzles me._ the whole bench laughed very heartily at the singular oddity of the expression: my old friend, however, was still of opinion, that to speak correctly, was to speak differently from other people. but caesar, who was guided by the principles of art, has corrected the imperfections of a vicious custom, by adopting the rules and improvements of a good one, as he found them occasionally displayed in the course of polite conversation. accordingly, to the purest elegance of expression, (which is equally necessary to every well-bred citizen, as to an orator) he has added all the various ornaments of elocution; so that he seems to exhibit the finest painting in the most advantageous point of view. as he has such extraordinary merit even in the common run of his language, i must confess that there is no person i know of, to whom he should yield the preference. besides, his manner of speaking, both as to his voice and gesture, is splendid and noble, without the least appearance of artifice or affectation: and there is a dignity in his very presence, which bespeaks a great and elevated mind."--"indeed," said brutus, "his orations please me highly; for i have had the satisfaction to read several of them. he has likewise wrote some commentaries, or short memoirs, of his own transactions;"--"and such," said i, "as merit the highest approbation: for they are plain, correct, and graceful, and divested of all the ornaments of language, so as to appear (if i may be allowed the expression) in a kind of undress. but while he pretended only to furnish the loose materials, for such as might be inclined to compose a regular history, he may, perhaps, have gratified the vanity of a few literary _frisseurs_: but he has certainly prevented all sensible men from attempting any improvement on his plan. for in history, nothing is more pleasing than a correct and elegant brevity of expression. with your leave, however, it is high time to return to those orators who have quitted the stage of life. c. sicinius then, who was a grandson of the censor q. pompey, by one of his daughters, died after his advancement to the quaestorship. he was a speaker of some merit and reputation, which he derived from the system of hermagoras; who, though he furnished but little assistance for acquiring an ornamental style, gave many useful precepts to expedite and improve the invention of an orator. for in this system we have a collection of fixed and determinate rules for public speaking; which are delivered indeed without any shew or parade, (and, i might have added, in a trivial and homely form) but yet are so plain and methodical, that it is almost impossible to mistake the road. by keeping close to these, and always digesting his subject before he ventured to speak upon it, (to which we may add, that he had a tolerable fluency of expression) he so far succeeded, without any other assistance, as to be ranked among the pleaders of the day.--as to c. visellius varro, who was my cousin, and a cotemporary of sicinius, he was a man of great learning. he died while he was a member of the court of inquests, into which he had been admitted after the expiration of his aedileship. the public, i confess, had not the same opinion of his abilities that i have; for he never passed as a man of sterling eloquence among the people. his style was excessively quick and rapid, and consequently obscure; for, in fact, it was embarrassed and blinded by the celerity of its course: and yet, after all, you will scarcely find a man who had a better choice of words, or a richer vein of sentiment. he had besides a complete fund of polite literature, and a thorough knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, which he learned from his father aculeo. to proceed in our account of the dead, the next that presents himself is l. torquatus, whom you will not so readily pronounce a connoisseur in the art of speaking (though he was by no means destitute of elocution) as, what is called by the greeks, _a political adept_. he had a plentiful stock of learning, not indeed of the common sort, but of a more abstruse and curious nature: he had likewise an admirable memory, and a very sensible and elegant turn of expression; all which qualities derived an additional grace from the dignity of his deportment, and the integrity of his manners. i was also highly pleased with the style of his cotemporary triarius, which expressed to perfection, the character of a worthy old gentleman, who had been thoroughly polished by the refinements of literature.--what a venerable severity was there in his look! what forcible solemnity in his language! and how thoughtful and deliberate every word he spoke!"--at the mention of torquatus and triarius, for each of whom he had the most affectionate veneration,--"it fills my heart with anguish," said brutus, "(to omit a thousand other circumstances) when i reflect, as i cannot help doing, on your mentioning the names of these worthy men, that your long-respected authority was insufficient to procure an accommodation of our differences. the republic would not otherwise have been deprived of these, and many other excellent citizens."--"not a word more," said i, on this melancholy subject, which can only aggravate our sorrow: for as the remembrance of what is already past is painful enough, the prospect of what is yet to come is still more cutting. let us, therefore, drop our unavailing complaints, and (agreeably to our plan) confine our attention to the forensic merits of our deceased friends. among those, then, who lost their lives in this unhappy war, was m. bibulus, who, though not a professed orator, was a very accurate writer, and a solid and experienced advocate: and appius claudius, your father-in-law, and my colleague and intimate acquaintance, who was not only a hard student, and a man of learning, but a practised orator, a skilful augurist and civilian, and a thorough adept in the roman history.--as to l. domitius, he was totally unacquainted with any rules of art; but he spoke his native language with purity, and had a great freedom of address. we had likewise the two lentuli, men of consular dignity; one of whom, (i mean publius) the avenger of my wrongs, and the author of my restoration, derived all his powers and accomplishments from the assistance of art, and not from the bounty of nature: but he had such a great and noble disposition, that he claimed all the honours of the most illustrious citizens, and supported them with the utmost dignity of character.--the other (l. lentulus) was an animated speaker, for it would be saying too much, perhaps, to call him an orator-- but, unhappily, he had an utter aversion to the trouble of thinking. his voice was sonorous; and his language, though not absolutely harsh and forbidding, was warm and rigorous, and carried in it a kind of terror. in a judicial trial, you would probably have wished for a more agreeable and a keener advocate: but in a debate on matters of government, you would have thought his abilities sufficient.--even titus postumius had such powers of utterance, as were not to be despised: but in political matters, he spoke with the same unbridled ardour he fought with: in short, he was much too warm; though it must be owned he possessed an extensive knowledge of the laws and constitution of his country."--"upon my word," cried atticus, "if the persons you have mentioned were still living, i should be apt to imagine, that you was endeavouring to solicit their favour. for you introduce every body who had the courage to stand up and speak his mind: so that i almost begin to wonder how m. servilius has escaped your notice."--"i am, indeed, very sensible," replied i, "that there have been many who never spoke in public, that were much better qualified for the talk, than those orators i have taken the pains to enumerate: [footnote: this was probably intended as an indirect compliment to atticus.] but i have, at least, answered one purpose by it, which is to shew you, that in this populous city, we have not had very many who had the resolution to speak at all; and that even among these, there have been few who were entitled to our applause. i cannot, therefore, neglect to take some notice of those worthy knights, and my intimate friends, very lately deceased, p. comminius spoletinus, against whom i pleaded in defence of c. cornelius, and who was a methodical, a spirited, and a ready speaker; and t. accius, of pisaurum, to whom i replied in behalf of a. cluentius, and who was an accurate, and a tolerably copious advocate: he was also well instructed in the precepts of hermagoras, which, though of little service to embellish and enrich our elocution, furnish a variety of arguments, which, like the weapons of the light infantry, may be readily managed, and are adapted to every subject of debate. i must add, that i never knew a man of greater industry and application. as to c. piso, my son-in-law, it is scarcely possible to mention any one who was blessed with a finer capacity. he was constantly employed either in public speaking, and private declamatory exercises, or, at least, in writing and thinking: and, consequently, he made such a rapid progress, that he rather seemed to fly than to run. he had an elegant choice of expression, and the structure of his periods was perfectly neat and harmonious; he had an astonishing variety and strength of argument, and a lively and agreeable turn of sentiment: and his gesture was naturally so graceful, that it appeared to have been formed (which it really was not) by the nicest rules of art. i am rather fearful, indeed, that i should be thought to have been prompted by my affection for him to have given him a greater character than he deserved: but this is so far from being the case, that i might justly have ascribed to him many qualities of a different and more valuable nature: for in continence, social piety, and every other kind of virtue, there was scarcely any of his cotemporaries who was worthy to be compared with him.--m. caelius too must not pass unnoticed, notwithstanding the unhappy change, either of his fortune or disposition, which marked the latter part of his life. as long as he was directed by my influence, he behaved himself so well as a tribune of the people, that no man supported the interests of the senate, and of all the good and virtuous, in opposition to the factious and unruly madness of a set of abandoned citizens, with more firmness than _he_ did: a part in which he was enabled to exert himself to great advantage, by the force and dignity of his language, and his lively humour, and genteel address. he spoke several harangues in a very sensible style, and three spirited invectives, which originated from our political disputes: and his defensive speeches, though not equal to the former, were yet tolerably good, and had a degree of merit which was far from being contemptible. after he had been advanced to the aedileship, by the hearty approbation of all the better sort of citizens, as he had lost my company (for i was then abroad in cilicia) he likewise lost himself; and entirely sunk his credit, by imitating the conduct of those very men, whom he had before so successfully opposed.--but m. calidius has a more particular claim to our notice for the singularity of his character; which cannot so properly be said to have entitled him to a place among our other orators, as to distinguish him from the whole fraternity; for in him we beheld the most uncommon, and the most delicate sentiments, arrayed in the softest and finest language imaginable. nothing could be so easy as the turn and compass of his periods; nothing so ductile; nothing more pliable and obsequious to his will, so that he had a greater command of it than any orator whatever. in short, the flow of his language was so pure and limpid, that nothing could be clearer; and so free, that it was never clogged or obstructed. every word was exactly in the place where it should be, and disposed (as lucilius expresses it) with as much nicety as in a curious piece of mosaic-work. we may add, that he had not a single expression which was either harsh, unnatural, abject, or far-fetched; and yet he was so far from confining himself to the plain and ordinary mode of speaking, that he abounded greatly in the metaphor,--but such metaphors as did not appear to usurp a post that belonged to another, but only to occupy their own. these delicacies were displayed not in a loose and disfluent style; but in such a one as was strictly _numerous_, without _either_ appearing to be so, or running on with a dull uniformity of sound. he was likewise master of the various ornaments of language and sentiment which the greeks call _figures_, whereby he enlivened and embellished his style as with so many forensic decorations. we may add that he readily discovered, upon all occasions, what was the real point of debate, and where the stress of the argument lay; and that his method of ranging his ideas was extremely artful, his action genteel, and his whole manner very engaging and very sensible. in short, if to speak agreeably is the chief merit of an orator, you will find no one who was better qualified than calidius. but as we have observed a little before, that it is the business of an orator to instruct, to please, and _to move the passions_; he was, indeed, perfectly master of the two first; for no one could better elucidate his subject, or charm the attention of his audience. but as to the third qualification,--the moving and alarming the passions,--which is of much greater efficacy than the two former, he was wholly destitute of it. he had no force,--no exertion;--either by his own choice, and from an opinion that those who had a loftier turn of expression, and a more warm and spirited action, were little betther than madmen; or because it was contrary to his natural temper, and habitual practice; or, lastly, because it was beyond the strength of his abilities. if, indeed, it is a useless quality, his want of it was a real excellence: but if otherwise, it was certainly a defect. i particularly remember, that when he prosecuted q. gallius for an attempt to poison him, and pretended that he had the plainest proofs of it, and could produce many letters, witnesses, informations, and other evidences to put the truth of his charge beyond a doubt, interspersing many sensible and ingenious remarks on the nature of the crime;--i remember, i say, that when it came to my turn to reply to him, after urging every argument which the case itself suggested, i insisted upon it as a material circumstance in favour of my client, that the prosecutor, while he charged him with a design against his life, and assured us that he had the most indubitable proofs of it then in his hands, related his story with as much ease, and as much calmness, and indifference, as if nothing had happened."--"would it have been possible," said i, (addressing myself to calidius) "that you should speak with this air of unconcern, unless the charge was purely an invention of your own? and, above all, that you, whose eloquence has often vindicated the wrongs of other people with so much spirit, should speak so coolly of a crime which threatened your life? where was that expression of resentment which is so natural to the injured? where that ardour, that eagerness, which extorts the most pathetic language even from men of the dullest capacities? there was no visible disorder in your mind, no emotion in your looks and gesture, no smiting of the thigh or the forehead, nor even a single stamp of the foot. you was, therefore, so far from interesting our passions in your favour, that we could scarcely keep our eyes open, while you was relating the dangers you had so narrowly escaped. thus we employed the natural defect, or if you please, the sensible calmness of an excellent orator, as an argument to invalidate his charge."--"but is it possible to doubt," cried brutus, "whether this was a sensible quality, or a defect? for as the greatest merit of an orator is to be able to inflame the passions, and give them such a biass as shall best answer his purpose; he who is destitute of this must certainly be deficient in the most capital part of his profession."--"i am of the same opinion," said i; "but let us now proceed to him (hortensius) who is the only remaining orator worth noticing; after which, as you may seem to insist upon it, i shall say something of myself. i must first, however, do justice to the memory of two promising youths, who, if they had lived to a riper age, would have acquired the highest reputation for their eloquence."--"you mean, i suppose," said brutus, "c. curio, and c. licinius calvus."--"the very same," replied i. "one of them, besides his plausible manner, had such an easy and voluble flow of expression, and such an inexhaustible variety, and sometimes accuracy of sentiment, that he was one of the most ready and ornamental speakers of his time. though he had received but little instruction from the professed masters of the art, nature had furnished him with an admirable capacity of the practice of it. i never, indeed, discovered in him any great degree of application; but he was certainly very ambitious to distinguish himself; and if he had continued to listen to my advice, as he had begun to do, he would have preferred the acquisition of real honour to that of untimely grandeur."-- "what do you mean," said brutus? "or in what manner are these two objects to be distinguished?"--"i distinguish them thus," replied i: "as honour is the reward of virtue, conferred upon a man by the choice and affection of his fellow-citizens, he who obtains it by their free votes and suffrages is to be considered, in my opinion, as an honourable member of the community. but he who acquires his power and authority by taking advantage of every unhappy incident, and without the consent of his fellow-citizens, as curio aimed to do, acquires only the name of honour, without the substance. whereas, if he had hearkened to me, he would have risen to the highest dignity, in an honourable manner, and with the hearty approbation of all men, by a gradual advancement to public offices, as his father and many other eminent citizens had done before. i often gave the same advice to p. crassus, the son of marcus, who courted my friendship in the early part of his life; and recommended it to him very warmly, to consider _that_ as the truest path to honour which had been already marked out to him by the example of his ancestors. for he had been extremely well educated, and was perfectly versed in every branch of polite literature: he had likewise a penetrating genius, and an elegant variety of expression; and appeared grave and sententious without arrogance, and modest and diffident without dejection. but like many other young men he was carried away by the tide of ambition; and after serving a short time with reputation as a volunteer, nothing could satisfy him but to try his fortune as a general,--an employment which was confined by the wisdom of our ancestors to men who had arrived at a certain age, and who, even then, were obliged to submit their pretensions to the uncertain issue of a public decision. thus, by exposing himself to a fatal catastrophe, while he was endeavouring to rival the fame of cyrus and alexander, who lived to finish their desperate career, he lost all resemblance of l. crassus, and his other worthy progenitors. "but let us return to calvus whom we have just mentioned,--an orator who had received more literary improvements than curio, and had a more accurate and delicate manner of speaking, which he conducted with great taste and elegance; but, (by being too minute and nice a critic upon himself,) while he was labouring to correct and refine his language, he suffered all the force and spirit of it to evaporate. in short, it was so exquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but it was little noticed by the common people in a crowded forum, which is the proper theatre of eloquence."--"his aim," said brutus, "was to be admired as an _attic_ orator: and to this we must attribute that accurate exility of style, which he constantly affected."--"this, indeed, was his professed character," replied i: "but he was deceived himself, and led others into the same mistake. it is true, whoever supposes that to speak in the _attic_ taste, is to avoid every awkward, every harsh, every vicious expression, has, in this sense, an undoubted right to refuse his approbation to every thing which is not strictly _attic_. for he must naturally detest whatever is insipid, disgusting, or invernacular; while he considers a correctness and propriety of language as the religion, and good-manners of an orator:--and every one who pretends to speak in public should adopt the same opinion. but if he bestows the name of atticism on a half-starved, a dry, and a niggardly turn of expression, provided it is neat, correct, and genteel, i cannot say, indeed, that he bestows it improperly; as the attic orators, however, had many qualities of a more important nature, i would advise him to be careful that he does not overlook their different kinds and degrees of merit, and their great extent and variety of character. the attic speakers, he will tell me, are the models upon which he wishes to form his eloquence. but which of them does he mean to fix upon? for they are not all of the same cast. who, for instance, could be more unlike each other than demosthenes and lysias? or than demosthenes and hyperides? or who more different from either of them, than aeschines? which of them, then, do you propose to imitate? if only _one_, this will be a tacit implication, that none of the rest were true masters of atticism: if _all_, how can you possibly succeed, when their characters are so opposite? let me further ask you, whether demetrius phalereus spoke in the attic style? in my opinion, his orations have the very smell of athens. but he is certainly more florid than either hyperides or lysias; partly from the natural turn of his genius, and partly by choice. there were likewise two others, at the time we are speaking of, whose characters were equally dissimilar; and yet both of them were truly _attic_. the first (charisius) was the author of a number of speeches, which he composed for his friends, professedly in imitation of lysias:--and the other (demochares, the nephew of demosthenes) wrote several orations, and a regular history of what was transacted in athens under his own observation; not so much, indeed, in the style of an historian, as of an orator. hegesias took the former for his model, and had so vain a conceit of his own taste for atticism, that he considered his predecessors, who were really masters of it, as mere rustics in comparison of himself. but what can be more insipid, more frivolous, or more puerile, than that very concinnity of expression which he actually acquired?"--"_but still we wish to resemble the attic speakers_."--"do so, by all means. but were not those, then, true attic speakers, we have just been mentioning?"--"_nobody denies it; and these are the men we imitate._"--"but how? when they are so very different, not only from each other, but from all the rest of their contemporaries?"--"_true; but thucydides is our leading pattern_."--"this too i can allow, if you design to compose histories, instead of pleading causes. for thucydides was both an exact, and a stately historian: but he never intended to write models for conducting a judicial process. i will even go so far as to add, that i have often commended the speeches which he has inserted into his history in great numbers; though i must frankly own, that i neither _could_ imitate them, if i _would,_ nor indeed _would,_ if i _could;_ like a man who would neither choose his wine so new as to have been turned off in the preceding vintage, nor so excessively old as to date its age from the consulship of opimius or anicius."--"_the latter_, you'll say, _bears the highest price_." "very probable; but when it has too much age, it has lost that delicious flavour which pleases the palate, and, in my opinion, is scarcely tolerable."--"_would you choose, then, when you have a mind to regale yourself, to apply to a fresh, unripened cask?_" "by no means; but still there is a certain age, when good wine arrives at its utmost perfection. in the same manner, i would recommend neither a raw, unmellowed style, which, (if i may so express myself) has been newly drawn off from the vat; nor the rough, and antiquated language of the grave and manly thucydides. for even _he_, if he had lived a few years later, would have acquired a much softer and mellower turn of expression."--"_let us, then, imitate demosthenes_."--"good gods! to what else do i direct all my endeavours, and my wishes! but it is, perhaps, my misfortune not to succeed. these _atticisers_, however, acquire with ease the paltry character they aim at; not once recollecting that it is not only recorded in history, but must have been the natural consequence of his superior fame, that when demosthenes was to speak in public, all greece flocked in crowds to hear him. but when our _attic_ gentry venture to speak, they are presently deserted not only by the little throng around them who have no interest in the dispute, (which alone is a mortifying proof of their insignificance) but even by their associates and fellow-advocates. if to speak, therefore, in a dry and lifeless manner, is the true criterion of atticism, they are heartily welcome to enjoy the credit of it: but if they wish to put their abilities to the trial, let them attend the comitia, or a judicial process of real importance. the open forum demands a fuller, and more elevated tone: and _he_ is the orator for me, who is so universally admired that when he is to plead an interesting cause, all the benches are filled beforehand, the tribunal crowded, the clerks and notaries busy in adjusting their seats, the populace thronging about the rostra, and the judge brisk, and vigilant;--_he_, who has such a commanding air, that when he rises up to speak, the whole audience is hushed into a profound silence, which is soon interrupted by their repeated plaudits, and acclamations, or by those successive bursts of laughter, or violent transports of passion, which he knows how to excite at his pleasure; so that even a distant observer, though unacquainted with the subject he is speaking upon, can easily discover that his hearers are pleased with him, and that a _roscius_ is performing his part on the stage. whoever has the happiness to be thus followed and applauded is, beyond dispute, an _attic_ speaker: for such was pericles,--such was hyperides, and aeschines,--and such, in the most eminent degree, was the great demosthenes! if indeed, these connoisseurs, who have so much dislike to every thing bold and ornamental, only mean to say that an accurate, a judicious, and a neat, and compact, but unembellished style, is really an _attic_ one, they are not mistaken. for in an art of such wonderful extent and variety as that of speaking, even this subtile and confined character may claim a place: so that the conclusion will be, that it is very possible to speak in the _attic_ taste, without deserving the name of an orator; but that all in general who are truly eloquent, are likewise _attic_ speakers.--it is time, however, to return to hortensius."--" indeed, i think so," cried brutus: "though i must acknowledge that this long digression of yours has entertained me very agreeably." "but i made some remarks," said atticus, "which i had several times a mind to mention; only i was loath to interrupt you. as your discourse, however, seems to be drawing towards an end, i think i may venture to out with them."--"by all means," replied i.--"i readily grant, then," said he, "that there is something very humourous and elegant in that continued _irony_, which socrates employs to so much advantage in the dialogues of plato, xenophon, and aeschines. for when a dispute commences on the nature of wisdom, he professes, with a great deal of humour and ingenuity, to have no pretensions to it himself; while, with a kind of concealed raillery, he ascribes the highest degree of it to those who had the arrogance to lay an open claim to it. thus, in plato, he extols protagoras, hippias, prodicus, gorgias, and several others, to the skies: but represents himself as a mere ignorant. this in _him_ was peculiarly becoming; nor can i agree with epicurus, who thinks it censurable. but in a professed history, (for such, in fact, is the account you have been giving us of the roman orators) i shall leave you to judge, whether an application of the _irony_ is not equally reprehensible, as it would be in giving a judicial evidence."--"pray, what are you driving at," said i,-- "for i cannot comprehend you."--"i mean," replied he, "in the first place, that the commendations which you have bestowed upon some of our orators, have a tendency to mislead the opinion of those who are unacquainted with their true characters. there were likewise several parts of your account, at which i could scarcely forbear laughing: as, for instance, when you compared old cato to lysias. he was, indeed, a great, and a very extraordinary man. nobody, i believe, will say to the contrary. but shall we call him an orator? shall we pronounce him the rival of lysias, who was the most finished character of the kind? if we mean to jest, this comparison of your's would form a pretty _irony_: but if we are talking in real earnest, we should pay the same scrupulous regard to truth, as if we were giving evidence upon oath. as a citizen, a senator, a general, and, in short, a man who was distinguished by his prudence, his activity, and every other virtue, your favourite cato has my highest approbation. i can likewise applaud his speeches, considering the time he lived in. they exhibit the out-lines of a great genius; but such, however, as are evidently rude and imperfect. in the same manner, when you represented his _antiquities_ as replete with all the graces of oratory, and compared cato with philistus and thucydides, did you really imagine, that you could persuade me and brutus to believe you? or would you seriously degrade those, whom none of the greeks themselves have been able to equal, into a comparison with a stiff country, gentleman, who scarcely suspected that there was any such thing in being, as a copious and ornamental style? you have likewise said much in commendation of galba;--if as the best speaker of his age, i can so far agree with you, for such was the character he bore:--but if you meant to recommend him as an _orator_, produce his orations (for they are still extant) and then tell me honestly, whether you would wish your friend brutus here to speak as _he_? lepidus too was the author of several speeches, which have received your approbation; in which i can partly join with you, if you consider them only as specimens of our ancient eloquence. the same might be said of africanus and laelius, than whose language (you tell us) nothing in the world can be sweeter: nay, you have mentioned it with a kind of veneration, and endeavoured to dazzle our judgment by the great character they bore, and the uncommon elegance of their manners. divest it of these adventitious graces, and this sweet language of theirs will appear so homely, as to be scarcely worth noticing. carbo too was mentioned as one of our capital orators; and for this only reason,--that in speaking, as in all other professions, whatever is the best of its kind, for the time being, how deficient soever in reality, is always admired and applauded. what i have said of carbo, is equally true of the gracchi: though, in some particulars, the character you have given them was no more than they deserved. but to say nothing of the rest of your orators, let us proceed to antonius and crassus, your two paragons of eloquence, whom i have heard myself, and who were certainly very able speakers. to the extraordinary commendation you have bestowed upon them, i can readily give my assent; but not, however, in such an unlimited manner as to persuade myself that you have received as much improvement from the speech in support of the servilian law, as lysippus said he had done by studying the famous [footnote: _doryphorus_. a spear- man.] statue of polycletus. what you have said on _this_ occasion i consider as an absolute _irony:_ but i shall not inform you why i think so, lest you should imagine i design to flatter you. i shall therefore pass over the many fine encomiums you have bestowed upon _these_; and what you have said of cotta and sulpicius, and but very lately of your pupil caelius. i acknowledge, however, that we may call them orators: but as to the nature and extent of their merit, let your own judgment decide. it is scarcely worth observing, that you have had the additional good-nature to crowd so many daubers into your list, that there are some, i believe, who will be ready to wish they had died long ago, that you might have had an opportunity to insert _their_ names among the rest."--"you have opened a wide field of enquiry," said i, "and started a subject which deserves a separate discussion; but we must defer it to a more convenient time. for, to settle it, a great variety of authors must be examined, and especially _cato_: which could not fail to convince you, that nothing was wanting to complete his pieces, but those rich and glowing colours which had not then been invented. as to the above oration of crassus, he himself, perhaps, could have written better, if he had been willing to take the trouble; but nobody else, i believe, could have mended it. you have no reason, therefore, to think i spoke _ironically_, when i mentioned it as the guide and _tutoress_ of my eloquence: for though you seem to have a higher opinion of my capacity, in its present state, you must remember that, in our youth, we could find nothing better to imitate among the romans. and as to my admitting so _many_ into my list of orators, i only did it (as i have already observed) to shew how few have succeeded in a profession, in which all were desirous to excel. i therefore insist upon it that you do not consider _me_ in the present case, as an _ironist_; though we are informed by c. fannius, in his history, that _africanus_ was a very excellent one."--"as you please about _that_," cried atticus: "though, by the bye, i did not imagine it would have been any disgrace to you, to be what africanus and socrates have been before you."--"we may settle _this_ another time," interrupted brutus: "but will you be so obliging," said he, (addressing himself to _me_) "as to give us a critical analysis of some of the old speeches you have mentioned?"--"very willingly," replied i; "but it must be at cuma, or tusculum, when opportunity offers: for we are near neighbours, you know, in both places. at present, let us return to _hortensius_, from whom we have digressed a second time." "hortensius, then, who began to speak in public when he was very young, was soon employed even in causes of the greatest moment: and though he first appeared in the time of cotta and sulpicius, (who were only ten years older) and when crassus and antonius, and afterwards philip and julius, were in the height of their reputation, he was thought worthy to be compared with either of them in point of eloquence. he had such an excellent memory as i never knew in any person; so that what he had composed in private, he was able to repeat, without notes, in the very same words he had made use of at first. he employed this natural advantage with so much readiness, that he not only recollected whatever he had written or premeditated himself, but remembered every thing that had been said by his opponents, without the help of a prompter. he was likewise inflamed with such a passionate fondness for the profession, that i never saw any one, who took more pains to improve himself; for he would not suffer a day to elapse, without either speaking in the forum, or composing something at home; and very often he did both in the same day. he had, besides, a turn of expression which was very far from being low and unelevated; and possessed two other accomplishments, in which no one could equal him,--an uncommon clearness and accuracy in stating the points he was to speak to; and a neat and easy manner of collecting the substance of what had been said by his antagonist, and by himself. he had likewise an elegant choice of words, an agreeable flow in his periods, and a copious elocution, which he was partly indebted for to a fine natural capacity, and partly acquired by the most laborious rhetorical exercises. in short, he had a most retentive view of his subject, and always divided and parcelled it out with the greatest exactness; and he very seldom overlooked any thing which the case could suggest, that was proper either to support his _own_ allegations, or to refute those of his opponent. lastly, he had a sweet and sonorous voice; and his gesture had rather more art in it, and was more exactly managed, than is requisite to an orator. "while _he_ was in the height of his glory, crassus died, cotta was banished, our public trials were intermitted by the marsic war, and i myself made my first appearance in the forum. hortensius joined the army, and served the first campaign as a volunteer, and the second as a military tribune: sulpicius was made a lieutenant general; and antonius was absent on a similar account. the only trial we had, was that upon the varian law; the rest, as i have just observed, having been intermitted by the war. we had scarcely any body left at the bar but l. memmius, and q. pompeius, who spoke mostly on their own affairs; and, though far from being orators of the first distinction, were yet tolerable ones, (if we may credit philippus, who was himself a man of some eloquence) and in supporting an evidence, displayed all the poignancy of a prosecutor, with a moderate freedom of elocution. the rest, who were esteemed our capital speakers, were then in the magistracy, and i had the benefit of hearing their harangues almost every day. c. curio was chosen a tribune of the people; though he left off speaking after being once deserted by his whole audience. to him i may add q. metellus celer, who, though certainly no orator, was far from being destitute of utterance: but q. varius, c. carbo, and cn. pomponius, were men of real elocution, and might almost be said to have lived upon the rostra. c. julius too, who was then a curule aedile, was daily employed in making speeches to the people, which were composed with great neatness and accuracy. but while i attended the forum with this eager curiosity, my first disappointment was the banishment of cotta: after which i continued to hear the rest with the same assiduity as before; and though i daily spent the remainder of my time in reading, writing, and private declamation, i cannot say that i much relished my confinement to these preparatory exercises. the next year q. varius was condemned, and banished, by his own law: and i, that i might acquire a competent knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, then attached myself to q. scaevola, the son of publius, who, though he did not choose to undertake the charge of a pupil, yet by freely giving his advice to those who consulted him, he answered every purpose of instruction to such as took the trouble to apply to him. in the succeeding year, in which sylla and pompey were consuls, as sulpicius, who was elected a tribune of the people, had occasion to speak in public almost every day, i had an opportunity to acquaint myself thoroughly with his manner of speaking. at this time philo, a philosopher of the first name _in the academy_, with many of the principal athenians, having deserted their native home, and fled to rome, from the fury of mithridates, i immediately became his scholar, and was exceedingly taken with his philosophy; and, besides the, pleasure i received from the great variety and sublimity of his matter, i was still more inclined to confine, my attention to that study; because there was reason to apprehend that our laws and judicial proceedings would be wholly overturned by the continuance of the public disorders. in the same year sulpicius lost his life; and q. catulus, m. antonius, and c. julius, three orators, who were partly cotemporary with each other, were most inhumanly put to death. then also i attended the lectures of molo the rhodian, who was newly come to rome, and was both an excellent pleader, and an able teacher of the art. i have mentioned these particulars, which, perhaps, may appear foreign to our purpose, that _you_, my brutus, (for atticus is already acquainted with them) may be able to mark my progress, and observe how closely i trod upon the heels of hortensius. "the three following years the city was free from the tumult of arms; but either by the death, the voluntary retirement, or the flight of our ablest orators (for even m. crassus, and the two lentuli, who were then in the bloom of youth, had all left us) hortensius, of course, was the first speaker in the forum. antistius too was daily rising into reputation,-- piso pleaded pretty often,--pomponius not so frequently,--carbo very seldom,--and philippus only once or twice. in the mean while i pursued my studies of every kind, day and night, with unremitting application. i lodged and boarded at my own house [where he lately died] diodotus the stoic; whom i employed as my preceptor in various other parts of learning, but particularly in logic, which may be considered as a close and contracted species of eloquence; and without which, you yourself have declared it impossible to acquire that full and perfect eloquence, which they suppose to be an open and dilated kind of logic. yet with all my attention to diodotus, and the various arts he was master of, i never suffered even a single day to escape me, without some exercise of the oratorial kind. i constantly declaimed in private with m. piso, q. pompeius, or some other of my acquaintance; pretty often in latin, but much oftener in greek; because the greek furnishes a greater variety of ornaments, and an opportunity of imitating and introducing them into the latin; and because the greek masters, who were far the best, could not correct and improve us, unless we declaimed in that language. this time was distinguished by a violent struggle to restore the liberty of the republic:--the barbarous slaughter of the three orators, scaevola, carbo, and antistius;--the return of cotta, curio, crassus, pompey, and the lentuli;--the re-establishment of the laws and courts of judicature;--and the intire restoration of the commonwealth: but we lost pomponius, censorinus, and murena, from the roll of orators. "i now began, for the _first_ time, to undertake the management of causes, both private and public; not, as most did, with a view to learn my profession, but to make a trial of the abilities which i had taken so much pains to acquire. i had then a second opportunity of attending the instructions of molo; who came to rome, while sylla was dictator, to sollicit the payment of what was due to his countrymen, for their services in the mithridatic war. my defence of sext. roscius, which was the first cause i pleaded, met with such a favourable reception, that, from that moment, i was looked upon as an advocate of the first class, and equal to the greatest and most important causes: and after this i pleaded many others, which i pre-composed with all the care and accuracy i was master of. "but as you seem desirous not so much to be acquainted with any incidental marks of my character, or the first sallies of my youth, as to know me thoroughly, i shall mention some particulars, which otherwise might have seemed unnecessary. at this time my body was exceedingly weak and emaciated; my neck long, and slender; a shape and habit, which i thought to be liable to great risk of life, if engaged in any violent fatigue, or labour of the lungs. and it gave the greater alarm to those who had a regard for me, that i used to speak without any remission or variation, with the utmost stretch of my voice, and a total agitation of my body. when my friends, therefore, and physicians, advised me to meddle no more with forensic causes, i resolved to run any hazard, rather than quit the hopes of glory, which i had proposed to myself from pleading: but when i considered, that by managing my voice, and changing my way of speaking, i might both avoid all future danger of that kind, and speak with greater ease, i took a resolution of travelling into asia, merely for an opportunity to correct my manner of speaking. so that after i had been two years at the bar, and acquired some reputation in the forum, i left rome. when i came to athens, i spent six months with antiochus, the principal and most judicious philosopher of _the old academy_; and under this able master, i renewed those philosophical studies which i had laboriously cultivated and improved from my earliest youth. at the same time, however, i continued my _rhetorical exercises_ under demetrius the syrian, an experienced and reputable master of the art of speaking. "after leaving athens, i traversed every part of asia, where i was voluntarily attended by the principal orators of the country with whom i renewed my rhetorical exercises. the chief of them was menippus of stratonica, the most eloquent of all the asiatics: and if to be neither tedious nor impertinent is the characteristic of an attic orator, he may be justly ranked in that class. dionysius also of magnesia, aeschilus of cnidos, and xenocles of adramyttus, who were esteemed the first rhetoricians of asia, were continually with me. not contented with these, i went to rhodes, and applied myself again to molo, whom i had heard before at rome; and who was both an experienced pleader, and a fine writer, and particularly judicious in remarking the faults of his scholars, as well as in his method of teaching and improving them. his principal trouble with me, was to restrain the luxuriancy of a juvenile imagination, always ready to overflow its banks, within its due and proper channel. thus, after an excursion of two years, i returned to italy, not only much improved, but almost changed into a new man. the vehemence of my voice and action was considerably abated; the excessive ardour of my language was corrected; my lungs were strengthened; and my whole constitution confirmed and settled. "two orators then reigned in the forum; (i mean cotta and hortensius) whose glory fired my emulation. cotta's way of speaking was calm and easy, and distinguished by the flowing elegance and propriety of his language. the other was splendid, warm, and animated; not such as you, my brutus, have seen him when he had shed the blossom of his eloquence, but far more lively and pathetic both in his style and action. as hortensius, therefore, was nearer to me in age, and his manner more agreeable to the natural ardour of my temper, i considered him as the proper object of my competition. for i observed that when they were both engaged in the same cause, (as for instance, when they defended m. canuleius, and cn. dolabella, a man of consular dignity) though cotta was generally employed to open the defence, the most important parts of it were left to the management of hortensius. for a crowded audience, and a clamorous forum, require an orator who is lively, animated, full of action, and able to exert his voice to the highest pitch. the first year, therefore, after my return from asia, i undertook several capital causes; and in the interim i put up as a candidate for the quaestorship, cotta for the consulate, and hortensius for the aedileship. after i was chosen quaestor, i passed a year in sicily, the province assigned to me by lot: cotta went as consul into gaul: and hortensius, whose new office required his presence at rome, was left of course the undisputed sovereign of the forum. in the succeeding year, when i returned from sicily, my oratorial talents, such as they were, displayed themselves in their full perfection and maturity. "i have been saying too much, perhaps, concerning myself: but my design in it was not to make a parade of my eloquence and ability, which i have no temptation to do, but only to specify the pains and labour which i have taken to improve it. after spending the five succeeding years in pleading a variety of causes, and with the ablest advocates of the time, i was declared an aedile, and undertook the patronage of the sicilians against hortensius, who was then one of the consuls elect. but as the subject of our conversation not only requires an historical detail of orators, but such preceptive remarks as may be necessary to elucidate their characters; it will not be improper to make some observations of this kind upon that of hortensius. after his appointment to the consulship (very probably, because he saw none of consular dignity who were able to rival him, and despised the competition of others of inferior rank) he began to remit that intense application which he had hitherto persevered in from his childhood; and having settled himself in very affluent circumstances, he chose to live for the future what he thought an _easy_ life, but which, in truth, was rather an indolent one. in the three succeeding years, the beauty of his colouring was so much impaired, as to be very perceptible to a skilful connoisseur, though not to a common observer. after that, he grew every day more unlike himself than before, not only in other parts of eloquence, but by a gradual decay of the former celerity and elegant texture of his language. i, at the same time, spared no pains to improve and enlarge my talents, such as they were, by every exercise that was proper for the purpose, but particularly by that of writing. not to mention several other advantages i derived from it, i shall only observe, that about this time, and but a very few years after my aedileship, i was declared the first praetor, by the unanimous suffrages of my fellow- citizens. for, by my diligence and assiduity as a pleader, and my accurate way of speaking, which was rather superior to the ordinary style of the bar, the novelty of my eloquence had engaged the attention, and secured the good wishes of the public. but i will say nothing of myself: i will confine my discourse to our other speakers, among whom there is not one who has gained more than a common acquaintance with those parts of literature, which feed the springs of eloquence:--not one who has been thoroughly nurtured at the breast of philosophy, which is the mother of every excellence either in deed or speech:--not one who has acquired an accurate knowledge of the civil law, which is so necessary for the management even of private causes, and to direct the judgment of an orator:--not one who is a complete master of the roman history, which would enable us, on many occasions, to appeal to the venerable evidence of the dead:--not one who can entangle his opponent in such a neat and humourous manner, as to relax the severity of the judges into a smile or an open laugh:--not one who knows how to dilate and expand his subject, by reducing it from the limited considerations of time, and person, to some general and indefinite topic;--not one who knows how to enliven it by an agreeable digression: not one who can rouse the indignation of the judge, or extort from him the tear of compassion;--or who can influence and bend his soul (which is confessedly the capital perfection of an orator) in such a manner as shall best suit his purpose. "when hortensius, therefore, the once eloquent and admired hortensius, had almost vanished from the forum, my appointment to the consulship, which happened about six years after his own promotion to that office, revived his dying emulation; for he was unwilling that after i had equalled him in rank and dignity, i should become his superior in any other respect. but in the twelve succeeding years, by a mutual deference to each other's abilities, we united our efforts at the bar in the most amicable manner: and my consulship, which at first had given a short alarm to his jealousy, afterward cemented our friendship, by the generous candor with which he applauded my conduct. but our emulous efforts were exerted in the most conspicuous manner, just before the commencement of that unhappy period, when eloquence herself was confounded and terrified by the din of arms into a sudden and a total silence: for after pompey had proposed and carried a law, which allowed even the party accused but three hours to make his defence, i appeared, (though comparatively as a mere _noviciate_ by this new regulation) in a number of causes which, in fact, were become perfectly the same, or very nearly so; most of which, my brutus, you was present to hear, as having been my partner and fellow-advocate in many of them, though you pleaded several by yourself; and hortensius, though he died a short time afterwards, bore his share in these limited efforts. he began to plead about ten years before the time of your birth; and in his sixty-fourth year, but a very few days before his death, he was engaged with you in the defence of appius, your father-in-law. as to our respective talents, the orations we have published will enable posterity to form a proper judgment of them. but if we mean to inquire, why hortensius was more admired for his eloquence in the younger part of his life, than in his latter years, we shall find it owing to the following causes. the first was, that an _asiatic_ style is more allowable in a young man than in an old one. of this there are two different kinds. "the former is sententious and sprightly, and abounds in those turns of sentiment which are not so much distinguished by their weight and solidity as by their neatness and elegance; of this cast was timaeus the historian, and the two orators so much talked of in our younger days, hierocles the alabandean, and his brother menecles, but particularly the latter; both whose orations may be reckoned master-pieces of the kind. the other sort is not so remarkable for the plenty and richness of its sentiments, as for its rapid volubility of expression, which at present is the ruling taste in asia; but, besides it's uncommon fluency, it is recommended by a choice of words which are peculiarly delicate and ornamental:--of this kind were aeschylus the cnidian, and my cotemporary aeschines the milesian; for they had an admirable command of language, with very little elegance of sentiment. these showy kinds of eloquence are agreeable enough in young people; but they are entirely destitute of that gravity and composure which befits a riper age. as hortensius therefore excelled in both, he was heard with applause in the earlier part of his life. for he had all that fertility and graceful variety of sentiment which distinguished the character of menecles: but, as in menecles, so in him, there were many turns of sentiment which were more delicate and entertaining than really useful, or indeed sometimes convenient. his language also was brilliant and rapid, and yet perfectly neat and accurate; but by no means agreeable to men of riper years. i have often seen it received by philippus with the utmost derision, and, upon some occasions, with a contemptuous indignation: but the younger part of the audience admired it, and the populace were highly pleased with it. in his youth, therefore, he met the warmest approbation of the public, and maintained his post with ease as the first orator in the forum. for the style he chose to speak in, though it has little weight, or authority, appeared very suitable to his age: and as it discovered in him the most visible marks of genius and application, and was recommended by the numerous cadence of his periods, he was heard with universal applause. but when the honours he afterwards rose to, and the dignity of his years required something more serious and composed, he still continued to appear in the same character, though it no longer became him: and as he had, for some considerable time, intermitted those exercises, and relaxed that laborious attention which had once distinguished him, though his former neatness of expression, and luxuriancy of sentiment still remained, they were stripped of those brilliant ornaments they had been used to wear. for this reason, perhaps, my brutus, he appeared less pleasing to you than he would have done, if you had been old enough to hear him, when he was fired with emulation and flourished in the full bloom of his eloquence. "i am perfectly sensible," said brutus, "of the justice of your remarks; and yet i have always looked upon hortensius as a great orator, but especially when he pleaded for messala, in the time of your absence."--"i have often heard of it," replied i, "and his oration, which was afterwards published, they say, in the very same words in which he delivered it, is no way inferior to the character you give it. upon the whole, then, his reputation flourished from the time of crassus and scaevola (reckoning from the consulship of the former) to the consulship of paullus and marcellus: and i held out in the same career of glory from the dictatorship of sylla, to the period i have last, mentioned. thus the eloquence of hortensius was extinguished by his _own_ death, and mine by that of the commonwealth."--"ominate more favourably, i beg of you," cried brutus.--"as favourably as you please," said i, "and that not so much upon my own account, as your's. but _his_ death was truly fortunate, who did not live to behold the miseries, which he had long foreseen. for we often lamented, between ourselves, the misfortunes which hung over the state, when we discovered the seeds of a civil war in the insatiable ambition of a few private citizens, and saw every hope of an accommodation excluded by the rashness and precipitancy of our public counsels. but the felicity which always marked his life, seems to have exempted him, by a seasonable death, from the calamities that followed. but, as after the decease of hortensius, we seem to have been left, my brutus, as the sole guardians of an _orphan_ eloquence, let us cherish her, within our own walls at least, with a generous fidelity: let us discourage the addresses of her worthless, and impertinent suitors; let us preserve her pure and unblemished in all her virgin charms, and secure her, to the utmost of our ability, from the lawless violence of every armed ruffian. i must own, however, though i am heartily grieved that i entered so late upon the road of life, as to be overtaken by a gloomy night of public distress, before i had finished my journey; that i am not a little relieved by the tender consolation which you administered to me in your very agreeable letters;-- in which you tell me i ought to recollect my courage, since my past transactions are such as will speak for me when i am silent, and survive my death,--and such as, if the gods permit, will bear an ample testimony to the prudence and integrity of my public counsels, by the final restoration of the republic:--or, if otherwise, by burying me in the ruins of my country. but when i look upon _you_, my brutus, it fills me with anguish to reflect that, in the vigour of your youth, and when you was making the most rapid progress in the road to fame, your career was suddenly stopped by the fatal overthrow of the commonwealth. this unhappy circumstance has stung me to the heart; and not _me_ only; but my worthy friend here, who has the same affection for you, and the same esteem for your merit which i have. we have the warmest wishes for your happiness, and heartily pray that you may reap the rewards of your excellent virtues, and live to find a republic in which you will be able, not only to revive, but even to add to the fame of your illustrious ancestors. for the forum was your birth-right, your native theatre of action; and you was the only person that entered it, who had not only formed his elocution by a rigorous course of private practice, but enriched his oratory with the furniture of philosophical science, and thus united the highest virtue to the most consummate eloquence. your situation, therefore, wounds us with the double anxiety, that _you_ are deprived of the _republic_, and the republic of _you_. but still continue, my brutus, (notwithstanding the career of your genius has been checked by the rude shock of our public distresses) continue to pursue your favourite studies, and endeavour (what you have almost, or rather intirely effected already) to distinguish yourself from the promiscuous crowd of pleaders with which i have loaded the little history i have been giving you. for it would ill befit you, (richly furnished as you are with those liberal arts, which, unable to acquire at home, you imported from that celebrated city which has always been revered as the seat of learning) to pass after all as an ordinary pleader. for to what purposes have you studied under pammenes, the most eloquent man in greece; or what advantage have you derived from the discipline of _the old_ academy, and it's hereditary master aristus (my guest, and very intimate acquaintance) if you still rank yourself in the common class of orators? have we not seen that a whole age could scarcely furnish two speakers who really excelled in their profession? among a crowd of cotemporaries, galba, for instance, was the only orator of distinction: for old cato (we are informed) was obliged to yield to his superior merit, as were likewise his two juniors lepidus, and carbo. but, in a public harangue, the style of his successors the gracchi was far more easy and lively: and yet, even in their time, the roman eloquence had not reached its perfection. afterwards came antonius, and crassus; and then cotta, sulpicius, hortensius, and--but i say no more: i can only add, that if i had been so fortunate, &c, &c,"--[_caetera defunt._] the orator, by marcus tullius cicero; addressed to marcus brutus; and now first translated from the original latin. "song charms the sense, but eloquence the soul." milton. the orator. which, my brutus, would be the most difficult talk,--to decline answering a request which you have so often repeated, or to gratify it to your satisfaction,--i have long been at a loss to determine. i should be extremely sorry to deny any thing to a friend for whom i have the warmest esteem, and who, i am sensible, has an equal affection for me;-- especially, as he has only desired me to undertake a subject which may justly claim my attention. but to delineate a character, which it would be very difficult, i will not say to _acquire_, but even to _comprehend_ in its full extent, i thought was too bold an undertaking for him who reveres the censure of the wife and learned. for considering the great diversity of manner among the ablest speakers, how exceedingly difficult must it be to determine which is best, and give a finished model of eloquence? this, however, in compliance with your repeated solicitations, i shall now attempt;--not so much from any hopes of succeeding, as from a strong inclination to make the trial. for i had rather, by yielding to your wishes, give you room to complain of my insufficiency; than, by a peremptory denial, tempt you to question my friendship. you desire to know, then, (and you have often repeated your request) what kind of eloquence i most approve, and can look upon to be so highly finished, as to require no farther improvement. but should i be able to answer your expectations, and display, in his full perfection, the orator you enquire after; i am afraid i shall retard the industry of many, who, enfeebled by despair, will no longer attempt what they think themselves incapable of attaining. it is but reasonable, however, that all those who covet what is excellent, and which cannot be acquired without the greatest application, should exert their utmost. but if any one is deficient in capacity, and destitute of that admirable force of genius which nature bestows upon her favourites, or has been denied the advantages of a liberal education, _let him make the progress he is able_. for while we are driving to overtake the foremost, it is no disgrace to be found among the _second_ class, or even the _third_. thus, for instance, among the poets, we respect the merit not only of a _homer_ (that i may confine myself to the greeks) or of _archilochus, sophocles_, or _pindar_, but of many others who occupied the second, or even a lower place. in philosophy also the diffusive majesty of plato has not deterred _aristotle_ from entering the list; nor has _aristotle_ himself, with all his wonderful knowledge and fertility of thought, disheartened the endeavours of others. nay, men of an elevated genius have not only disdained to be intimidated from the pursuit of literary fame;--but the very artists and mechanics have never relinquished their profession, because they were unable to equal the beauty of that _iasylus_ which we have seen at rhodes, or of the celebrated _venus_ in the island of _coos_:--nor has the noble image of olympian _jove_, or the famous statue of the man at arms, deterred others from making trial of their abilities, and exerting their skill to the utmost. accordingly, such a large number of them has appeared, and each has performed so well in his own way, that we cannot help being pleased with their productions, notwithstanding our admiration at the nobler efforts of the great masters of the chissel. but among the orators, i mean those of greece, it is astonishing how much one of them has surpassed the rest:--and yet, though there was a _demosthenes_, there were even _then_ many other orators of considerable merit;--and such there were before he made his appearance, nor have they been wanting since. there is, therefore, no reason why those who have devoted themselves to the study of eloquence, should suffer their hopes to languish, or their industry to flag. for, in the first place, even that which is most excellent is not to be despaired of;--and, in all worthy attempts, that which is next to what is best is great and noble. but in sketching out the character of a compleat orator, it is possible i may exhibit such a one as hath never _yet_ existed. for i am not to point out the _speaker_, but to delineate the _eloquence_ than which nothing can be more perfect of the kind:--an eloquence which hath blazed forth through a whole harangue but seldom, and, it may be, never; but only here and there like a transient gleam, though in some orators more frequently, and in others, perhaps, more sparingly. my opinion, then, is,--that there is no human production of any kind, so compleatly beautiful, than which there is not a _something_ still more beautiful, from which the other is copied like a portrait from real life, and which can be discerned neither by our eyes nor ears, nor any of our bodily senses, but is visible only to thought and imagination. though the statues, therefore, of phidias, and the other images above-mentioned, are all so wonderfully charming, that nothing can be found which is more excellent of the kind; we may still, however, _suppose_ a something which is more exquisite, and more compleat. for it must not be thought that the ingenious artist, when he was sketching out the form of a jupiter, or a minerva, borrowed the likeness from any particular object;--but a certain admirable semblance of beauty was present to his mind, which he viewed and dwelt upon, and by which his skill and his hand were guided. as, therefore, in mere bodily shape and figure there is a kind of perfection, to whose ideal appearance every production which falls under the notice of the eye is referred by imitation; so the semblance of what is perfect in oratory may become visible to the mind, and the ear may labour to catch a likeness. these primary forms of thing are by plato (the father of science and good language) called _ideas_; and he tells us they have neither beginning nor end, but are co-eval with reason and intelligence; while every thing besides has a derived, and a transitory existence, and passes away and decays, so as to cease in a short time to be the thing it was. whatever, therefore, may be discussed by reason and method, should be constantly reduced to the primary form or semblance of it's respective genus. i am sensible that this introduction, as being derived not from the principles of eloquence, but from the deepest recesses of philosophy, will excite the censure, or at least the wonder of many, who will think it both unfashionable and intricate. for they will either be at a loss to discover it's connection with my subject, (though they will soon be convinced by what follows, that, if it appears to be far-fetched, it is not so without reason;)--or they will blame me, perhaps, for deserting the beaten track, and striking out into a new one. but i am satisfied that i often appear to advance novelties, when i offer sentiments which are, indeed, of a much earlier date, but happen to be generally unknown: and i frankly acknowledge that i came forth an orator, (if indeed i am one, or whatever else i may be deemed) not from the school of the rhetoricians, but from the spacious walks of the academy. for these are the theatres of diversified and extensive arguments which were first impressed with the foot-steps of plato; and his dissertations, with those of other philosophers, will be found of the greatest utility to an orator, both for his exercise and improvement; because all the fertility, and, as it were, the materials of eloquence, are to be derived from thence;--but not, however, sufficiently prepared for the business of the forum, which, as themselves have frequently boasted, they abandoned to the _rustic muses_ of the vulgar! thus the eloquence of the forum, despised and rejected by the philosophers, was bereaved of her greatest advantages:--but, nevertheless, being arrayed in all the brilliance of language and sentiment, she made a figure among the populace, nor feared the censure of the judicious few. by this means, the learned became destitute of a popular eloquence, and the orators of polite learning. we may, therefore, consider it as a capital maxim, (the truth of which will be more easily understood in the sequel) that the eloquent speaker we are enquiring after, cannot be formed without the assistance of philosophy. i do not mean that this alone is sufficient; but only (for it is sometimes necessary to compare great things to small) that it will contribute to improve him in the same manner as the _palaestra_ [footnote: the _palaestra_ was a place set apart for public exercises, such as wrestling, running, fencing, &c. the frequent performance of which contributed much to a graceful carriage of the body, which is a necessary accomplishment in a good actor.] does an actor; because without philosophy, no man can speak fully and copiously upon a variety of important subjects which come under the notice of an orator. accordingly, in the _phaedrus_ of plato, it is observed by socrates that the great _pericles_ excelled all the speakers of his time, because he had been a hearer of _anaxagoras_ the naturalist, from whom he supposes that he not only borrowed many excellent and sublime ideas, but a certain richness and fertility of language, and (what in eloquence is of the utmost consequence) the various arts either of soothing or alarming each particular passion. the same might be said of _demosthenes_, whose letters will satisfy us, how assiduously he attended the lectures of plato. for without the instruction of philosophy, we can neither discover what is the _genus_ or the _species_ to which any thing belongs, nor explain the nature of it by a just definition, or an accurate analysis of its parts;-- nor can we distinguish between what is true and false, or foresee the consequences, point out the inconsistencies, and dissolve the ambiguities which may lie in the case before us. but as to natural philosophy (the knowledge of which will supply us with the richest treasures of elocution;)--and as to life, and it's various duties, and the great principles of morality,--what is it possible either to express or understand aright, without a large acquaintance with these? to such various and important accomplishments we must add the innumerable ornaments of language, which, at the time above mentioned, were the only weapons which the masters of rhetoric could furnish. this is the reason why that genuine, and perfect eloquence we are speaking of, has been yet attained by no one; because the art of _reasoning_ has been supposed to be one thing, and that of _speaking_ another; and we have had recourse to different instructors for the knowledge of things and words. antonius, [footnote: a celebrated orator, and grandfather to m. antonius the triumvir.] therefore, to whom our ancestors adjudged the palm of eloquence, and who had much natural penetration and sagacity, has observed in the only book he published, "_that he had seen many good speakers, but not a single orator_." the full and perfect semblance of eloquence had so thoroughly possessed his mind, and was so completely visible there, though no where exemplified in practice, that this consummate genius, (for such, indeed, he was) observing many defects in both himself and others, could discover no one who merited the name of _eloquent_. but if he considered neither himself, nor lucius crassus, as a genuine orator, he must have formed in his mind a sublime idea of eloquence, under which, because there was nothing wanting to compleat it, he could not comprehend those speakers who were any ways deficient. let us then, my brutus, (if we are able) trace out the orator whom antonius never saw, and who, it may be, has never yet existed; for though we have not the skill to copy his likeness in real practice, (a talk which, in the opinion of the person above- mentioned, would be almost too arduous for one of the gods,) we may be able, perhaps, to give some account of what he _ought_ to be. good speaking, then, may be divided into three characters, in each of which there are some who have made an eminent figure: but to be equally excellent in all (which is what we require) has been the happiness of few. the _lofty_ and _majestic_ speaker, who distinguishes himself by the energy of his sentiments, and the dignity of his expression, is impetuous,--diversified,--copious,--and weighty,--and abundantly qualified to alarm and sway the passions;--which some effect by a harsh, and a rough, gloomy way of speaking, without any harmony or measure; and others, by a smooth, a regular, and a well-proportioned style. on the other hand, the _simple_ and _easy_ speaker is remarkably dexterous and keen, and aiming at nothing but our information, makes every thing he discourses upon, rather clear and open than great and striking, and polishes it with the utmost neatness and accuracy. but some of this kind of speakers, who are distinguished by their peculiar artificie, are designedly unpolished, and appear rude and unskilful, that they may have the better opportunity of deceiving us:--while others, with the same poverty of style, are far more elegant and agreeable,--that is, they are pleasant and facetious, and sometimes even florid, with here and there an easy ornament. but there is likewise a _middle_ kind of oratory, between the two above- mentioned, which neither has the keenness of the latter, nor hurls the thunder of the former; but is a mixture of both, without excelling in either, though at the same time it has something of each, or (perhaps, more properly) is equally destitute of the true merit of both. this species of eloquence flows along in a uniform course, having nothing to recommend it, but it's peculiar smoothness and equability; though at the same time, it intermingles a number of decorations, like the tufts of flowers in a garland, and embellishes a discourse from beginning to end with the moderate and less striking ornaments of language and sentiment. those who have attained to any degree of perfection in either of the above characters, have been distinguished as eminent orators: but the question is whether any of them have compassed what we are seeking after, and succeeded equally in all. for there have been several who could speak nervously and pompously, and yet, upon occasion, could express themselves with the greates address, and simplicity. i wish i could refer to such an orator, or at least to one who nearly resembles him, among the romans; for it would certainly have been more to our credit to be able to refer to proper examples of our own, and not be necessitated to have recourse to the greeks. but though in another treatis of mine, which bears the name of _brutus_, [footnote: a very excellent treatise in the form of a dialogue. it contains a critical and very instructive account of all the noted orators of _greece_ and _rome_ and might be called, with great propriety, _the history of eloquence_. though it is perhaps the most entertaining of all cicero's performances, the public have never been obliged before with a translation of it into english; which, i hope, will sufficiently plead my excuse for preforming to undertake it.] i have said much in favour of the romans, partly to excite their emulation, and, in some measure, from a partial fondness for my country; yet i must always remember to give the preference to _demosthenes_, who alone has adapted his genius to that perfect species of eloquence of which i can readily form an idea, but which i have never yet seen exemplified in practice. than _him_, there has never hitherto existed a more nervous, and at the same time, a more subtle speaker, or one more cool and temperate. i must, therefore, caution those whose ignorant discourse is become so common, and who wish to pass for _attic_ speakers, or at least to express themselves in the _attic_ taste, --i must caution them to take _him_ for their pattern, than whom it is impossible that athens herself should be more completely attic: and, as to genuine atticism, that them learn what it means, and measure the force of eloquence, not by their own weakness and incapacity, but by his wonderful energy and strength. for, at present, a person bestows his commendation upon just so much as he thinks himself capable of imitating. i therefore flatter myself that it will not be foreign to my purpose, to instruct those who have a laudable emulation, but are not thoroughly settled in their judgment, wherein the merit of an attic orator consists. the taste of the audience, then, has always governed and directed the eloquence of the speaker: for all who wish to be applauded, consult the character, and the inclinations of those who hear them, and carefully form and accommodate themselves to their particular humours and dispositions. thus in caria, phrygia, and mysia, because the inhabitants have no relish for true elegance and politeness, the orators have adopted (as most agreeable to the ears of their audience) a luxuriant, and, if i may so express myself, a corpulent style; which their neighbours the rhodians, who are only parted from them by a narrow straight, have never approved, and much less the greeks; but the athenians have entirely banished it; for their taste has always been so just and accurate that they could not listen to any thing but what was perfectly correct and elegant. an orator, therefore, to compliment their delicacy, was forced to be always upon his guard against a faulty or a distasteful expression. accordingly, _he_, whom we have just mentioned as surpassing the rest, has been careful in his oration for ctesiphon, (which is the best he ever composed) to set out very cooly and modestly: when he proceeds to argue the point of law, he grows more poignant and pressing; and as he advances in his defence, he takes still greater liberties; till, at last, having warmed the passions of his judges, he exults at his pleasure through the reamining part of his discourse. but even in _him_, thus carefully weighing and poising his every word _aeschines_ [footnote: _aeschines_ was a cotemporary, and a professed rival of demosthenes. he carried his animosity so far as to commence a litigious suit against him, at a time when the reputation of the latter was at the lowest ebb. but being overpowered by the eloquence of demosthenes, he was condemned to perpetual banishment.] could find several expressions to turn into ridicule:--for giving a loose to his raillery, he calls them harsh, and detestable, and too shocking to be endured; and styling the author of them a very _monster_, he tauntingly asks him whether such expressions could be considered as _words_ or not rather as absolute _frights_ and _prodigies_. so that to aeschines not even _demosthenes_ himself was perfectly _attic_; for it is an easy matter to catch a _glowing_ expression, (if i may be allowed to call it so) and expose it to ridicule when the fire of attention is extinguished. demosthenes, therefore, when he endeavours to excuse himself, condescends to jest, and denies that the fortune of greece was in the least affected by the singularity of a particular expression, or by his moving his hand either this way or that. with what patience, then, would a mysian or a phrygian have been heard at athens, when even demosthenes himself was reproached as a nuisance? but should the former have begun his whining sing-song, after the manner of the asiatics, who would have endured it? or rather, who would not have ordered him to be instantly torn from the rostrum? those, therefore, who can accommodate themselves to the nice and critical ears of an athenian audience, are the only persons who should pretend to atticism. but though atticism may be divided into several kinds, these mimic athenians suspect but one. they imagine that to discourse plainly, and without any ornament, provided it be done correctly, and clearly, is the only genuine atticism. in confining it to this alone, they are certainly mistaken; though when they tell us that this is really attic, they are so far in the right. for if the only true atticism is what they suppose to be, not even _pericles_ was an attic speaker, though he was universally allowed to bear away the palm of eloquence; nor, if he had wholly attached himself to this plain and simple kind of language, would he ever have been said by the poet aristophanes _to thunder and lighten, and throw all greece into a ferment_. be it allowed, then, that lysias, that graceful and most polite of speakers, was truly attic: for who can deny it? but let it also be remembered that lysias claims the merit of atticism, not so much for his simplicity and want of ornament, as because he has nothing which is either faulty or impertinent. but to speak floridly, nervously, and copiously, this also is true atticism:--otherwise, neither aeschines nor even demosthenes himself were attic speakers. there are others who affect to be called _thucydideans_,--a strange and novel race of triflers! for those who attach themselves to lysias, have a real pleader for their pattern;--not indeed a stately, and striking pleader, but yet a dextrous and very elegant one, who might appear in the forum with reputation. thucydides, on the contrary, is a mere historian, who ('tis true) describes wars, and battles with great dignity and precision; but he can supply us with nothing which is proper for the forum. for his very speeches have so many obscure and intricate periods, that they are scarcely intelligible; which in a public discourse is the greatest fault of which an orator can be guilty. but who, when the use of corn has been discovered, would be so mad as to feed upon acorns? or could the athenians improve their diet, and bodily food, and be incapable of cultivating their language? or, lastly, which of the greek orators has copied the style of thucydides? [footnote: demosthenes indeed took the pains to transcribe the history of thucydides several times. but he did this, no so much to copy the _form_ as the energy of his language.] "true," they reply, "but thucydides was universally admired." and so, indeed, he was; but only as a sensible, an exact, and a grave historian;--not for his address in public debates, but for his excellence in describing wars and battles. accordingly, he was never mentioned as an orator; nor would his name have been known to posterity, if he had not composed his history, notwithstanding the dignity of his birth, and the honourable share he held in the government. but none of these pretenders have copied his energy; and yet when they have uttered a few mutilated and broken periods (which they might easily have done without a master to imitate) we must rever them, truly, as so many genuine _thucydideses_. i have likewise met with a few who were professed imitators of xenophon; whose language, indeed, is sweeter than honey, but totally unqualified to withstand the clamours of the forum. let us return then to the orator we are seeking after, and furnish him with those powers of elocution, which antonius could not discover in any one: an arduous task, my brutus, and full of difficulty:--yet nothing, i believe, is impossible to him whose breast is fired with the generous flame of friendship! but i affectionately admire (and have always admired) your genius, your inclinations, and your manners. nay, i am daily more inflamed and ravished, not only with a desire (which, i assure you, is a violent one) to renew our friendly intercourses, our social repasts, and your improving conversation, but by the wonderful fame of your incredible virtues, which, though different in kind, are readily united by your superior wisdom and good-sense. for what is so remote from severity of manners as gentleness and affability? and yet who more venerable than yourself, or who more agreeable? what can be more difficult than to decide a number of suits, so as to be equally esteemed and beloved by the parties on both sides? you, however, possess the admirable talent of sending away perfectly easy and contented even those against whom your are forced to give judgment: thus bringing it to bear that, while you do nothing from a partial favour to any man, whatever you do is favourably received. hence it happens, that the only country upon earth, which is not involved in the present confusion, is the province of gaul; where you are now enjoying yourself in a happy tranquillity, while you are universally respected at home, and live in the hearts of the flower and strength of your fellow- citizens. it is equally amazing, though you are always engaged in the most important offices of government, that your studies are never intermitted; and that you are constantly either composing something of your own, or finding employment for me! accordingly i began this essay, at your request, as soon as i had finished my _cato_; which last also i should never have attempted (especially at a time when the enemies of virtue were so numerous) if i had not considered it as a crime to disobey my friend, when he only urged me to revive the memory of a man whom i always loved and honoured in his life-time. but i have now ventured upon a task which you have frequently pressed upon me, and i as often refused: for, if possible, i would share the fault between us, that if i should prove unequal to the subject, you may have the blame of loading me with a burden which is beyond my strength, and i the censure of presuming to undertake it:--though after all, the single merit of gratifying such a friend as brutus, will sufficiently atone for any defects i may fall into. but in every accomplishment which may become the object of pursuit, it is excessively difficult to delineate the form (or, as the greeks call it, the _character_ [footnote: [greek: charachtaer].]) of what is _best_; because some suppose it to consist in one thing, and some in another. thus, for instance, "i am for _ennius_," says one; "because he confines himself to the style of conversation:"--"and i," says another, "give the preference to _pacuvius_, because his verses are embellished and well- wrought; whereas ennius is rather too "negligent." in the same manner we may suppose a third to be an admirer of attius; for, as among the greeks, so it happens with us, "_different men have different opinions_;"--nor is it easy to determine which is best. thus also in painting, some are pleased with a rough, a wild, and a dark and cloudy style; while others prefer that which is clear, and lively, and well covered with light. how then shall we strike out a general _rule_ or _model_, when there are several manners, and each of them has a certain perfection of its own? but this difficulty has not deterred me from the undertaking; nor have i altered my opinion that in all things there is a _something_ which comprehends the highest excellence of the kind, and which, though not generally discernible, is sufficiently conspicuous to him, who is skilled in the subject. "but as there are several kinds of eloquence which differ considerably from each other, and therefore cannot be reduced to one common form;--for this reason, as to mere laudatory orations, essays, histories, and such suasory performances as the panegyric of isocrates, and the speeches of many others who were called _sophists_;--and, in short, as to every thing which is unconnected with the forum, and the whole of that species of discourse which the greeks call the _demonstrative_ [footnote: the _demonstrative_ species of eloquence is that which was solely employed either in _praising_ or _dispraising_. besides this, there are two others, viz. the _deliberative_, and the _judicial_; the former was employed in political debates, where it's whole business was either to _persuade_ or _dissuade_; and the latter, in judicial suits and controversies, where the speaker was either to _accuse_ or _defend_. but, on many occasions, they were all three intermingled in the same discourse.];--the form, or leading character of these i shall pass over; though i am far from considering it as a mere trifle, or a subject of no consequence; on the contrary, we may regard it as the nurse and tutoress of the orator we are now delineating. for _here_, a fluency of expression is confessedly nourished and cultivated; and the easy construction, and harmonious cadence of our language is more openly attended to. _here_, likewise, we both allow and recommend a studious elegance of diction, and a continued flow of melodious and well-turned periods;--and _here_, we may labour visibly, and without concealing our art, to contrast word to word, and to compare similar, and oppose contrary circumstances, and make several sentences (or parts of a sentence) conclude alike, and terminate with the same cadence; --ornaments, which in real pleadings, are to be used more sparingly, and with less appearance of art. isocrates, therefore, confesses in his _panathenaicus_, that these were beauties which he industriously pursued; for he composed it not for victory in a suit at law (where such a confession must have greatly injured his cause) but merely to gratify the ear. "it is recorded that the first persons who practised this species of composition [footnote: the _composition_ here mentioned consisted of three parts, the _first_ regarded the structure; that is, the _connection_ of our words, and required that the last syllable of every preceding, and the first of every succeeding word should be so aptly united as to produce an agreeable sound; which was effected by avoiding a collision of vowels or of inamicable consonants. it likewise required that those words should be constantly made choice of, whose separate sounds were most harmonious and most agreeable to the sense. the _second_ part consisted in the use of particular forms of expression, such as contrasts and antithesises, which have an appearance of order and regularity in their very texture. the _third_ and last regarded that species of harmony which results not so much from the sound, as from the time and quantity of the several syllables in a sentence. this was called _number_, and sometimes _rhyme_; and was in fact a kind of _prosaic metre_, which was carefully attended to by the ancients in every part of a sentence, but more particularly at the beginning and end of it. in this part they usually included the _period_, or the rules for determining the length of their sentences. i thought it necessary to give this short account of their composition, because our author very frequently alludes to it, before he proceeds to explain it at large.] were _thrasymachus_ the chalcedonian, and _gorgias_ the leontine; and that these were followed by _theodorus_ the byzantine, and a number of others, whom socrates, in the phaedrus of plato, calls [greek: logodaidalos] _speech-wrights_; many of whole discourses are sufficiently neat and entertaining; but, being the first attempts of the kind, were too minute and puerile, and had too poetical an air, and too much colouring. on this account, the merit of _herodotus_, and _thucydides_ is the more conspicuous: for though they lived at the time we are speaking of, they carefully avoided those studied decorations, or rather futilities. the former rolls along like a deep, still river without any rocks or shoals to interrupt it's course; and the other describes wars and battles, as if he was founding a charge on the trumpet; so that history (to use the words of _theophrastus_) caught the first alarm from these, and began to express herself with greater dignity and spirit. "after these came _socrates_, whom i have always recommended as the most accomplished writer we have in the way i am speaking of; though sometimes, my brutus, you have objected to it with a great deal of pleasantry and erudition. but when you are better informed for what it is i recommend him, you will then think of him perhaps as favourably as i do. thrasymachus and gorgias (who are said to have been the first who cultivated the art of prosaic harmony) appeared to him to be too minutely exact; and thucydides, he thought, was as much too loose and rugged, and not sufficiently smooth, and full-mouthed; and from hence he took the hint to give a scope to his sentences by a more copious and unconfined flow of language, and to fill up their breaks and intervals with the softer and more agreeable numbers. by teaching this to the most celebrated speakers, and composers of the age, his house came at last to be honoured as the _school of eloquence_. wherefore as i bore the censure of others with indifference, when i had the good fortune to be applauded by cato; thus isocrates, with the approbation of plato, may slight the judgment of inferior critics. for in the last page of the phaedrus, we find _socrates_ thus expressing himself;--'now, indeed, my dear phaedrus,' said he, 'isocrates is but a youth: but i will discover to you what i think of him.'--'and what is that?' replied the other.--'he appears to me,' said the philosopher, 'to have too elevated a genius to be placed on a level with the arid speeches of lysias. besides, he has a stronger turn for virtue; so that i shall not wonder, as he advances in years, if in the species of eloquence to which he now applies himself, he should exceed all, who have hitherto pursued it, like so many infants. or, if this should not content him, i shall not be astonished to behold him with a godlike ardour pursuing higher and more important studies; for i plainly see that he has a natural bent to philosophy!'" thus socrates presaged of him when he was but a youth. but plato recorded this eulogium when he was older; and he recorded it, though he was one of his equals and cotemporaries, and a professed enemy to the whole tribe of rhetoricians! _him_ he admires, and _him_ alone! so that such who despise isocrates, must suffer me to err with socrates and plato. the manner of speaking, then, which is observed in the _demonstrative_ or ornamental species of eloquence, and which i have before remarked, was peculiar to the sophists, is sweet, harmonious, and flowing, full of pointed sentiments, and arrayed in all the brilliance of language. but it is much fitter for the parade than the field; and being, therefore, consigned to the palaestra, and the schools, has been long banished from the forum. as eloquence, however, after she had been fed and nourished with this, acquires a fresher complexion, and a firmer constitution; it would not be amiss, i thought, to trace our orator from his very _cradle_. but these things are only for shew and amusement: whereas it is our business to take the field in earnest, and prepare for action. as there are three particulars, then, to be attended to by an orator,--viz. _what_ he is to say, in _what order_, and _how_; we shall consider what is most excellent in each; but after a different manner from what is followed in delivering a system of the art. for we are not to furnish a set of precepts (this not being the province we have undertaken) but to exhibit a portrait of eloquence in her full perfection: neither is it our business to explain the methods by which we may acquire it, but only to shew what opinion we ought to form of it. the two first articles are to be lightly touched over; for they have not so much a remarkable as a necessary share in forming the character of a compleat orator, and are likewise common to _his_ with many other professions;--and though, to invent, and judge with accuracy, what is proper to be said, are important accomplishments, and the same as the soul is to the body, yet they rather belong to _prudence_ than to eloquence. in what cause, however, can _prudence_ be idle? our orator, therefore, who is to be all perfection, should be thoroughly acquainted with the sources of argument and proof. for as every thing which can become the subject of debate, must rest upon one or another of these particulars, viz.--whether a fact has been really committed, or what name it ought to bear in law, or whether it is agreeable or contrary to justice; and as the reality of a fact must be determined by force of evidence, the true name of it by it's definition, and the quality of it by the received notions of right and wrong;--an orator (not an ordinary one, but the finished speaker we are describing) will always turn off the controversy, as much as possible, from particular persons and times, (for we may argue more at liberty concerning general topics than about circumstances) in such a manner that what is proved to be true _universally_, may necessarily appear to be so in all _subordinate_ cases. the point in debate being thus abstracted from particular persons and times, and brought to rest upon general principles, is called a _thesis_. in _this_ the famous aristotle carefully practised his scholars;--not to argue with the formal precision of philosophers, but to canvass a point handsomely and readily on both sides, and with all the copiousness so much admired in the rhetoricians: and for this purpose he delivered a set of _common places_ (for so he calls them) which were to serve as so many marks or characters for the discovery of arguments, and from which a discourse might be aptly framed on either side of a question. our orator then, (for i am not speaking of a mere school-declaimer, or a noisy ranter in the forum, but of a well-accomplished and a finished speaker)--our orator, as there is such a copious variety of common-places, will examine them all, and employ those which suit his purpose in as general and indefinite a manner as his cause will permit, and carefully trace and investigate them to their inmost sources. but he will use the plenty before him with discretion, and weighing every thing with the utmost accuracy, select what is best: for the stress of an argument does not always, and in every cause, depend upon similar topics. he will, therefore, exercise his judgment; and not only discover what _may_ be said, but thoroughly examine the _force_ of it. for nothing is more fertile than the powers of genius, and especially those which have been blessed with the cultivation of science. but as a rich and fruitful soil not only produces corn in abundance, but also weeds to choak and smother it; so from the common-places we are speaking of, many arguments will arise, which are either trivial, or foreign to our purpose, or entirely useless. an orator, therefore, should carefully examine each, that he may be able to select with propriety. otherwise, how can he enlarge upon those which are most pertinent, and dwell upon such as more particularly affect his cause? or how can he soften a harsh circumstance, or conceal, and (if possible) entirely suppress what would be deemed unanswerable, or steal off the attention of the hearer to a different topic? or how alledge another argument in reply, which shall be still more plausible than that of his antagonist? but after he has thus _invented_ what is proper to be said, with what accuracy must he _methodize_ it? for this is the second of the three articles above-mentioned. accordingly, he will give the portal of his harangue a graceful appearance, and make the entrance to his cause as neat and splendid as the importance of it will permit. when he has thus made himself master of the hearer's good wishes at the first onset, he will endeavour to invalidate what makes against him; and having, by this means, cleared his way, his strongest arguments will appear some of them in the front, and others at the close of his discourse; and as to those of more trifling consequence, he will occasionally introduce [footnote: in the original it is _inculcabit_, he will _tread them in_, (like the sand or loose dust in a new pavement) to support and strengthen the whole.] them here and there, where he judges them likely to be most serviceable. thus, then, we have given a cursory view of what he ought to be, in the two first departments of oratory. but, as we before observed, these, though very important in their consequences, require less art and application. after he has thus invented what is proper to be said, and in what order, the greatest difficulty is still behind;--namely to consider _how_ he is to say it, and _in what manner_. for the observation of our favourite _carneades_ is well-known,--"that _clitomachus_ had a perpetual sameness of sentiment, and charmidas a tiresome uniformity of expression." but if it is a circumstance of so much moment in philosophy, _in what manner_ we express ourselves, where the matter, and not the language, is principally regarded; what must we think of public debates, which are wholly ruled and swayed by the powers of elocution? accordingly, my brutus, i am sensible from your letters, that you mean to inquire what are my notions of a finished speaker, not so much with respect to his invention and disposition, as to his talents of _elocution_:--a severe task! and the most difficult you could have fixed upon! for as language is ever soft and yielding, and so amazingly pliable that you may bend and form it at your pleasure; so different natures and dispositions have given rise to different kinds of elocution. some, for instance, who place the chief merit of it in it's rapidity, are mightily pleased with a torrent of words, and a volubility of expression. others again are better pleased with regular, and measured intervals, and frequent stops, and pauses. what can be more opposite? and yet both have their proper excellence. some also confine their attention to the smoothness and equability of their periods, and aim at a style which is perfectly neat and clear: while others affect a harshness, and severity of diction, and to give a gloomy cast to their language:--and as we have already observed that some endeavour to be nervous and majestic, others neat and simple, and some to be smooth and florid, it necessarily follows that there must be as many different kinds of orators, as there are of eloquence. but as i have already enlarged the talk you have imposed upon me;--(for though your enquiries related only to elocution, i have ventured a few hints on the arts of invention and disposition;)--i shall now treat not only of _elocution_, but of _action_. by this means, every part of oratory will be attended to: for as to _memory_, which is common to this with many other arts, it is entirely out of the question. the art of speaking then, so far as it regards only the _manner_ in which our thoughts should be expressed, consists in _action_ and _elocution_; for action is the eloquence of the body, and implies the proper management of our _voice_ and _gesture_. as to the inflexions of the voice, they are as numerous as the various passions it is capable of exciting. the finished orator, therefore, who is the subject of this essay, in whatever manner he would appear to be affected himself, and touch the heart of his hearer, will employ a suitable and corresponding tone of voice:--a topic which i could willingly enlarge upon, if delivering precepts was any part of my present design, or of your request. i should likewise have treated concerning _gesture_, of which the management of the countenance is a material part: for it is scarcely credible of what great importance it is to an orator to recommend himself by these external accomplishments. for even those who were far from being masters of good language, have many times, by the sole dignity of their action, reaped the fruits of eloquence; while others who had the finest powers of elocution, have too often, by the mere awkwardness of their delivery, led people to imagine that they were scarcely able to express themselves:--so that demosthenes, with sufficient reason, assigned the first place, and likewise the second and third to _pronunciation_. for if eloquence without this is nothing, but this, even without eloquence, has such a wonderful efficacy, it must be allowed to bear the principal sway in the practice of speaking. if an orator, then, who is ambitious to win the palm of eloquence, has any thing to deliver which is warm and cutting, let his voice be strong and quick;--if what is calm and gentle, let it be mild and easy;--if what is grave and sedate, let it be cool and settled;--and if what is mournful and affecting, let his accents be plaintive and flexible. for the voice may be raised or depressed, and extended or contracted to an astonishing degree; thus in music (for instance) it's three tones, the _mean_, the _acute_, and the _grave_, may be so managed by art, as to produce a pleasing and an infinite variety of sounds. nay, even in speaking, there may be a concealed kind of music:--not like the whining epilogue of a phrygian or a carian declaimer, but such as was intended by _aeschines_, and _demosthenes_, when the one upbraids and reproaches the other with the artificial modulations of his voice. _demosthenes_, however, says most upon this head, and often speaks of his accuser as having a sweet and clear pronunciation. there is another circumstance, which may farther enforce our attention to the agreeable management of the voice; for nature herself, as if she meant to harmonize the speech of man, has placed an accent on every word, and one accent only, which never lies farther than the third syllable from the last. why, therefore, should we hesitate to follow her example, and to do our best to gratify the ear? a good voice, indeed, though a desirable accomplishment, is not in our power to acquire:--but to exercise, and improve it, is certainly in the power of every person. the orator, then, who means to be the prince of his profession, will change and vary his voice with the most delicate propriety; and by sometimes raising, and sometimes depressing it, pursue it gradually through all it's different tones, and modulations. he will likewise regulate his _gesture_, so as to avoid even a single motion which is either superfluous or impertinent. his posture will be erect and manly:-- he will move from his ground but seldom, and not even then too precipitately; and his advances will be few and moderate. he will practise no languishing, no effeminate airs of the head, no finical playing of the fingers, no measured movement of the joints. the chief part of his gesture will consist in the firm and graceful sway of his body, and in extending his arm when his arguments are pressing, and drawing it again when his vehemence abates. but as to the _countenance_, which next to the voice has the greatest efficacy, what dignity and gracefulness is it not capable of supporting! and when you have been careful that it may neither be unmeaning, nor ostentatious, there is still much to be left to the expression of the _eyes_. for if the countenance is the _image_ of the mind, the eyes are it's _interpreters_, whose degree of pleasantry or sadness must be proportioned to the importance of our subject. but we are to exhibit the portrait of a finished orator, whose chief excellence must be supposed, from his very name, to consist in his _elocution_; while his other qualifications (though equally complete) are less conspicuous. for a mere inventor, a mere digester, or a mere actor, are titles never made use of to comprize the whole character; but an orator derives his name, both in greek and latin, from the single talent of elocution. as to his other qualifications, every man of sense may claim a share of them: but the full powers of language are exerted by himself alone. some of the philosophers, indeed, have expressed themselves in a very handsome manner: for _theophrastus_ derived his name from the divinity of his style; _aristotle_ rivalled the glory of _isocrates_; and the muses themselves are said to have spoken from the lips of _xenophon_; and, to say no more, the great _plato_ is acknowledged in majesty and sweetness to have far exceeded all who ever wrote or spoke. but their language has neither the nerves nor the sting which is required in the orator's, when he harangues the crowded forum. they speak only to the learned, whose passions they rather choose to compose than disturb; and they discourse about matters of calm and untumultuous speculation, merely as teachers, and not like eager antagonists: though even _here_, when they endeavour to amuse and delight us, they are thought by some to exceed the limits of their province. it will be easy, therefore, to distinguish this species of elocution from the eloquence we are attempting to delineate. for the language of philosophy is gentle and composed, and entirely calculated for the shady walks of the academy;--not armed with those forcible sentiments, and rapid turns of expression, which are suited to move the populace, nor measured by exact numbers and regular periods, but easy, free, and unconfined. it has nothing resentful belonging to it, nothing invidious, nothing fierce and flaming, nothing exaggerated, nothing marvellous, nothing artful and designing; but resembles a chaste, a bashful, and an unpolluted virgin. we may, therefore, consider it as a kind of polite conversation, rather than a species of oratory. as to the _sophists_, whom i have already mentioned, the resemblance ought to be more accurately distinguished: for they industriously pursue the same flowers which are used by an orator in the forum. but they differ in this,--that, as their principal aim is not to disturb the passions, but rather to allay them, and not so much to persuade as to please,--they attempt the latter more openly, and more frequently than we do. they seek for agreeable sentiments, rather than probable ones; they use more frequent digressions, intermingle tales and fables, employ more shewy metaphors, and work them into their discourses with as much fancy and variety as a painter does his colours; and they abound in contrasts and antitheses, and in similar and corresponding cadences. nearly allied to these is _history_, which conducts her narratives with elegance and ease, and now and then sketches out a country, or a battle. she likewise diversifies her story with short speeches, and florid harangues: but in these, only neatness and fluency is to be expected, and not the vehemence and poignant severity of an orator [footnote: in the original it is,--_sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens expetitur, nan haec contorta, et acris oratorio_; upon which dr. ward has made the following remark:--"sentences, with respect to their form or composition, are distinguished into two sorts, called by cicero _tracta_, strait or direct, and _contorta_, bent or winding. by the former are meant such, whose members follow each other in a direct order, without any inflexion; and by the latter, those which strictly speaking are called periods."]. there is much the same difference between eloquence and _poetry_; for the poets likewise have started the question, what it is which distinguishes them from the orators? it was formerly supposed to be their _number_ and _metre_: but numbers are now as familiar to the orator, as to the poet; for whatever falls under the regulation of the ear, though it bears no resemblance to verse (which in oratory would be a capital fault) is called _number_, and by the greeks _rhyme_. [footnote: [greek: ruthmos]] in the opinion of some, therefore, the style of _plato_ and _democritus_, on account of it's majestic flow, and the splendor of it's ornaments, though it is far from being verse, has a nearer resemblance to poetry than the style of the comedians, who, excepting their metre, have nothing different from the style of conversation. metre, however, is far from being the principal merit of the poets; though it is certainly no small recommendation, that, while they pursue all the beauties of eloquence, the harmony of their numbers is far more regular and exact. but, though the language of poetry is equally grand and ornamental with that of an orator, she undoubtedly takes greater liberties both in making and compounding word; and frequently administers to the pleasure of her hearers, more by the pomp and lustre of her expressions, than by the weight and dignity of her sentiments. though judgment, therefore, and a proper choice of words, is alike common to both, yet their difference in other respects is sufficiently discernible: but if it affords any matter of doubt (as to some, perhaps, it may) the discussion of it is no way necessary to our present purpose. we are, therefore, to delineate the orator who differs equally from the eloquence of the philosopher, the sophist, the historian, and the poet. he, then, is truly eloquent, (for after _him_ we must search, by the direction of antonius) who in the forum, and in public debates, can so speak, as to _prove_, _delight_, and _force the passions_. to _prove_, is a matter of necessity:--to _delight_, is indispensably requisite to engage the attention:--and to _force the passions_, is the surest means of victory; for this contributes more effectually than both the others to get a cause decided to our wishes. but as the duties of an orator, so the kinds of elocution are three. the neat and accurate is used in _proving;_ the moderately florid in _delighting_ apd the vehement and impetuous in _forcing_ _the passions,_ in which alone all the power of eloquence consists. great, therefore, must be the judgment, and wonderful the talents of the man, who can properly conduct, and, as it were, temper this threefold variety: for he will at once determine what is suitable to every case; and be always able to express himself as the nature of his subject may require. discretion, therefore, is the basis of eloquence, as well as of every other accomplishment. for, as in the conduct of life, so in the practice of speaking, nothing is more difficult than to maintain a propriety of character. this is called by the greeks [greek: to prepon], _the becoming,_ but we shall call it _decorum;_--a subject which has been excellently and very copiously canvassed, and richly merits our attention. an unacquaintance with this has been the source of innumerable errors, not only in the business of life, but in poetry and eloquence. an orator, therefore, should examine what is becoming, as well in the turn of his language, as in that of his sentiments. for not every condition, not every rank, not every character, nor every age, or place, or time, nor every hearer is to be treated with the same invariable train either of sentiment or expression:--but we should always consider in every part of a public oration, as well as of life, what will be most becoming,--a circumstance which naturally depends on the nature of the subject, and the respective characters of the speaker and hearer. philosophers, therefore, have carefully discussed this extensive and important topic in the doctrine of ethics, (though not, indeed, when they treat of right and wrong, because those are invariably the fame:)--nor is it less attended to by the critics in their poetical essays, or by men of eloquence in every species and every part of their public debates. for what would be more out of character, than to use a lofty style, and ransack every topic of argument, when we are speaking only of a petty trespass in some inferior court? or, on the other hand, to descend to any puerile subtilties, and speak with the indifference and simplicity of a frivolous narrative, when we are lashing treason and rebellion? _here_, the indecorum would arise from the very nature and quality of the subject: but others are equally guilty of it, by not adapting their discourse either to their own characters, or to that of their hearers, and, in some cafes, to that of their antagonists; and they extend the fault not only to their sentiments, but to the turn of their expression. it is true, indeed, that the force of language is a mere nothing, when it is not supported by a proper solidity of sentiment: but it is also equally true that the same thing will be either approved or rejected, according as it is this or that way expressed. in all cases, therefore, we cannot be too careful in examining the _how far_? for though every thing has it's proper mean, yet an _excess_ is always more offensive and disgusting than a proportionable _defect_. _apelles_, therefore, justly censures some of his cotemporary artists, because they never knew when they had performed enough. this, my brutus, as your long acquaintance with it must necessarily inform you, is a copious subject, and would require an extensive volume to discuss. but it is sufficient to our present purpose to observe, that in all our words and actions, as well the smallest as the greatest, there is a something which will appear either becoming or unbecoming, and that almost every one is sensible of it's confluence. but what is becoming, and what _ought to be_, are very different considerations, and belong to a different topic:--for the _ought to be_ points out the perfection of duty, which should be attended to upon all occasions, and by all persons: but the _becoming_ denotes that which is merely _proper_, and suited to time and character, which is of great importance not only in our actions and language, but in our very looks, our gesture, and our walk; and that which is contrary to it will always be _unbecoming_, and disagreeable. if the poet, therefore, carefully guards against any impropriety of the kind, and is always condemned as guilty of a fault, when he puts the language of a worthy man into the mouth of a ruffian, or that of a wife man into the mouth of a fool:--if, moreover, the artist who painted the sacrifice of _iphigenia_, [footnote: agamemnon, one of the grecian chiefs, having by accident slain a deer belonging to diana, the goddess was so enraged at this profanation of her honours, that she kept him wind-bound at aulis with the whole fleet. under this heavy disaster, having recourse to the oracle, (their usual refuge in such cases) they were informed that the only atonement which the angry goddess would accept, was the sacrifice of one of the offender's children. ulysses having, by a stratagem, withdrawn _iphigenia_ from her mother for that purpose, the unhappy virgin was brought to the altar. but, as the story goes, the goddess relenting at her hard fate, substituted a deer in her stead, and conveyed her away to serve her as a priestess. it must be farther remarked that _menelaus_ was the virgin's uncle, and calchas the priest who was to officiate at this horrid sacrifice.] could see that _chalcas_ should appear greatly concerned, _ulysses_ still more so, and _menelaus_ bathed in tears, but that the head of agamemnon (the virgin's father) should be covered with his robe, to intimate a degree of anguish which no pencil could express: lastly, if a mere actor on the stage is ever cautious to keep up the character he appears in, what must be done by the orator? but as this is a matter of such importance, let him consider at his leisure, what is proper to be done in particular causes, and in their several parts and divisions:--for it is sufficiently evident, not only that the different parts of an oration, but that entire causes ought to be managed, some in one manner, and some in another. we must now proceed to delineate the form and character of each of the three species of eloquence above-mentioned; a great and an arduous talk, as i have already observed more than once; but we should have considered the difficulty of the voyage before we embarked: for now we have ventured to set sail, we must run boldly before the wind, whether we reach our port or not. the first character, then, to be described, is the orator who, according to some, is the only one that has any just pretensions to _atticism_. he is distinguished by his modest simplicity; and as he imitates the language of conversation, he differs from those who are strangers to eloquence, rather in reality than in appearance. for this reason, those who hear him, though totally unskilled in the art of speaking, are apt to persuade themselves that they can readily discourse in the same manner [footnote: there is a pretty remark to the same purpose in the fifteenth number of _the guardian_, which, as it may serve to illustrate the observation of cicero, i shall beg leave to insert. "from what i have advanced, it appears how difficult it is to write _easily_. but when easy writings fall into the hands of an ordinary reader, they appear to him so natural and unlaboured, that he immediately resolves to write, and fancies that all he has to do is to take no pains. thus he thinks indeed simply, but the thoughts not being chosen with judgment, are not beautiful. he, it is true, expresses himself plainly, but flatly withal. again, if a man of vivacity takes it into his head to write this way, what self-denial must he undergo, when bright points of wit occur to his fancy? how difficult will he find it to reject florid phrases, and pretty embellishments of style? so true it is, that simplicity of all things is the hardest to be copied, and case to be acquired with the greatest labour."];--and the unaffected simplicity of his language appears very imitable to an ignorant observer; though nothing will be found less so by him who makes the trial. for, if i may so express myself, though his veins are not over-stocked with blood, his juices must be found and good; and though he is not possessed of any extraordinary strength, he must have a healthy constitution. for this purpose, we must first release him from the shackles of _number_; for there is (you know) a kind of _number_ to be observed by an orator, which we shall treat of in the sequel:--but this is to be used in a different species of eloquence, and to be relinquished in the present. his language, therefore, must be free and unconfined, but not loose and irregular, that he may appear to walk at ease, without reeling or tottering. he will not be at the pains to cement word to word with a scrupulous exactness: for those breaks which are made by a collision of vowels, have now and then an agreeable effect, and betray the not unpleasing negligence of a man who is more felicitous about things than words. but though he is not to labour at a measured flow, and a masterly arrangement of his words, he must be careful in other respects. for even these limited and unaspiring talents are not to be employed carelessly, but with a kind of industrious negligence: for as some females are most becoming in a dishabille, so this artless kind of eloquence has her charms, though she appears in an undress. there is something in both which renders them agreeable, without striking the eye. here, therefore, all the glitter of ornament, like that of jewels and diamonds, must be laid aside; nor must we apply even the crisping-iron to adjust the hair. there must be no colouring, no artful washes to heighten the complexion: but elegance and neatness must be our only aim. our style muft be pure, and correct;--we must speak with clearness and perspicuity; --and be always attentive to appear in character. there is one thing, however, which must never be omitted, and which is reckoned by theophrastus to be one of the chief beauties of composition;--i mean that sweet and flowing ornament, a plentiful intermixture of lively sentiments, which seem to result from a natural fund of good sense, and are peculiarly graceful in the orator we are now describing. but he will be very moderate in using the _furniture_ of eloquence: for (if i may be allowed such an expression) there is a species of furniture belonging to us, which consists in the various ornaments of sentiment and language. the ornaments of language are two-fold; the one sort relates to words as they stand singly, and the other as they are connected together. a _single_ word (i speak of those which are _proper_, and in common use) is then said to be well chosen, when it founds agreeably, and is the best which could have been taken to express our meaning. among borrowed and _translatitious_ [footnote: words which are transferred from their primitive meaning to a metaphorical one.] words, (or those which are not used in their proper sense) we may reckon the metaphor, the metonymy, and the rest of the tropes; as also compounded and new-made words, and such as are obsolete and out of date; but obsolete words should rather be considered as proper ones, with this only difference, that we seldom make use of them. as to words in connection, these also may be considered as ornamental, when they have a certain gracefulness which would be destroyed by changing their order, though the meaning would still remain the same. for as to the ornaments of sentiment, which lose nothing of their beauty, by varying the position of the words,--these, indeed, are very numerous, though only a few of them are remarkably striking. the orator, then, who is distinguished by the simplicity of his manner, provided he is correct and elegant, will be sparing in the use of new words; easy and modest in his metaphors; and very cautious in the use of words which are antiquated;--and as to the other ornaments of language and sentiment, here also he will be equally plain and reserved. but in the use of metaphors, he will, perhaps, take greater liberties; because these are frequently introduced in conversation, not only by gentlemen, but even by rustics, and peasants: for we often hear them say that the vine _shoots out_ it's buds, that the fields are _thirsty_, the corn _lively_, and the grain _rich_ and flourishing. such expressions, indeed, are rather bold: but the resemblance between the metaphor and the object is either remarkably obvious; or else, when the latter has no proper name to express it, the metaphor is so far from appearing to be laboured, that we seem to use it merely to explain our meaning. this, therefore, is an ornament in which our artless orator may indulge himself more freely; but not so openly as in the more diffusive and lofty species of eloquence. for that _indecorum_, which is best understood by comparing it with its opposite quality, will even here be viable when a metaphor is too conspicuous;--or when this simple and dispassionate sort of language is interrupted by a bold ornament, which would have been proper enough in a different kind of elocution. as to that sort of ornament which regards the position of words, and embellishes it with those studied graces, which are considered by the greeks as so many _attitudes_ of language, and are therefore called _figures_, (a name which is likewise extended to the flowers of sentiment;)--the orator before us, who may justly be regarded as an _attic_ speaker, provided the title is not confined to him, will make use even of _this_, though with great caution and moderation. he will conduct himself as if he was setting out an entertainment, and while he carefully avoids a splendid magnificence, he will not only be plain and frugal, but neat and elegant, and make his choice accordingly. for there is a kind of genteel parsimony, by which his character is distinguished from that of others. he will, therefore, avoid the more conspicuous ornaments above- mentioned, such as the contracting word to word,--the concluding the several members of a sentence with the same cadence, or confining them to the same measure,--and all the studied prettiness which are formed by the change of a letter, or an artful play of found;--that, if possible, there may not be the slightest appearance, or even suspicion, of a design to please. as to those repetitions which require an earnest and forcible exertion of the voice, these also would be equally out of character in this lower species of eloquence; but he may use the other ornaments of elocution at his pleasure, provided he checks and interrupts the flow of his language, and softens it off by using familiar expressions, and such metaphors as are plain and obvious. nay, even as to the figures of sentiment, he may sometimes indulge himself in those which are not remarkably bold and striking. thus, for instance, we must not allow him to introduce the republic as speaking, nor to fetch up the dead from their graves, nor to crowd a multitude of ideas into the same period. these efforts demand a firmer constitution, and should be neither required nor expected from the simple orator before us; for as in his voice, so likewise in his language, he should be ever easy and composed. but there are many of the nobler ornaments which may be admitted even here, though always in a plainer and more artless habit than in any other species of eloquence; for such is the character we have assigned him. his gesture also will be neither pompous, nor theatrical, but consist in a moderate and easy sway of the body, and derive much of it's efficacy from the countenance,--not a stiff and affected countenance, but such a one as handsomely corresponds with his sentiments. this kind of oratory will likewise be frequently enlivened by those turns of wit and pleasantry, which in speaking have a much greater effect than is imagined. there are two sorts of them; the one consisting in smart sayings and quick repartees, and the other in what is called _humour_. our orator will make use of both;--of the latter in his narratives, to make them lively and entertaining;--and of the other, either in giving or retorting a stroke of ridicule, of which there are several kinds; but at present it is not our business to specify them. it will not be amiss, however, to observe by way of caution, that the powers of _ridicule_ are not to be employed too often, lest we sink into scurrility;--nor in loose and indecent language, lest we degenerate into wantonness and buffoonery; --nor with the least degree of petulance and abuse, lest we appear audacious and ill-bred;--nor levelled against the unfortunate, lest we incur the censure of inhumanity;--nor against atrocious crimes, lest we raise a laugh where we ought to excite abhorrence;--nor, in the last place, should they be used unseasonably, or when the characters either of the speaker, or the hearer, and the circumstances of time and place forbid it;--otherwise we should grossly fail in that decorum of which we have already said so much. we should likewise avoid all affected witticisms, which appear not to be thrown out occasionally, but to be dragged from the closet; for such are generally cold and insipid. it is also improper to jest upon our friends, or upon persons of quality, or to give any strokes of wit which may appear ill-natured, or malicious. we should aim only at our enemies; and even at these, not upon every occasion, or without any distinction of character, or with the same invariable turn of ridicule. under these restrictions our artless orator will play off his wit and humour, as i have never seen it done by any of the modern pretenders to atticism, though they cannot deny that this is entirely in the attic taste. such, then, is the idea which i have formed of a _simple and an easy speaker_, who is likewise a very masterly one, and a genuine athenian; for whatever is smart and pertinent is unquestionably _attic_, though some of the attic speakers were not remarkable for their wit. _lysias_, indeed, and _hyperides_ were sufficiently so; and _demades_, it is said, was more so than all the others. demosthenes, however, is thought by many to have but little merit of the kind; but to me nothing can be more genteel than he is; though, perhaps, he was rather smart than humourous. the one requires a quicker genius, but the other more art and address. but there is a second character, which is more diffusive, and somewhat stronger than the simple and artless, one we have been describing,--though considerably inferior to that copious and all-commanding eloquence we shall notice in the sequel. in this, though there is but a moderate exertion of the nerves and sinews of oratory, there is abundance of melody and sweetness. it is much fuller and richer than the close and accurate style above-mentioned; but less elevated than the pompous and diffusive. in _this_ all the ornaments of language may be employed without reserve; and _here_ the flow of our numbers is ever soft and harmonious. many of the greeks have pursued it with success: but, in my opinion, they must all yield the palm to _demetrius phalereus_, whose eloquence is ever mild and placid, and bespangled with a most elegant variety of metaphors and other tropes, like so many _stars_. by _metaphors_, as i have frequently observed, i mean expressions which, either for the sake of ornament, or through the natural poverty of our language, are removed and as it were _transplanted_ from their proper objects to others, by way of similitude. as to _tropes_ in general, they are particular forms of expression, in which the proper name of a thing is supplied by another, which conveys the same meaning, but is borrowed from its adjuncts or effects: for, though, in this case, there is a kind of metaphor, (because the word is shifted from its primary object) yet the remove is performed by _ennius_ in a different manner, when he says metaphorically,--"_you bereave the citadel and the city of their offspring_,"--from what it would have been, if he had put the citadel alone for the whole state: and thus again, when he tells us that,--"_rugged africa was shaken by a dreadful tumult_,"--he puts africa for the inhabitants. the rhetoricians call this an _hypallage_, because one word is substituted for another: but the grammarians call it a _metonymy_, because the words are shifted and interchanged. aristotle, however, subjoins it to the metaphor, as he likewise does the _abuse_ or _catachresis_; by which, for instance, we say a _narrow, contracted soul_, instead of a _mean_ one, and thus steal an expression which has a kindred meaning with the proper one, either for the sake of ornament or decency. when several metaphors are connected together in a regular chain, the form of speaking is varied. the greeks call this an _allegory_, which indeed is proper enough if we only attend to the etymology; but if we mean to refer it to its particular _genus_ or kind, he has done better who comprehends the whole under the general name of metaphors. these, however, are frequently used by _phalereus_, and have a soft and pleasing effect: but though he abounds in the metaphor, he also makes use of the other tropes with as much freedom as any writer whatever. this species of eloquence (i mean the _middling_, or temperate) is likewise embellished with all the brilliant figures of language, and many of the figures of sentiment. by this, moreover, the most extensive and refined topics of science are handsomely unfolded, and all the weapons of argument are employed without violence. but what need have i to say more? such speakers are the common offspring of philosophy; and were the nervous, and more striking orator to keep out of sight, these alone would fully answer our wishes. for they are masters of a brilliant, a florid, a picturesque, and a well-wrought elocution, which is interwoven with all the beautiful embroidery both of language and sentiment. this character first streamed from the limpid fountains of the _sophists_ into the forum; but being afterwards despised by the more simple and refined kind of speakers, and disdainfully rejected by the nervous and weighty; it was compelled to subside into the peaceful and unaspiring mediocrity we are speaking of. the _third character_ is the extensive,--the copious,--the nervous,--the majestic orator, who possesses the powers of elocution in their full extent. _this_ is the man whose enchanting and diffusive language is so much admired by listening nations, that they have tamely suffered eloquence to rule the world;--but an eloquence whose course is rapid and sonorous!--an eloquence which every one gazes at, and admires, and despairs to equal! this is the eloquence that bends and sways the passions!--_this_ the eloquence that alarms or sooths them at her pleasure! this is the eloquence that sometimes tears up all before it like a whirlwind; and, at other times, steals imperceptibly upon the senses, and probes to the bottom of the heart!--the eloquence which ingrafts opinions that are new, and eradicates the old; but yet is widely different from the two characters of speaking before-mentioned. he who exerts himself in the simple and accurate character, and speaks neatly and smartly without aiming any higher!--_he_, by this alone, if carried to perfection, becomes a great, if not the greatest of orators; nor does he walk upon slippery ground, so that if he has but learned to tread firm, he is in no danger of falling. also the middle kind of orator, who is distinguished by his equability, provided he only draws up his forces to advantage, fears not the perilous and doubtful hazards of a public harangue; and, though sometimes he may not succeed to his wishes, yet he is never exposed to an absolute defeat; for as he never soars, his fall must be inconsiderable. but the orator, whom we regard as the prince of his profession,--the nervous,--the fierce,--the flaming orator, if he is born for this alone, and only practices and applies himself to this, without tempering his copiousness with the two inferior characters of eloquence, is of all others the most contemptible. for the plain and simple orator, as speaking acutely and expertly, has an appearance of wisdom and good-sense; and the middle kind of orator is sufficiently recommended by his sweetness:--but the copious and diffusive speaker, if he has no other qualification, will scarcely appear to be in his senses. for he who can say nothing calmly,--nothing gently--nothing methodically, --nothing clearly, distinctly, or humourously, (though a number of causes should be so managed throughout, and others in one or more of their parts:)--he, moreover, who proceeds to amplify and exaggerate without preparing the attention of his audience, will appear to rave before men of understanding, and to vapour like a person intoxicated before the sober and sedate. thus then, my brutus, we have at last discovered the finished orator we are seeking for: but we have caught him in imagination only;--for if i could have seized him with my hands, not all his eloquence should persuade me to release him. we have at length, however, discovered the eloquent speaker, whom antonius never saw.--but who, then, is he?--i will comprize his character in a few words, and afterwards unfold it more at large.--he, then, is an orator indeed! who can speak upon trivial subjects with simplicity and art, upon weighty ones with energy and pathos, and upon those of middling import with calmness and moderation. you will tell me, perhaps, that such a speaker has never existed. be it so:--for i am now discoursing not upon what i _have_ seen, but upon what i could _wish_ to see; and must therefore recur to that primary semblance or ideal form of plato which i have mentioned before, and which, though it cannot be seen with our bodily eyes, may be comprehended by the powers of imagination. for i am not seeking after a living orator, or after any thing which is mortal and perishing, but after that which confers a right to the title of _eloquent_; in other words, i am seeking after eloquence herself, who can be discerned only by the eye of the mind. he then is truly an _orator_, (i again repeat it,) who can speak upon trivial subjects with simplicity, upon indifferent ones with moderation, and upon weighty subjects with energy and pathos. [footnote: our author is now going to indulge himself in the _egotism_,--a figure, which, upon many occasions, he uses as freely as any of the figures of rhetoric. how the reader will relish it, i know not; but it is evident from what follows, and from another passage of the same kind further on, that cicero had as great a veneration for his own talents as any man living. his merit, however, was so uncommon both as a statesman, a philosopher, and an orator, and he has obliged posterity with so many useful and amazing productions of genius, that we ought in gratitude to forgive the vanity of the _man_. although he has ornamented the socket in which he has _set_ his character, with an extravagant (and i had almost said ridiculous) profusion of self-applause, it must be remembered that the diamond it contains is a gem of inestimable value.] the cause i pleaded for caecina related entirely to the bare letter of the interdict: here, therefore, i explained what was intricate by a definition,--spoke in praise of the civil law,--and dissolved the ambiguities which embarrassed the meaning of the statute.--in recommending the manilian law, i was to blazon the character of _pompey_, and therefore indulged myself in all that variety of ornament which is peculiar to the second species of eloquence. in the cause of rabirius, as the honour of the republic was at stake, i blazed forth in every species of amplification. but these characters are sometimes to be intermingled and diversified. which of them, therefore, is not to be met with in my seven invectives against _verres_? or in the cause of _habitus_? or in that of _cornelius_? or indeed in most of my defences? i would have specified the particular examples, did i not believe them to be sufficiently known; or, at least, very easy to be discovered by those who will take the trouble to seek for them. for there is nothing which can recommend an orator in the different characters of speaking, but what has been exemplified in my orations,--if not to perfection, yet at least it has been attempted, and faintly delineated. i have not, indeed, the vanity to think i have arrived at the summit; but i can easily discern what eloquence ought to be. for i am not to speak of myself, but to attend to my subject; and so far am i from admiring my own productions, that, on the contrary, i am so nice and difficult, as not to be entirely satisfied with demosthenes himself, who, though he rises with superior eminence in every species of eloquence, does not always fill my ear;--so eager is it, and so insatiable, as to be ever coveting what is boundless and immense. but as, by the assistance of _pammenes_, who is very fond of that orator, you made yourself thoroughly acquainted with him when you was at _athens_, and to this day scarcely ever part with him from your hands, and yet frequently condescend to peruse what has been written by _me_; you must certainly have taken notice that he hath _done_ much, and that i have _attempted_ much,--that he has been _happy_ enough, and i _willing_ enough to speak, upon every occasion, as the nature of the subject required. but he, beyond dispute, was a consummate orator; for he not only succeeded several eminent speakers, but had many such for his cotemporaries:--and i also, if i could have reached the perfection i aimed at, should have made no despicable figure in a city, where (according to antonius) the voice of genuine eloquence was never heard. but if to antonius neither crassus, nor even himself, appeared to be _eloquent_, we may presume that neither cotta, sulpicius, nor hortensius would have succeeded any better. for _cotta_ had no expansion, _sulpicius_ no temper, and _hortensius_ too little dignity. but the two former (i mean crassus and antonius) had a capacity which was better adapted to every species of oratory. i had, therefore, to address myself to the ears of a city which had never been filled by that multifarious and extensive eloquence we are discoursing of; and i first allured them (let me have been what you please, or what ever were my talents) to an incredible desire of hearing the finished speaker who is the subject of the present essay. for with what acclamations did i deliver that passage in my youth concerning the punishment of parricides [footnote: those unnatural and infamous wretches, among the romans, were sown into a leathern sack, and thus thrown into the sea; to intimate that they were unworthy of having the lead communication with the common elements of water, earth, and air.], though i was afterwards sensible it was too warm and extravagant? --"what is so common, said i, as air to the living, earth to the dead, the sea to floating corpses, and the shore to those who are caft upon it by the waves! but these wretches, as long as life remains, so live as not to breathe the air of heaven;--they so perish, that their limbs are not suffered to touch the earth;--they are so tossed to and fro' by the waves, as never to be warned by them;--and when they are cast on the shore, their dead, carcases cannot rest upon the surface of the rocks!" all this, as coming from a youth, was much applauded, not for it's ripeness and solidity, but for the hopes it gave the public of my future improvement. from the same capacity came those riper expressions,--"she was the spouse of her son-in-law, the step-mother of her own offspring? and the mistress of her daughter's husband [footnote: this passage occurs in the peroration of his defence of cluentius]." but i did not always indulge myself in this excessive ardour of expression, or speak every thing in the same manner: for even that youthful redundance which was so visible in the defence of _roscius_, had many passages which were plain and simple, and some which were, tolerably humourous. but the orations in defence of _habitus_, and _cornelius_, and indeed many others; (for no single orator, even among the peaceful and speculative athenians, has composed such a number as i have;)--these, i say, have all that variety which i so much approve. for have _homer_ and _ennius_, and the rest of the poets, but especially the tragic writers, not expressed themselves at all times with the same elevation, but frequently varied their manner, and sometimes lowered it to the style of conversation; and shall i oblige myself never to descend from that highest energy of language? bit why do i mention the poets whose talents are divine! the very actors on the stage, who have most excelled in their profession, have not only succeeded in very different characters, though still in the same province; but a comedian has often acted tragedies, and a tragedian comedies so as to give us universal satisfaction. wherefore, then, should not _i_ also exert my efforts? but when i say _myself_, my worthy brutus i mean _you_: for as to _me_, i have already done all, i was capable of doing. would _you_, then, plead every cause in the same manner? or is there any sort of causes which your genius would decline? or even in the same cause, would you always express yourself in the same strain, and without any variety? your favourite _demosthenes_, whose brazen statue i lately beheld among your own, and your family images, when i had the pleasure to visit you at tusculanum,--demosthenes, i say, was nothing inferior to _lysias_ in simplicity; to _hyperides_ in smartness and poignancy, or to _aeschines_ in the smoothness and splendor of his language. there are many of his orations which are entirely of the close and simple character, as that against _lepsines_; many which are all nervous, and striking, as those against _philip_; and many which are of a mixed character, as that against _aeschines_, concerning the false embassy, and another against the same person in defence of _ctesiphon_. at other times he strikes into the _mean_ at his pleasure, and quitting the nervous character, descends to this with all the ease imaginable. but he raises the acclamations of his audience, and his oratory is then most weighty and powerful, when he applies himself to the _nervous_. but as our enquiries relate to the art, and not to the artist, let us leave _him_ for the present, and consider the nature and the properties of the object before us,--that is, of _eloquence_. we must keep in mind, however, what i have already hinted,--that we are not required to deliver a system of precepts, but to write as judges and critics, rather than teachers. but i have expatiated so largely upon the subject, because i foresee that you (who are, indeed, much better versed in it, than i who pretend to inform you) will not be my only reader; but that my little essay, though not much perhaps to my credit, will be made public, and with your name prefixed to it. i am of opinion, therefore, that a finished orator should not only possess the talent (which, indeed, is peculiar, to himself) of speaking copiously and diffusively: but that he should also borrow the assistance of it's nearest neighbour, the art of logic. for though public speaking is one thing, and disputing another; and though there is a visible difference between a private controversy, and a public harangue; yet both the one and the other come under the notion of reasoning. but mere discourse and argument belongs to the logician, and the art of speaking gracefully and ornamentally is the prerogative of the orator. _zeno_, the father of the _stoics_, used to illustrate the difference between the two by holding up his hand;--for when he clenched his fingers, and presented a close fist,-- "_that_," he said, "was an emblem of logic:"--but when he spread them out again, and displayed his open hand,--"this," said he, "resembles eloquence." but aristotle observed before him, in the introduction to his rhetoric, that it is an art which has a near resemblance to that of logic;--and that the only difference between them is, that the method of reasoning in the former is more diffusive, and in the latter more close and contracted. i, therefore, advise that our finished orator make himself master of every thing in the art of logic, which is applicable to his profession:--an art (as your thorough knowledge of it has already informed you) which is taught after two methods. for aristotle himself has delivered a variety of precepts concerning the art of reasoning:--and besides these, the _dialecticians_ (as they are called) have produced many intricate and thorny speculations of their own. i am, therefore, of opinion, that he who is ambitious to be applauded for his eloquence, should not be wholly unacquainted with this branch of erudition; but that he ought (at least) to be properly instructed either in the old method, or in that of _chrysippus_. in the first place, he should understand the force, the extension, and the different species of words as they stand singly, or connected into sentences. he should likewise be acquainted with the various modes and forms in which any conception of the mind may be expressed--the methods of distinguishing a true proposition from a false one;--the different conclusions which result from different premises;--the true consequences and opposites to any given proposition;--and, if an argument is embarrassed by ambiguities, how to unravel each of them by an accurate distinction. these particulars, i say, should be well understood by an orator, because they are such as frequently occur: but as they are naturally rugged and unpleasing, they should be relieved in practice by an easy brilliance of expression. but as in every topic which is discussed by reason and method, we should first settle what it is we are to discourse upon,--(for unless the parties in a dispute are agreed about the subject of it, they can neither reason with propriety, nor bring the argument to an issue;)--it will frequently be necessary to explain our notions of it, and, when the matter is intricate, to lay it open by a _definition_;--for a _definition_ is only a sentence, or explanation, which specifies, in as few words as possible, the nature of the object we propose to consider. after the _genus_, or kind, has been sufficiently determined, we must then proceed (you know) to examine into it's different species, or subordinate parts, that our whole discourse may be properly distributed among them. our orator, then, should be qualified to make a just definition;--though not in such a close and contracted form, as in the critical debates of the academy, but more explicitly and copiously, and as will be best adapted to the common way of thinking, and the capacity of the vulgar. he is likewise, as often as occasion requires, to divide the genus into it's proper species, so as to be neither defective, nor redundant. but _how_ and _when_ this should be done, is not our present business to consider: because, as i observed before, i am not to assume the part of a teacher, but only of a critic and a judge. but he ought to acquaint himself not only with the art of logic, but with all the common and most useful branches of morality. for without a competent knowledge of these, nothing can be advanced and unfolded with any spirit and energy, or with becoming dignity and freedom, either concerning religion,--death,--filial piety,--the love of our country,-- things good or evil,--the several virtues and vices,--the nature of moral obligation,--grief or pleasure, and the other emotions of the mind,--or the various errors and frailties of humanity,--and a variety of important topics which are often closely connected with forensic causes; though _here_(it is true) they must be touched upon more slightly and superficially. i am now speaking of the _materials_ of eloquence, and not of the _art_ itself:--for an orator should always be furnished with a plentiful stock of sentiments,--(i mean such as may claim the attention of the learned, as well as of the vulgar)--before he concerns himself about the language and the manner in which he ought to express himself. that he may make a still more respectable and elevated figure (as we have already observed of _pericles_) he should not be unacquainted with the principles of natural philosophy. for when he descends, as it were, from the starry heavens, to the little concerns of humanity, he will both think and speak with greater dignity and splendor. but after acquainting himself with those divine and nobler objects of contemplation, i would have him attend to human concerns. in particular, let him make himself master of the _civil law_, which is of daily, and indeed necessary use in every kind of causes. for what can be more scandalous, than to undertake the management of judicial suits and controversies, without a proper knowledge of the laws, and of the principles of equity and jurisprudence? he should also be well versed in history and the venerable records of antiquity, but particularly those of his own country: not neglecting, however, to peruse the annals of other powerful nations, and illustrious monarchs;--a toil which has been considerably shortened by our friend _atticus_, who (though he has carefully specified the time of every event, and omitted no transaction of consequence) has comprized the history of seven hundred years in a single volume. to be unacquainted with what has passed in the world, before we came into it ourselves, is to be always children. for what is the age of a single mortal, unless it is connected, by the aid of history, with the times of our ancestors? besides, the relation of past occurrences, and the producing pertinent and striking examples, is not only very entertaining, but adds a great deal of dignity and weight to what we say. thus furnished and equipped our orator may undertake the management of causes. but, in the first place, he should be well acquainted with their different kinds. he should know, for instance, that every judicial controversy must turn either upon a matter of _fact_, or upon the meaning of some particular expression. as to the former, this must always relate either to the _reality_ of a fast, the _equity_ of it, or the _name_ it bears in law. as to forms of expression, these may become the subject of controversy, when they are either _ambiguous_, or _contradictory_. for when the _spirit_ of a law appears to be at variance with the _letter_ of it, this must cause an ambiguity which commonly arises from some of the preceding terms; so that in this case (for such is the nature of an ambiguity) the law will appear to have a double meaning. as the kinds of causes are so few, the rules for the invention of arguments must be few also. the topics, or common places from which those arguments are derived, are twofold,--the one _inherent_ in the subject, and the other _assumptive_. a skilful management of the former contributes most to, give weight to a discourse, and strike the attention of the hearer: because they are easy, and familiar to the understanding. what farther remains (within the province of the art) but that we should begin our discourses so as to conciliate the hearer's good-will, or raise his expectation, or prepare him to receive what follows?--to state the case before us so concisely, and yet so plausibly and clearly, as that the substance of it may be easily comprehended?--to support our own proofs, and refute those of our antagonist, not in a confused and disorderly manner, but so that every inference may be fairly deducible from the premises?--and, in the last place, to conclude the whole with a peroration either to inflame or allay the passions of the audience? how each of these parts should be conducted is a subject too intricate and extensive for our present consideration: for they are not always to be managed in the same manner. but as i am not seeking a pupil to instruct, but an orator who is to be the model of his profession, _he_ must have the preference who can always discern what is proper and becoming. for eloquence should, above all, things, have that kind of discretion which makes her a _perfect mistress of time and character_: because we are not to speak upon every occasion, or before every audience, or against every opponent, or in defence of every client, and to every judge, in the same invariable manner. he, therefore, is the man of genuine eloquence, who can adapt his language to what is most suitable to each. by doing this, he will be sure to say every thing as it ought to be said. he will neither speak drily upon copious subjects, nor without dignity and spirit upon things of importance; but his language will always be proportioned, and equal to his subject. his introduction will be modest,--not flaming with all the glare of expression, but composed of quick and lively turns of sentiment, either to wound the cause of his antagonist, or recommend his own. his narratives will be clear and plausible,--not delivered with the grave formality of an historian, but in the style of polite conversation. if his cause be slight, the thread of his argument, both in proving and refuting, will be so likewise, and he will so conduct it in every part, that his language may rise and expand itself, as the dignity of his subject encreases. but when his cause will admit a full exertion of the powers of eloquence, he will then display himself more openly;--he will then rule, and bend the passions, and direct them, at his pleasure,--that is, as the nature of his cause and the circumstances of the time shall require. but his powers of ornament will be chiefly exerted upon two occasions; i mean that striking kind of ornament, from which eloquence derives her greatest glory. for though every part of an oration should have so much merit, as not to contain a single word but what is either weighty or elegant; there are two very interesting parts which are susceptible of the greatest variety of ornament. the one is the discussion of an indefinite question, or general truth, which by the greeks (as i have before observed) is called a _thesis_: and the other is employed in amplifying and exaggerating, which they call an _auxesis_. though the latter, indeed, should diffuse itself more or less through the whole body of a discourse, it's powers will be more conspicuous in the use and improvement of the _common places_:--which are so called, as being alike _common_ to a number of causes, though (in the application of them) they are constantly appropriated to a single one. but as to the other part, which regards universal truths, or indefinite questions, this frequently extends through a whole cause:--for the leading point in debate, or that which the controversy hinges upon, is always most conveniently discussed when it can be reduced to a general question, and considered as an universal proposition:--unless, indeed, when the mere truth of a matter of fact: is the object: of disquisition: for then the case must be wholly conjectural. we are not, however, to argue like the _peripatetics_ (who have a neat method of controversy which they derive from _aristotle_) but more nervously and pressingly; and general sentiments must be so applied to particular cases, as to leave us room to say many extenuating things in behalf of the defendant, and many severe ones against the plaintiff. but in heightening or softening a circumstance, the powers of language are unlimited, and may be properly exerted, even in the middle of an argument, as often as any thing presents itself which may be either exaggerated, or extenuated; but, in, controul. there are two parts, however, which must not be omitted;--for when these are judiciously conducted, the sorce of eloquence will be amazing. the one is a certain _propriety of manner_ (called the _ethic_ by the greeks) which readily adapts itself to different dispositions and humours, and to every station of life:--and the other is the pathetic, which rouses and alarms the passions, and may be considered as the _scepter_ of eloquence. the former is mild and insinuating, and entirely calculated to conciliate the good-will of the hearer: but the latter is all energy and fire, and snatches a cause by open violence;--and when it's course is rapid and unrestrained, the shock is irresistible. i [footnote: here follows the second passage above-referred to, in which there is a long string of _egotisms_. but as they furnish some very instructive hints, the reader will peruse them with more pleasure than pain] myself have possessed a tolerable share of this, or, it may be, a trifling one:--but as i always spoke with uncommon warmth and impetuosity, i have frequently forced my antagonist to relinquish the field. _hortensius_, an eminent speaker, once declined to answer me, though in defence of an intimate friend. _cataline_, a most audacious traitor, being publicly accused by me in the senate-house, was struck dumb with shame: and _curio_, the father, when he attempted to reply to me in a weighty and important cause which concerned the honour of his family, sat suddenly down, and complained that i had _bewitched_ him out of his memory. as to moving the pity of my audience, it will be unnecessary to mention this. i have frequently attempted it with good success, and when several of us have pleaded on the same side, this part of the defence was always resigned to me; in which my supposed excellence was not owing to the superiority of my genius, but to the real concern i felt for the distresses of my client. but what in this respect have been my talents (for i have had no reason to complain of them) may be easily discovered in my orations:--though a book, indeed, must lose much of the spirit which makes a speech delivered in public appear to greater advantage than when it is perused in the closet. but we are to raise not only the pity of our judges, (which i have endeavoured so passionately, that i once took up an infant in my arms while i was speaking;--and, at another time, calling up the nobleman in whose defence i spoke, and holding up a little child of his before the whole assembly, i filled the forum with my cries and lamentations:)--but it is also necessary to rouse the judge's indignation, to appease it, to excite his jealousy, his benevolence, his contempt, his wonder, his abhorrence, his love, his desire, his aversion, his hope, his fear, his joy, and his grief:--in all which variety, you may find examples, in many accusatory speeches, of rousing the harsher passions; and my defences will furnish instances enough of the methods of working upon the gentler. for there is no method either of alarming or soothing the passions, but what has been attempted by _me_. i would say i have carried it to perfection, if i either thought so, or was not afraid that (in this case) even truth itself might incur the charge of arrogance. but (as i have before observed) i have been so much transported, not by the force of my genius, but by the real fervor of my heart, that i was unable to restrain myself: --and, indeed, no language will inflame the mind of the hearer, unless the speaker himself first catches the ardor, and glows with the importance of his subject. i would refer to examples of my own, unless you had seen them already; and to those of other speakers among the romans, if i could produce any, or among the greeks, if i judged it proper. but _crassus_ will only furnish us with a few, and those not of the forensic kind:-- _antonius, cotta_, and _sulpicius_ with none:--and as to _hortensius_, he spoke much better than he wrote. we may, therefore, easily judge how amazing must be the force of a talent, of which we have so few examples:-- but if we are resolved to seek for them, we must have recourse to _demosthenes_, in whom we find almost a continued succession of them, in that part of his oration for _ctesiphon_, where he enlarges on his own actions, his measures, and his good services to the state, for that oration, i must own, approaches so near to the primary form or semblance of eloquence which exists in my mind, that a more complete and exalted pattern is scarcely desirable. but still, there will remain a general model or character, the true nature and excellence of which may be easily collected from the hints i have already offered. we have slightly touched upon the ornaments of language, both in single words, and in words as they stand connected with each other;--in which our orator will so indulge himself, that not a single expression may escape him, but what is either elegant or weighty. but he will most abound in the _metaphor_; which, by an aptness of similitude, conveys and transports the mind from object to object, and hurries it backwards and forwards through a pleasing variety of images;--a motion which, in its own nature, (as being full of life and action) can never fail to be highly delightful. as to the other ornaments of language which regard words as they are connected with each other, an oration will derive much of its lustre from these. they are like the decorations in the theatre, or the forum, which not only embellish, but surprize. [footnote: in the following abstract of the figures of _language_ and _sentiment_, i have often paraphrased upon my author, to make him intelligible to the english reader;--a liberty which i have likewise taken in several other places, where i judged it necessary.] for such also is the effect of the various _figures_ or decorations of language;--such as the doubling or repetition of the same word;--the repeating it with a slight variation; --the beginning or concluding several sentences in the same manner, or both at once;--the making a word, which concludes a preceding sentence, to begin the following;--the concluding a sentence with the same expression which began it;--the repeating the same word with a different meaning; --the using several corresponding words in the same case, or with the same termination;--the contrasting opposite expressions;--the using words whose meaning rises in gradation;--the leaving out the conjunctive particles to shew our earnestness;--the passing by, or suddenly dropping a circumstance we were going to mention, and assigning a reason for so doing; --[footnote: we have an instance of this, considered as a figure of language, in the following line of virgil; quos ego--, sed praestat motos componere fluctus. aeneid. i. whom i--, but let me still the raging waves. this may likewise serve as an example of the figure which is next mentioned.] the pretending to correct or reprove ourselves, that we may seem to speak without artifice or partiality;--the breaking out into a sudden exclamation, to express our wonder, our abhorrence, or our grief;-- and the using the same noun in different cases. but the figures of _sentiment_ are more weighty and powerful; and there are some who place the highest merit of _demosthenes_ in the frequent use he makes of them. for be his subject what it will, almost all his sentences have a figurative air: and, indeed, a plentiful intermixture of this sort of figures is the very life and soul of a popular eloquence. but as you are thoroughly acquainted with these, my brutus, what occasion is there to explain and exemplify them? the bare mention of them will be sufficient.--our orator, then, will sometimes exhibit an idea in different points of view, and when he has started a good argument, he will dwell upon it with an honest exultation;--he will extenuate what is unfavourable, and have frequent recourse to raillery;--he will sometimes deviate from his plan, and seem to alter his first purpose:--he will inform his audience beforehand, what are the principal points upon which he intends to rest his cause;--he will collect and point out the force of the arguments he has already discussed; he will check an ardent expression, or boldly reiterate what he has said;--he will close a lively paragraph with some weighty and convincing sentiment;--he will press upon his adversary by repeated interrogations;--he will reason with himself, and answer questions of his own proposing;--he will throw out expressions which he designs to be otherwise understood than they seem to mean;--he will pretend to doubt what is most proper to be said, and in what order;-- he will divide an action, &c. into its several parts and circumstances, to render it more striking;--he will pretend to pass over and relinquish a circumstance which might have been urged to advantage;--he will secure himself against the known prejudices of his audience;--he will turn the very circumstance which is alledged against him to the prejudice of his antagonist;--he will frequently appeal to his hearers, and sometimes to his opponent;--he will represent the very language and manners of the persons he is speaking of;--he will introduce irrational and even inanimate beings, as addressing themselves to his audience;--he will (to serve some necessary purpose) steal off their attention from the point in debate;--he will frequently move them to mirth and laughter;--he will answer every thing which he foresees will be objected;--he will compare similar incidents,--refer to past examples,--and by way of amplification assign their distinguishing qualities to opposite characters and circumstances;--he will check an impertinent plea which may interrupt his argument;--he will pretend not to mention what he might have urged to good purpose;--he will caution his hearers against the various artifices and subterfuges which may be employed to deceive them;--he will sometimes appear to speak with an honest, but unguarded freedom;--he will avow his resentment;--he will entreat;--he will earnestly supplicate;--he will apologize;--he will seem for a moment to forget himself;--he will express his hearty good wishes for the deserving, and vent his execrations against notorious villainy;--and now and then he will descend imperceptibly to the most tender and insinuating familiarities. there are likewise other beauties of composition which he will not fail to pursue;--such as brevity where the subject requires it;--a lively and pathetic description of important occurrences;--a passionate exaggeration of remarkable circumstances;--an earnestness of expression which implies more than is said;--a well-timed variety of humour;--and a happy imitation of different characters and dispositions. assisted and adorned by such figures as these, which are very numerous, the force of eloquence will appear in its brightest lustre. but even these, unless they are properly formed and regulated, by a skilful disposition of their constituent words, will never attain the merit we require;--a subject which i shall be obliged to treat of in the sequel, though i am restrained partly by the circumstances already mentioned, but much more so by the following. for i am sensible not only that there are some invidious people, to whom every improvement appears vain and superfluous; but that even those, who are well-wishers to my reputation, may think it beneath the dignity of a man whose public services have been so honourably distinguished by the senate, and the whole body of the roman people, to employ my pen so largely upon the art of speaking. [footnote: the long apology which our author is now going to make for bestowing his time in composing a treatise of oratory, is in fact a very artful as well as an elegant digression; to relieve the dryness and intricacy of the abstract he has just given us of the figures of rhetoric, and of the subsequent account of the rules of prosaic harmony. he has also enlivened that account (which is a very long one) in the same manner, by interspersing it, at convenient distances, with fine examples, agreeable companions, and short historical digressions to elucidate the subject.] if, however, i was to return no other answer to the latter, but that i was unwilling to deny any thing to the request of brutus, the apology must be unexceptionable; because i am only aiming at the satisfaction of an intimate friend, and a worthy man, who desires nothing of me but what is just and honourable. but was i even to profess (what i wish i was capable of) that i mean to give the necessary precepts, and point out the road to eloquence to those who are desirous to qualify themselves for the forum, what man of sense could blame me for it? for who ever doubted that in the decision of political matters, and in time of peace, eloquence has always borne the sway in the roman state, while jurisprudence has possessed only the second post of honour? for whereas the former is a constant source of authority and reputation, and enables us to defend ourselves and our friends in the most effectual manner;--the other only furnishes us with formal rules for indictments, pleas, protests, &c. in conducting which she is frequently obliged to sue for the assistance of eloquence;--but if the latter condescends to oppose her, she is scarcely able to maintain her ground, and defend her own territories. if therefore to teach the civil law has always been reckoned a very honourable employment, and the houses of the most eminent men of that profession, have been crowded with disciples; who can be reasonably censured for exciting our youth to the study of eloquence, and furnishing them with all the assistance in his power? if it is a fault to speak gracefully, let eloquence be for ever banished from the state. but if, on the contrary, it reflects an honour, not only upon the man who possesses it, but upon the country which gave him birth, how can it be a disgrace to _learn_, what it is so glorious to _know_? or why should it not be a credit to _teach_ what it is the highest honour to have _learned_? but, in one case, they will tell me, the practice has been sanctified by custom, and in the other it has not. this i grant: but we may easily account for both. as to the gentlemen of the law, it was sufficient to hear them, when they decided upon such cases as were laid before them in the course of business;--so that when they taught, they did not set apart any particular time for that purpose, but the same answers satisfied their clients and their pupils. on the other hand, as our speakers of eminence spent their time, while at home, in examining and digesting their causes, and while in the forum in pleading them, and the remainder of it in a seasonable relaxation, what opportunity had they for teaching and instructing others? i might venture to add that most of our orators have been more distinguishied by their _genius_, than by their _learning_; and for that reason were much better qualified to be _speakers_ than _teachers_; which it is possible may be the reverse of my case.--"true," say they; "but teaching is an employment which is far from being recommended by its dignity." and so indeed it is, if we teach like mere pedagogues. but if we only direct, encourage, examine, and inform our pupils; and sometimes accompany them in reading or hearing the performances of the most eminent speakers;--if by these means we are able to contribute to their improvement, what should hinder us from communicating a few instructions, as opportunity offers? shall we deem it an honourable employment, as indeed with us it is, to teach the form of a legal process, or an excommunication from the rites and privileges of our religion; and shall it not be equally honourable to teach the methods by which those privileges may be defended and secured?--"perhaps it may," they will reply; "but even those who know scarcely any thing of the law are ambitious to be thought masters of it; whereas those who are well furnished with the powers of eloquence pretend to be wholly unacquainted with them; because they are sensible that useful knowledge is a valuable recommendation, whereas an artful tongue is suspected by every one." but is it possible, then, to exert the powers of eloquence without discovering them? or is an orator really thought to be no orator, because he disclaims the title? or is it likely that, in a great and noble art, the world will judge it a scandal to _teach_ what it is the greatest honour to _learn_? others, indeed, may have been more reserved; but, for my part, i have always owned my profession. for how could i do otherwise, when, in my youth, i left my native land, and crossed the sea, with no other view but to improve myself in this kind of knowledge; and, when afterwards my house was crowded with the ablest professors, and my very style betrayed some traces of a liberal education? nay, when my own writings were in every body's hands, with what face could i pretend that i had not studied? or what excuse could i have for submitting my abilities to the judgment of the public, if i had been apprehensive that they would think i had studied to no purpose? [footnote: this sentence in the original runs thus;--_quid erat cur probarem_ (i.e. scripta nostra), _nisi quod parum fortasse profeceram_?--"wherefore did i approve of them," (that is, of my writings, so far as to make them public) "but because i had," (in my own opinion) "made a progress, though perhaps a small one, in useful literature?" this, at least, is the only meaning i am able to affix to it; and i flatter myself, that the translation i have given of it, will be found to correspond with the general sense of my author.] but the points we have already discussed are susceptible of greater dignity and elevation, than those which remain to be considered. for we are next to treat of the arrangement of our words; and, indeed, i might have said, of the art of numbering and measuring our very syllables; which, though it may, in reality, be a matter of as much consequence as i judge it to be, cannot however be supposed to have such a striking appearance in precept as in practice. this, indeed, might be said of every other branch of useful knowledge; but it is more remarkably true with respect to this. for the actual growth and improving height of all the sublimer arts, like that of trees, affords a pleasing prospect; whereas the roots and stems are scarcely beheld with indifference: and yet the former cannot subsist without the latter. but whether i am restrained from dissembling the pleasure i take in the subject, by the honest advice of the poet, who says, "blush not to own the art you love to practise." or whether this treatise has been extorted from me by the importunity of my friend, it was proper to obviate the censures to which it will probably expose me. and yet, even supposing that i am mistaken in my sentiments, who would shew himself so much of a savage, as to refuse me his indulgence (now all my forensic employments and public business are at an end) for not resigning myself to that stupid inactivity which is contrary to my nature, or to that unavailing sorrow which i do my best to overcome, rather than devote myself to my favourite studies? these first conducted me into the forum and the senate-house, and they are now the chief comforts of my retirement. i have, however, applied myself not only to such speculations as form the subject of the present essay, but to others more sublime and interesting; and if i am able to discuss them in a proper manner, my private studies will be no disparagement to my forensic employments. but it is time to return to our subject.--our words, then, should be so disposed that every following one may be aptly connected with the preceding, so as to make an agreeable sound;--or that the mere form and _concinnity_ of our language may give our sentences their proper measure and dimensions;--or, lastly, that our periods may have a numerous and measured cadence. the first thing, then, to be attended to, is the _structure_ of our language, or the agreeable connection of one word with another; which, though it certainly requires care, ought not to be practised with a laborious nicety. for this would be an endless and puerile attempt, and is justly ridiculed by _lucilius_, when he introduces _scaevola_ thus reflecting upon _albucius_: "as in the checquer'd pavement ev'ry square is nicely fitted by the mason's care: so all thy words are plac'd with curious art, and ev'ry syllable performs its part." but though we are not to be minutely exact in the _structure_ of our language, a moderate share of practice will habituate us to every thing of this nature which is necessary. for as the eye in _reading_, so the mind in _speaking_, will readily discern what ought to follow,--that, in connecting our words, there may neither be a chasm, nor a disagreeable harshness. the most lively and interesting sentiments, if they are harshly expressed, will offend the ear, that delicate and fastidious judge of rhetorical harmony. this circumstance, therefore, is so carefully attended to in the roman language, that there is scarcely a rustic among us who is not averse to a collision of vowels,--a defect which, in the opinion of some, was too scrupulously avoided by _theopompus_, though his master _isocrates_ was equally cautious. but _thucydides_ was not so exact; nor was plato, (though a much better writer)--not only in his _dialogues_, in which it was necessary to maintain an easy negligence, to resemble the style of conversation, but in the famous _panegyric_, in which (according to the custom of the athenians) he celebrated the praises of those who fell in battle, and which was so greatly esteemed, that it is publicly repeated every year. in that oration a collision of vowels occurs very frequently; though _demosthenes_ generally avoids it as a fault. but let the greeks determine for themselves: we romans are not allowed to interrupt the connection of our words. even the rude and unpolished orations of _cato_ are a proof of this; as are likewise all our poets, except in particular instances, in which they were obliged to admit a few breaks, to preserve their metre. thus we find in _naevius_, "_vos_ qui accolitis _histrum_ fluvium atque algidum." and in another place, "_quam nunquam vobis_ graii atque _barbari_." but _ennius_ admits it only once, when he says, "_scipio invicte_;" and likewise i myself in "_hoc motu radiantis_ etesiae in _vada ponti_." this, however, would seldom be suffered among us, though the greeks often commend it as a beauty. but why do i speak of a collision of vowels? for, omitting this, we have frequently _contracted_ our words for the sake of brevity; as in _multi' modis, vas' argenteis, palm' et crinibus, tecti' fractis_, &c. we have sometimes also contracted our proper _names_, to give them a smoother sound: for as we have changed _duellum_ into _bellum_, and _duis_ into _bis_, so _duellius_, who defeated the carthagenians at sea, was called _bellius_, though all his ancestors were named _duellii_. we likewise abbreviate our words, not only for convenience, but to please and gratify the ear. for how otherwise came _axilla_ to be changed into _ala_, but by the omission of an unweildy consonant, which the elegant pronunciation of our language has likewise banished from the words _maxillae, taxillae, vexillum_, and _paxillum_? upon the same principle, two or more words have been contracted into one, as _sodes_ for _si audes_, _sis_ for _si vis_, _capsis_ for _cape si vis_, _ain'_ for _aisne_, _nequire_ for _non quire_, _malle_ for _magis velle_, and _nolle_ for _non velle_; and we often say _dein'_ and _exin'_ for _deinde_ and _exinde_. it is equally evident why we never say _cum nobis_, but _nobiscum_; though we do not scruple to say _cum illis_;--_viz._ because, in the former case, the union of the consonants _m_ and _n_ would produce a jarring sound: and we also say _mecum_ and _tecum_, and not _cum me_ and _cum te_, to correspond with _nobiscum_ and _vobiscum_. but some, who would correct antiquity rather too late, object to these contractions: for, instead of _prob_ deÃ�m _atque hominum fidem_, they say _deorum_. they are not aware, i suppose, that custom has sanctified the licence. the same poet, therefore, who, almost without a precedent, has said _patris mei meÃ�m factÃ�m pudet_, instead of _meorum factorum_,--and _textitur exitiûm examen rapit_ for _exitiorum_, does not choose to say _liberum_, as we generally do in the expressions _cupidos liberûm_, and _in liberûm loco_, but, as the literary virtuosos above-mentioned would have it, _neque tuum unquam in gremium extollas_ liberorum _ex te genus_, and, _namque aesculapî_ liberorum. but the author before quoted says in his chryses, not only _cives, antiqui amici majorum_ meÃ�m, which was common enough--, but more harshly still, consiliÃ�m, auguriÃ�m, _atque_ extÃ�m _interpretes_; and in another place, _postquam_ prodigiÃ�m horriferÃ�m portentÃ�m _pavos_. a licence which is not customary in all neuters indifferently: for i should not be so willing to say armûm _judicium_, as _armorum_; though in the same writer we meet with _nihilne ad te de judicio_ armûm _accidit_? and yet (as we find it in the public registers) i would venture to say _fabrûm_, and _procûm_, and not _fabrorum_ and _procorum_. but i would never say duorum virorum _judicium_, or _trium_ virorum _capitalium_, or _decem_ virorum _litibus judicandis_. in accius, however, we meet with _video sepulchra duo_ duorum _corporum_; though in another place he says, _mulier una_ duum virum. i know, indeed, which is most conformable to the rules of grammar: but yet i sometimes express myself as the freedom of our language allows me, as when i say at pleasure, either _prob deum_, or _prob deorum_;--and, at other times, as i am obliged by custom, as when i say _trium_ virum for _virorum_, or sestertium nummum for _nummorum_: because in the latter case the mode of expression is invariable. but what shall we say when these humourists forbid us to say _nosse_ and _judicasse_ for _novisse_ and _judicavisse_; as if we did not know, as well as themselves, that, in these instances, the verb at full length is most agreeable to the laws of grammar, though custom has given the preference to the contracted verb? terence, therefore, has made use of both, as when he says, _eho tu cognatum tuum non norâs_? and afterwards, _stilphonem, inquam, noveras_? thus also, _fiet_ is a perfect verb, and _fit_ a contracted one; and accordingly we find in the same comedian, _quam cara_ sintque _post carendo intelligunt_, and _quamque attinendi magni dominatus_ sient. in the same manner i have no objection to _scripsere alii rem_, though i am sensible that _scripserunt_ is more grammatical; because i submit with pleasure to the indulgent laws of custom which delights to gratify the ear. _idem campus habet_, says ennius; and in another place, _in templis îsdem_; _eisdem_, indeed, would have been more grammatical, but not sufficiently harmonious; and _iisdem_ would have sounded still worse. but we are allowed by custom even to dispense with the rules of etymology to improve the sweetness of our language; and i would therefore rather say, _pomeridianas quadrigas_, than _postmeridianas_; and _mehercule_, than _mehercules_. for the same reason _non scire_ would now be deemed a barbarism, becaule _nescire_ has a smoother sound; and we have likewise substituted _meridiem_ for _medidiem_, because the latter was offensive to the ear. even the preposition _ab_, which so frequently occurs in our compound verbs is preserved entire only in the formality of a journal, and, indeed, not always there: in every other sort of language it is frequently altered. thus we say _amovit_, _abegit_, and _abstulit_; so that you can scarcely determine whether the primitive preposition should be _ab_ or _abs_. we have likewise rejected even _abfugit_, and _abfer_, and introduced _aufugit_ and _aufer_ in their stead;--thus forming a new preposition, which is to be found in no other verb but these. _noti_, _navi_, and _nari_, have all been words in common use: but when they were afterwards to be compounded with the preposition _in_, it was thought more harmonious to say _ignoti_, _ignavi_, and _ignari_, than to adhere strictly to the rules of etymology. we likewise say _ex usu_, and _e republicâ_; because, in the former case, the preposition is followed by a vowel, and, in the latter, it would have sounded harshly without omitting the consonant; as may also be observed in _exegit, edixit, refecit, retulit_, and _reddidit_. sometimes the preposition alters or otherwise affects the first letter of the verb with which it happens to be compounded; as in _subegit, summutavit_, and _sustutit_. at other times it changes one of the subsequent letters; as when we say _insipientem_ for _insapientem_, _iniquum_ for inaequum_, _tricipitem_ for _tricapitem_, and _concisum_ for _concaesum_: and from hence some have ventured to say _pertisum_ for _pertaesum_, which custom has never warranted. but what can be more delicate than our changing even the natural quantity of our syllables to humour the ear? thus in the adjectives _inclytus_, and _inhumanus_, the first syllable after the preposition is short, whereas _insanus_ and _infelix_ have it long; and, in general, those words whose first letters are the same as in _sapiens_ and _felix_, have their first syllable long in composition, but all others have the same syllable short, as _composuit, consuevit, concrepuit, confecit_. examine these liberties by the strict rules of etymology, and they must certainly be condemned; but refer them to the decision of the ear, and they will be instantly approved.--what is the reason? your ear will inform you they have an easier sound; and every language must submit to gratify the ear. i myself, because our ancestors never admitted the aspirate, unless where a syllable began with a vowel, used to say _pulcros, cetegos, triumpos_, and _cartaginem_: but some time afterwards, though not very soon, when this grammatical accuracy was wrested from me by the censure of the ear, i resigned the mode of language to the vulgar, and reserved the theory to myself. but we still say, without any hesitation, _orcivios, matones, otones, coepiones, sepulcra, coronas_, and _lacrymas_, because the ear allows it. _ennius_ always uses _burrum_, and never _pyrrhum_; and the ancient copies of the same author have _vi patefecerunt bruges_, not _phryges_; because the greek vowel had not then been adopted, though we now admit both that and the aspirate:--and, in fact, when we had afterwards occasion to say _phrygum_ and _phrygibus_, it was rather absurd to adopt the greek letter without adopting their cases, [footnote: this passage, as it stands in the original, appears to me unintelligible: i have therefore taken the liberty to give it a slight alteration.] or at least not to confine it to the nominative; and yet (in the accusative) we say _phryges_, and _pyrrhum_, to please the ear. formerly it was esteemed an elegancy, though it would now be considered as a rusticism, to omit the _s_ in all words which terminate in _us_, except when they were followed by a vowel; and the same elision which is so carefully avoided by the modern poets, was very far from being reckoned a fault among the ancient: for they made no scruple to say, _qui est omnibu' princeps_, not, as we do, omnibus princeps; and, _vitâ illâ dignu' locoque_, not _dignus_. but if untaught custom has been so ingenious in the formation of agreeable sounds, what may we not expect from the improvements of art and erudition? i have, however, been much shorter upon this subject, than i should have been if i had written upon it professedly: for a comparison of the natural and customary laws of language would have opened a wide field for speculation: but i have already enlarged upon it sufficiently, and more, perhaps, than the nature of my design required. to proceed then;--as the choice of proper matter, and of suitable words to express it, depends upon the judgment of the speaker, but that of agreeable sounds, and harmonious numbers, upon the decision of the ear; and because the former is intended for information, and the latter for pleasure; it is evident that reason must determine the rules of art in one case, and mere sensation in the other. for we must either neglect the gratification of those by whom we wish to be approved, or apply ourselves to invent the most likely methods to promote it. there are two things which contribute to gratify the ear,--agreeable _sounds_, and harmonious _numbers_. we shall treat of numbers in the sequel, and at present confine ourselves to _sound_.--those words, then, as we have already observed, are to have the preference which sound agreeably;--not such as are exquisitely melodious, like those of the poets, but such as can be found to our purpose in common language.--_quà pontus helles_ is rather beyond the mark:--but in _auratos aries colchorum_, the verse glitters with a moderate harmony of expression; whereas the next, as ending with a letter which is remarkably flat, is unmusical, _frugifera et ferta arva alfiae tenet_, let us, therefore, rather content ourselves with the agreeable mediocrity of our own language, than emulate the splendor of the greeks; unless we are so bigotted to the latter as to hesitate to say with the poet, _quà tempestate paris helenam, &c_. we might even imitate what follows, and avoid, as far as possible, the smallest asperity of sound, _habeo istam ego perterricrepam_; or say, with the same author, in another passage, _versutiloquas malitias_. but our words must have a proper _compass_, as well as be connected together in an agreeable manner; for this, we have observed, is another circumstance which falls under the notice of the ear. they are confined to a proper compass, either by certain rules of composition, as by a kind of natural pause, or by the use of particular forms of expression, which have a peculiar _concinnity_ in their very texture; such as a succession of several words which have the same termination, or the comparing similar, and contrasting opposite circumstances, which will always terminate in a measured cadence, though no immediate pains should be taken for that purpose. gorgias, it is said, was the first orator who practised this species of _concinnity_. the following passage in my defence of _milo_ is an example. "est enim, judices, haec non _scripta_, fed _nata_ lex; quam non _didicimus, accepimus, legimus_, verum ex naturâ ipsâ _arripuimus, hausimus, expressimus_; ad quam non _docti_, sed _facti_; non _instituti_, sed _imbuti_ simus." "for this, my lords, is a law not written upon tables, but impressed upon our hearts;--a law which we have not learned, or heard, or read, but eagerly caught and imbibed from the hand of nature;--a law to which we have not been train'd, but originally form'd; and with the principles of which we have not been furnished by education, but tinctured and impregnated from the moment of our birth." in these forms of expression every circumstance is so aptly referred to some other circumstance, that the regular turn of them does not appear to have been studied, but to result entirely from the sense. the same effect is produced by contrasting opposite circumstances; as in the following lines, where it not only forms a measured sentence, but a verse: _eam, quam nihil accusas, damnas,_ her, whom you ne'er accus'd, you now condemn; (in prose we should say _condemnas_) and again, _bene quam meritam esse autumas, dicis male mereri_, her merit, once confess'd, you now deny; and, _id quod scis, prodest nihil; id quod nescis, obest_, from what you've learnt no real good accrues, but ev'ry ill your ignorance pursues. here you see the mere opposition of the terms produces a verse; but in prosaic composition, the proper form of the last line would be, _quod scis nihil prodest; quod nescis multum obest_. this contrasting of opposite circumstances, which the greeks call an antithesis, will necessarily produce what is styled _rhetorical metre_, even without our intending it. the ancient orators, a considerable time before it was practised and recommended by _isocrates_, were fond of using it; and particularly _gorgias_, whose measured cadences are generally owing to the mere _concinnity_ of his language. i have frequently practised it myself; as, for instance, in the following passage of my fourth invective against _verres_: "conferte _hanc pacem_ cum _illo bello_;--_hujus_ praetoris _adventum_, cum _illius_ imperatoris _victoriâ_;--hujas _cohortem impuram_, cum illius _exercitu invicto_;--hujus _libidines_, cum illius _continentiâ_;--ab illo qui cepit _conditas_; ab hoc, qui constitutas accepit, _captas_ dicetis syracusas." "compare this detestable _peace_ with that glorious _war_,--the _arrival_ of this governor with the _victory_ of that commander,--his _ruffian guards_, with the _invincible forces_ of the other;--the brutal luxury of the former, with the modest temperance of the latter;--and you will say, that syracuse was really _founded_ by him who _stormed_ it, and _stormed_ by him who received it already _founded_ to his hands."--so much, then, for that kind of measure which results from particular forms of expression, and which ought to be known by every orator. we must now proceed to the third thing proposed,--that _numerous_ and well-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible as not to feel it, i cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or what resemblance of a human being! for my part, my ears are always fond of a complete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant what is either defective or redundant. but wherefore do i say _mine_? i have frequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at a happy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should be properly tuned and measured. this, however, is an accomplishment which is not to be met with among the ancients. but to compensate the want of it, they had almost every other perfection: for they had a happy choice of words, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had not the art of harmonizing and completing their periods. this, say some, is the very thing we admire. but what if they should take it into their heads to prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, to the rich and finished style of the moderns? the former, i suppose, must be again adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected. but these pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ of antiquity. it must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim to authority in matters of imitation, as grey hairs in the precedence of age. i myself have as great a veneration for it as any man: nor do i so much upbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she was mistress of:--especially as i judge the latter to be of far greater consequence than the former. for there is certainly more real merit in a masterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowed to excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totally unacquainted. this species of composition was not known among the romans till lately: but the ancients, i believe, would readily have adopted it, if it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is now made use of by all orators of reputation. "but when _number_, or (as the greeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicial and forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound: for people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to sooth and captivate their ears, when the speaker is so over-exact as to attend to the harmony of his periods." relying upon the force of this objection, these pretenders are perpetually grating our ears with their broken and mutilated sentences; and censure those, without mercy, who have the presumption to utter an agreeable and a well-turned period. if, indeed, it was our design to spread a varnish over empty words and trifling sentiments, the censure would be just: but when the matter is good, and the words are proper and expressive, what reason can be assigned why we should prefer a limping and imperfect period to one which terminates and keeps pace with the sense? for this invidious and persecuted _metre_ aims at nothing more than to adapt the compass of our words to that of our thoughts; which is sometimes done even by the ancients,--though generally, i believe, by mere accident, and often by the natural delicacy of the ear; and the very passages which are now most admired in them, commonly derive their merit from the agreeable and measured flow of the language. this is an art which was in common use among the greek orators, about four hundred years ago, though it has been but lately introduced among the romans. ennius, therefore, when he ridicules the inharmonious numbers of his predecessors, might be allowed to say, "_such verses as the rustic bards and satyrs sung_:" but i must not take the same liberty; especially as i cannot say with him, _before this bold adventurer_, &c. (meaning himself:) nor, as he afterwards exults to the same purpose, _i first have dar'd t'unfold_, &c. for i have both read and heard several who were almost complete masters of the numerous and measured style i am speaking of: but many, who are still absolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridicule they deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. i must own, indeed, that i admire the venerable patterns, of which those persons pretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects i observe in them: but i can by no means commend the folly of those who copy nothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the most distant resemblance in what is truly excellent. but if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they pay no deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated for their learning? i will not mention _isocrates_, and his two scholars, _ephorus_ and _naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving the richest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent orators. but who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtle and acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and a greater strength of understanding, than _aristotle_? i may add, who made a warmer opposition to the rising fame of _isocrates_? and yet _he_, though he forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. his hearer _theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and an excellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and _theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. who, then, can have patience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to oppose themselves to such venerable names as these? the only excuse that can be made for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and are therefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we are speaking of. if this is the case with them (and i cannot think otherwise) will they reject the evidence of their own sensations? is there nothing which their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harsh and unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothing redundant? in dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim against a verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yet the bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, and are totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but nature herself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determine the propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute. do you desire, then, my brutus, that we should discuss the subject more fully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the other parts of rhetoric? or shall we content ourselves with the instructions which _they_ have provided for us? but wherefore do i offer such a question, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is the chief object of your request? we shall proceed, therefore, to give an account of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of _prosaic numbers_. the admirers of isocrates place the first invention of numbers among those other improvements which do honour to his memory. for observing, say they, that the orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while the poets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce a species of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon the ear, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continued uniformity of sound. this, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise; for though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in the subject than _isocrates_; yet the first honour of the invention belongs to _thrasymachus_, whose style (in all his writings which are extant) is _numerous_ even to a fault. but _gorgias_, as i have already remarked, was the original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have a kind of spontaneous harmony,--such as a regular succession of words with the same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting opposite circumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them to excess. this, however, is one of the three branches of composition above- mentioned. but each of these authors was prior to _isocrates_: so that the preference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not for the _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turn of his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are more composed and sedate. but _gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, and indulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess. he, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he had first studied in his youth under the same _gorgias_, who was then in thessaly, and in the last decline of life. nay, as he advanced in years (for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and gradually relaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularly informs us in the treatise which he dedicated to philip of macedon, in the latter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off that servile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--so that he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of his predecessors. having thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the first commencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the natural source and origin of it. but this lies so open to observation, that i am astonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, by mere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, when they had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to make it obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chance alone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species of ornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would have taken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. for the ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has a natural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordingly feel that it instantly determines what is either too short or too long, and always expects to be gratified with that which is complete and well- proportioned. some expressions it perceives to be imperfect, and mutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defrauded of it's natural due. in others it discovers an immoderate length, and a tedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgusted than with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess is always more offensive than a proportional defect. as versification, therefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of the ear, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so in prose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidance of nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our language should be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits. so much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. we must next proceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the nature of it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceeds the limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in a professed and accurate system of the art. for we might here inquire what is meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence it arises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of any variety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when and where it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear. but as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods of disquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other more concise, and, i might also add, more easy and comprehensible. in the former, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any such thing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because no fixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long have been for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend for it's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it. granting, however, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired of what kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of the poets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which of them may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, and some more, while others object to none. we might then proceed to enquire (be the number of them to be admitted, more or less) whether they are equally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive, and the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether the different species of oratory should be accommodated with their different numbers. if the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we must next enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differently applied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they are not to be used so openly in prose as in verse. it might likewise be a matter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by the use of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture of our words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression; --and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiar province, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, composition the _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of our language,--and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of all the rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to those figurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the greeks, as i have before observed, are called ([greek: _schaemaia_],) _attitudes_ or _figures_. but to me there appears to be a real distinction between what is agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of _expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closely connected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerous without any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently different from both, as attending entirely either to the _majestic_ or _agreeable_ sound of our words. such then are the enquiries which relate to the _nature_ of prosaic harmony. from what has been said it is easy to infer that prose is susceptible of _number_. our sensations tell us so: and it would be excessively unfair to reject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. even poetic metre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere natural taste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved and methodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention to nature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensations gave birth to art. but in verse the use of _number_ is more obvious; though some particular species of it, without the assistance of music, have the air of harmonious prose, and especially the lyric poetry, and that even the best of the kind, which, if divested of the aid of music, would be almost as plain and naked as common language. we have several specimens of this nature in our own poets [footnote: it must here be remarked, that the romans had no lyric poet before _horace_, who did not flourish till after the times of _cicero_.]; such as the following line in the tragedy of _thyestes_, "_quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tardâ senectute_; "whom shall i call thee? who in tardy age," &c.; which, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken for prose. but the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblance to the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you can scarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it is evident that it is more difficult to adapt numbers to prose than to verse. there are two things, however, which give a relish to our language,--well- chosen words, and harmonious _numbers_. words may be considered as the _materials_ of language, and it is the business of _number_ to smooth and polish them. but as in other cases, what was invented to serve our necessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so, in the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted to express our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the invention of _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. accordingly _herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea of prosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random, and by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (i mean those of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though they have left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management of our style. for what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, for that reason, always first discovered. metaphors, therefore, and new-made and compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowed from custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from our domestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with common language; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till every other improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the last touches to the style of eloquence. as it may be remarked that one sort of language is interrupted by frequent breaks and intermissions, while another is flowing and diffusive; it is evident that the difference cannot result from the natural sounds of different letters, but from the various combinations of long and short syllables, with which our language, being differently blended and intermingled, will be either dull and motionless, or lively and fluent; so that every circumstance of this nature must be regulated by _number_. for by the assistance of _numbers_, the _period_, which i have so often mentioned before, pursues it's course with greater strength and freedom till it comes to a natural pause. it is therefore plain that the style of an orator should be measured and harmonized by _numbers_, though entirely free from verse; but whether these numbers should be the same as those of the poets, or of a different species, is the next thing to be considered. in my opinion there can be no sort of numbers but those of the poets; because they have already specified all their different kinds with the utmost precision; for every number may be comprized in the three following varieties:--_viz_. a _foot_ (which is the measure we apply to numbers) must be so divided, that one part of it will be either equal to the other, or twice as long, or equal to three halves of it. thus, in a _dactyl_ (breve-macron-macron) (long-short-short) the first syllable, which is the former part of the foot, is equal to the two others, in the _iambic_ (macron-breve)(short-long) the last is double the first, and in the _paeon_ (macron-macron-macron-breve, or breve-macron-macron-macron)(short- short-short-long, or long-short-short-short) one of its parts, which is the long syllable, is equal to two-thirds of the other. these are feet which are unavoidably incident to language; and a proper arrangement of them will produce a _numerous_ style. but it will here be enquired, what numbers should have the preference? to which i answer, they must all occur promiscuously; as is evident from our sometimes speaking verse without knowing it, which in prose is reckoned a capital fault; but in the hurry of discourse we cannot always watch and criticise ourselves. as to _senarian_ and _hipponactic_ [footnote: verses chiefly composed of iambics] verses, it is scarcely possible to avoid them; for a considerable part, even of our common language, is composed of _iambics_. to these, however, the hearer is easily reconciled; because custom has made them familiar to his ear. but through inattention we are often betrayed into verses which are not so familiar;--a fault which may easily be avoided by a course of habitual circumspection. _hieronymus_, an eminent peripatetic, has collected out of the numerous writings of isocrates about thirty verses, most of them senarian, and some of them anapest, which in prose have a more disagreeable effect than any others. but he quotes them with a malicious partiality: for he cuts off the first syllable of the first word in a sentence, and annexes to the last word the first syllable of the following sentence; and thus he forms what is called an _aristophanean_ anapest, which it is neither possible nor necessary to avoid entirely. but, this redoubtable critic, as i discovered upon a closer inspection, has himself been betrayed into a senarian or iambic verse in the very paragraph in which he censures the composition of _isocrates_. upon the whole, it is sufficiently plain that prose is susceptible of _numbers_, and that the numbers of an orator must be the same as those of a poet. the next thing to be considered is, what are the numbers which are most suitable to his character, and, for that reason, should occur more frequently than the rest? some prefer the _iambic_ (macron-breve)(short- long) as approaching the nearest to common language; for which reason, they say, it is generally made use of in fables and comedies, on account of it's resemblance to conversation; and because the dactyl, which is the favourite number of hexameters, is more adapted to a pompous style. _ephorus_, on the other hand, declares for the paeon and the dactyl; and rejects the spondee and the trochee (long short). for as the paeon has three short syllables, and the dactyl two, he thinks their shortness and celerity give a brisk and lively flow to our language; and that a different effect would be produced by the trochee and the spondee, the one consisting of short syllables, and the other of long ones;--so that by using the former, the current of our words would become too rapid, and too heavy by employing the latter, losing, in either case, that easy moderation which best satisfies the ear. but both parties seem to be equally mistaken: for those who exclude the paeon, are not aware that they reject the sweetest and fullest number we have. aristotle was far from thinking as they do: he was of opinion that heroic numbers are too sonorous for prose; and that, on the other hand, the iambic has too much the resemblance of vulgar talk:--and, accordingly, he recommends the style which is neither too low and common, nor too lofty and extravagant, but retains such a just proportion of dignity, as to win the attention, and excite the admiration of the hearer. he, therefore, calls the _trochee_ (which has precisely the same quantity as the _choree_) _the rhetorical jigg_ [footnote: _cordacem appellat_. the _cordax_ was a lascivious dance very full of agitation.]; because the shortness and rapidity of it's syllables are incompatible with the majesty of eloquence. for this reason he recommends the _paeon_, and says that every person makes use of it, even without being sensible when he does so. he likewise observes that it is a proper medium between the different feet above-mentioned:--the proportion between the long and short syllables, in every foot, being either sesquiplicate, duple, or equal. the authors, therefore, whom i mentioned before attended merely to the easy flow of our language, without any regard to it's dignity. for the iambic and the dactyl are chiefly used in poetry; so that to avoid versifying in prose, we must shun, as much as possible, a continued repetition of either; because the language of prose is of a different cast, and absolutely incompatible with verse. as the paeon, therefore, is of all other feet the most improper for poetry, it may, for that reason be more readily admitted into prose. but as to _ephorus_, he did not reflect that even the _spondee_, which he rejects, is equal in time to his favourite dactyl; because he supposed that feet were to be measured not by the quantity, but the number of their syllables;--a mistake of which he is equally guilty when he excludes the _trochee_, which, in time and quantity, is precisely equal to the iambic; though it is undoubtedly faulty at the end of a period, which always terminates more agreeably in a long syllable than a short one. as to what aristotle has said of the _paeon_, the same has likewise been said by _theophrastus_ and _theodectes_. but, for my part, i am rather of opinion that our language should be intermingled and diversified with all the varieties of number; for should we confine ourselves to any particular feet, it would be impossible to escape the censure of the hearer; because our style should neither be so exactly measured as that of the poets, nor entirely destitute of number, like that of the common people. the former, as being too regular and uniform, betrays an appearance of art; and the other, which is as much too loose and undetermined, has the air of ordinary talk; so that we receive no pleasure from the one, and are absolutely disgusted with the other. our style, therefore, as i have just observed, should be so blended and diversified with different numbers, as to be neither too vague and unrestrained, nor too openly numerous, but abound most in the paeon (so much recommended by the excellent author above-mentioned) though still in conjunction with many other feet which he entirely omits. but we must now consider what number like so many dashes of purple, should tincture and enrich the rest, and to what species of style they are each of them best adapted. the iambic, then, should be the leading number in those subjects which require a plain and simple style;--the paeon in such as require more compass and elevation; and the dactyl is equally applicable to both. so that in a discourse of any length and variety, it will be occasionally necessary to blend and intermingle them all. by this means, our endeavours to modulate our periods, and captivate the ear, will be most effectually concealed; especially, if we maintain a suitable dignity both of language and sentiment. for the hearer will naturally attend to these (i mean our words and sentiments) and to them alone attribute the pleasure he receives; so that while he listens to these with admiration, the harmony of our numbers will escape his notice: though it must indeed be acknowledged that the former would have their charms without the assistance of the latter. but the flow of our numbers is not to be so exact (i mean in prose, for in poetry the case is different) as that nothing may exceed the bounds of regularity; for this would be to compose a poem. on the contrary, if our language neither limps nor fluctuates, but keeps an even and a steady pace, it is sufficiently _numerous_; and it accordingly derives the title, not from its consisting entirely of numbers, but from its near approach to a numerous form. this is the reason why it is more difficult to make elegant prose, than to make verses; because there are fixed and invariable rules for the latter; whereas nothing is determined in the former, but that the current of our language should be neither immoderate nor defective, nor loose and unconfined. it cannot be supposed, therefore, to admit of regular beats and divisions, like a piece of music; but it is only necessary that the general compass and arrangement of our words should be properly restrained and limited,--a circumstance which must be left entirely to the decision of the ear. another question which occurs before us, is--whether an attention to our numbers should be extended to every part of a sentence, or only to the beginning and the end. most authors are of opinion that it is only necessary that our periods should end well, and have a numerous cadence. it is true, indeed, that this ought to be principally attended to, but not solely: for the whole compass of our periods ought likewise to be regulated, and not totally neglected. as the ear, therefore, always directs it's view to the close of a sentence, and there fixes it's attention, it is by no means proper that this should be destitute of _number_: but it must also be observed that a period, from it's first commencement, should run freely on, so as to correspond to the conclusion; and the whole advance from the beginning with such an easy flow, as to make a natural, and a kind of voluntary pause. to those who have been we'll practised in the art, and who have both written much; and often attempted to discourse _extempore_ with the same accuracy which they observe in their writings, this will be far less difficult than is imagined. for every sentence is previously formed and circumscribed in the mind of the speaker, and is then immediately attended by the proper words to express it, which the same mental faculty (than which there is nothing more lively and expeditious) instantly dismisses, and sends off each to its proper post: but, in different sentences, their particular order and arrangement will be differently terminated; though, in every sentence, the words both in the beginning and the middle of it, should have a constant reference to the end. our language, for instance, must sometimes advance with rapidity, and at other times it's pace must be moderate and easy; so that it will be necessary at the very beginning of a sentence, to resolve upon the manner in which you would have it terminate; but we must avoid the least appearance of poetry, both in our numbers, and in the other ornaments of language; though it is true, indeed, that the labours of the orator must be conducted on the same principles as those of the poet. for in each we have the same materials to work upon, and a similar art of managing them; the materials being words, and the art of managing them relating, in both cases, to the manner in which they ought to be disposed. the words also in each may be divided into three classes,--the __metaphorical_,--the new-coined,--and the antique;--for at present we have no concern with words _proper_:--and three parts may also be distinguished in the art of disposing them; which, i have already observed, are _juncture_, _concinnity_, and _number_. the poets make use both of one and the other more frequently, and with greater liberty than we do; for they employ the _tropes_ not only much oftener, but more boldly and openly; and they introduce _antique_ words with a higher taste, and new ones with less reserve. the same may be said in their numbers, in the use of which they are subjected to invariable rules, which they are scarcely ever allowed to transgress. the two arts, therefore, are to be considered neither as wholly distinct, nor perfectly conjoined. this is the reason why our numbers are not to be so conspicuous in prose as in verse; and that in prose, what is called a _numerous_ style, does not always become so by the use of numbers, but sometimes either by the concinnity of our language, or the smooth juncture of our words. to conclude this head; if it should be enquired, "what are the numbers to be used in prose?" i answer, "_all_; though some are certainly better, and more adapted to it's character than others."--if "_where_ is their proper seat?"--"in the different quantity of our syllables:"--if "from whence their _origin_?"--"from the sole pleasure of the ear:"--if "what the method of blending and intermingling them?"--"this shall be explained in the sequel, because it properly relates to the manner of using them, which was the fourth and last article in my division of the subject." if it be farther enquired, "for what purpose they are employed?" i answer,--"to gratify the ear:"--if "_when_?" i reply, "at all times:"--if "in what part of a sentence?" "through the whole length of it:"--and if "what is the circumstance which gives them a pleasing effect?" "the same as in poetical compositions, whose metre is regulated by art, though the ear alone, without the assistance of art, can determine it's limits by the natural powers of sensation." enough, therefore, has been said concerning the nature and properties of _number_. the next article to be considered is the manner in which our numbers should be employed,--a circumstance which requires to be accurately discussed. here it is usual to enquire, whether it is necessary to attend to our numbers through the whole compass of a period, [footnote: our author here informs us, that what the greeks called [greek: periodos], a _period_, was distinguished among the romans by the words _ambitus, circuitus, comprehensio, continuatio_, and _circumscriptio_. as i thought this remark would appear much better in the form of a note, than in the body of the work, i have introduced it accordingly.] or only at the beginning or end of it, or equally in both. in the next place, as _exact number_ seems to be one thing, and that which is merely _numerous_ another, it might be enquired wherein lies the difference. we might likewise consider whether the members of a sentence should all indifferently be of the same length, whatever be the numbers they are composed of;--or whether, on this account, they should not be sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter;--and when, and for what reasons, they should be made so, and of what numbers they should be composed;--whether of several sorts, or only of one; and whether of equal or unequal numbers;--and upon what occasions either the one or the other of these are to be used;-and what numbers accord best together, and in what order; or whether, in this respect, there is no difference between them;--and (which has still a more immediate reference to our subject) by what means our style may be rendered _numerous_. it will likewise be necessary to specify the rise and origin of a _periodical_ form of language, and what degree of compass should be allowed to it. after this, we may consider the members or divisions of a period, and enquire of how many kinds, and of what different lengths they are; and, if they vary in these respects, _where_ and _when_ each particular sort is to be employed: and, in the last place, the _use_ and application of the whole is to be fully explained;--a very extensive subject, and which is capable of being accommodated not only to one, but to many different occasions. but without adverting to particulars, we may discuss the subject at large in such a manner as to furnish a satisfactory answer in all subordinate cases. omitting, therefore, every other species of composition, we shall attend to that which is peculiar to forensic causes. for in those performances which are of a different kind, such as history, panegyric, and all discourses which are merely ornamental, every sentence should be constructed after the exact manner of _isocrates_ and _theopompus_; and with that regular compass, and measured flow of language, that our words may constantly run within the limits prescribed by art, and pursue a uniform course, till the period is completed. we may, therefore, observe that after the invention of this, _periodical_ form, no writer of any account has made a discourse which was intended as a mere display of ornament, and not for the service of the forum, without _squaring_ his language, (if i may so express myself) and confining every sentence of it to the strictest laws of _number_. for as, in this case, the hearer has no motive to alarm his suspicions against the artifice of the speaker, he will rather think himself obliged to him than otherwise, for the pains he takes to amuse and gratify his ear. but, in forensic causes, this accurate species of composition is neither to be wholly adopted, nor entirely rejected. for if we pursue it too closely, it will create a satiety, and our attention to it will be discovered by the most illiterate observer. we may add, it will check the pathos and force of action, restrain the sensibility of the speaker, and destroy all appearance of truth and open dealing. but as it will sometimes be necessary to adopt it, we must consider _when_, and _how long_, this ought to be done, and how many ways it may be changed and varied. a _numerous_ style, then, may be properly employed, either when any thing is to be commended in a free and ornamental manner, (as in my second invective against _verres_, where i spoke in praise of _sicily_, and in my speech before the senate, in which i vindicated the honour of my consulship;)--or; in the next place, when a narrative is to be delivered which requires more dignity than pathos, (as in my fourth invective, where i described the ceres of the ennensians, the diana of the segestani, and the situation of syracuse.) it is likewise often allowable to speak in a numerous and flowing style, when a material circumstance is to be amplified. if i myself have not succeeded in this so well as might be wished, i have at least attempted it very frequently; and it is still visible in many of my perorations, that i have exerted all the talents i was master of for that purpose. but this will always have most efficacy, when the speaker has previously possessed himself of the hearer's attention, and got the better of his judgment. for then he is no longer apprehensive of any artifice to mislead him; but hears every thing with a favourable ear, wishes the orator to proceed, and, admiring the force of his eloquence, has no inclination to censure it. but this measured and numerous flow of language is never to be continued too long, i will not say in the peroration, (of which the hearer himself will always be a capable judge) but in any other part of a discourse: for, except in the cases above-mentioned, in which i have shewn it is allowable, our style must be wholly confined to those clauses or divisions which we erroneously call _incisa_ and _membra_; but the greeks, with more propriety, the _comma_ and _colon_ [footnote: the ancients apply these terms to the sense, and not to any points of distinction. a very short member, whether simple or compound, with them is a _comma_; and a longer, a _colon_; for they have no such term as a _semicolon_. besides, they call a very short sentence, whether simple or compound, a _comma_; and one of somewhat a greater length, a _colon_. and therefore, if a person expressed himself either of these ways, in any considerable number of sentences together, he was said to speak by _commas_, or _colons_. but a sentence containing more words than will consist with either of these terms, they call a simple _period_; the least compound period with them requiring the length of two colons. ward's rhetoric, volume st, page .]. for it is impossible that the names of things should be rightly applied, when the things themselves are not sufficiently understood: and as we often make use of metaphorical terms, either for the sake of ornament, or to supply the place of proper ones, so in other arts, when we have occasion to mention any thing which (through our unacquaintance with it) has not yet received a name, we are obliged either to invent a new one, or to borrow it from something similar. we shall soon consider what it is to speak in _commas_ and _colons_, and the proper method of doing it: but we must first attend to the various numbers by which the cadence of our periods should be diversified. our numbers will advance more rapidly by the use of short feet, and more coolly and sedately by the use of long ones. the former are best adapted to a warm and spirited style, and the latter to sober narratives and explanations. but there are several numbers for concluding a period, one of which (called the _dichoree_, or double _choree_, and consisting of a long and a short syllable repeated alternately) is much in vogue with the asiatics; though among different people the same feet are distinguished by different names. the _dichoree_, indeed, is not essentially bad for the close of a sentence: but in prosaic numbers nothing can be more faulty than a continued or frequent repetition of the same cadence: as the _dichoree_, therefore, is a very sonorous number, we should be the more sparing in the use of it, to prevent a satiety. _c. carbo_, the son of _caius_, and a tribune of the people, once said in a public trial in which i was personally engaged,--"_o marce druse, patrem appello_;" where you may observe two _commas_, each consisting of two feet. he then made use of the two following _colons_, each consisting of three feet,--"_tu dicere solebas, sacram esse rempublicam:"--and afterwards of the period,-- "_quicunque eam violavissent, ab omnibus esse ei poenas persolutas_" which ends with a _dichoree_; for it is immaterial whether the last syllable is long or short. he added, "_patris dictum sapiens, temeritas filii comprobavit_" concluding here also with a _dichoree_; which was received with such a general burst of applause, as perfectly astonished me. but was not this the effect of _number_?--only change the order of the words, and say,--"_comprobavit filii temeritas_" and the spirit of them will be lost, though the word _temeritas_ consists of three short syllables and a long one, which is the favourite number of aristotle, from whom, however, i here beg leave to dissent. the words and sentiments are indeed the fame in both cases; and yet, in the latter, though the understanding is satisfied, the ear is not. but these harmonious cadences are not to be repeated too often: for, in the first place, our _numbers_ will be soon discovered,--in the next, they will excite the hearer's disgust,--and, at last, be heartily despised on account of the apparent facility with which they are formed. but there are several other cadences which will have a numerous and pleasing effect: for even the _cretic_, which consists of a long, a short, and a long syllable, and it's companion the _paeon_, which is equal to it in quantity, though it exceeds it in the number of syllables, is reckoned a proper and a very useful ingredient in harmonious prose: especially as the latter admits of two varieties, as consisting either of one long and three short syllables, which will be lively enough at the beginning of a sentence, but extremely flat at the end;--or of three short syllables and a long one, which was highly approved of by the ancients at the _close_ of a sentence, and which i would not wholly reject, though i give the preference to others. even the sober _spondee_ is not to be entirely discarded; for though it consists of two long syllables, and for that reason may seem rather dull and heavy, it has yet a firm and steady step, which gives it an air of dignity, and especially in the _comma_ and the _colon_; so that it sufficiently compensates for the slowness of it's motion, by it's peculiar weight and solemnity. when i speak of feet at the close of a period, i do not mean precisely the last. i would be understood, at least, to include the foot which immediately precedes it; and, in many cases, even the foot before _that_. the _iambic_, therefore, which consists of a long syllable and a short one, and is equal in time, though not in the number of it's syllables, to a _choree_, which has three short ones; or even the _dactyl_, which consists of one long and two short syllables, will unite agreeably enough with the last foot of a sentence, when that foot is either a _choree_ or a _spondee_; for it is immaterial which of them is employed. but the three feet i am mentioning, are neither of them very proper for closing a period, (that is, to form the last foot of it) unless when a _dactyl_ is substituted for a _cretic_, for you may use either of them at pleasure; because, even in verse, it is of no consequence whether the last syllable is long or short. he, therefore, who recommended the _paeon_, as having the long syllable last, was certainly guilty of an oversight; because the quantity of the last syllable is never regarded. the _paeon_, however, as consisting of four syllables, is reckoned by some to be only a _number_, and not a _foot_. but call it which you please, it is in general, what all the ancients have represented it, (such as _aristotle, theophrastus, theodectes_, and _euphorus_) the fittest of all others both for the beginning and the middle of a period. they are likewise of opinion, that it is equally proper at the end; where, in my opinion, the _cretic_ deserves the preference. the _dochimus_, which consists of five syllables, (i.e. a short and two long ones, and a short, and a long one, as in _amicos tenes_) may be used indifferently in any part of a sentence, provided it occurs but once: for if it is continued or repeated, our attention to our numbers will be discovered, and alarm the suspicion of the hearer. on the other hand, if we properly blend and intermingle the several varieties above-mentioned, our design will not be so readily noticed; and we shall also prevent that satiety which would arise from an elaborate uniformity of cadence. but the harmony of language does not result entirely from the use of _numbers_, but from the _juncture_ and _composition_ of our words; and from that neatness and _concinnity_ of expression which i have already mentioned. by _composition_, i here mean when our words are so judiciously connected as to produce an agreeable sound (independent of _numbers_) which rather appears to be the effect of nature than of art; as in the following passage from crassus, _nam ubi lubido dominatur, innocentiae leve praesidium est_ [footnote: in the sentence which is here quoted from crassus, every word which ends with a consonant is immediately succeeded by another which begins with a vowel; and, _vice versa_, if the preceding word ends with a vowel, the next begins with a consonant.]: for here the mere order in which the words are connected, produces a harmony of sound, without any visible attention of the speaker. when the ancients, therefore, (i mean _herodotus_, and _thucydides_, and all who flourished in the same age) composed a numerous and a musical period, it must rather be attributed to the casual order of their words, than to the labour and artifice of the writer. but there are likewise certain forms of expression, which have such a natural concinnity, as will necessarily have a similar effect to that of regular numbers. for when parallel circumstances are compared, or opposite ones contrasted, or words of the same termination are placed in a regular succesion, they seldom fail to produce a numerous cadence. but i have already treated of these, and subjoined a few examples; so that we are hereby furnished with an additional and a copious variety of means to avoid the uniformity of cadence above-mentioned; especially as these measured forms of expression may be occasionally relaxed and dilated. there is, however, a material difference between a style which is merely _numerous_, (or, in other words, which has a moderate resemblance to _metre_) and that which is entirely composed of _numbers_: the latter is an insufferable fault; but our language, without the former, would be absolutely vague, unpolished, and dissipated. but as a numerous style (strictly so called) is not frequently, and indeed but seldom admissible in forensic causes,--it seems necessary to enquire, in the next place, what are those _commas_ and _colons_ before-mentioned, and which, in real causes, should occupy the major part of an oration. the _period_, or complete sentence, is usually composed of four divisions, which are called _members_, (or _colons_) that it may properly fill the ear, and be neither longer nor shorter than is requisite for that purpose. but it sometimes, or rather frequently happens, that a sentence either falls short of, or exceeds the limits of a regular period, to prevent it from fatiguing the ear on the one hand, or disappointing it on the other. what i mean is to recommend an agreeable mediocrity: for we are not treating of verse, but of rhetorical prose, which is confessedly more free and unconfined. a full period, then, is generally composed of four parts, which may be compared to as many hexameter verses, each of which have their proper points, or particles of continuation, by which they are connected so as to form a perfect period. but when we speak by _colons_, we interupt their union, and, as often as occasion requires (which indeed will frequently be the case) break off with ease from this laboured and suspicious flow of language; but yet nothing should be so numerous in reality as that which appears to be least so, and yet has a forcible effect. such is the following passage in crassus:--"_missos faciant patronos; ipsi prodeant_." "let them dismiss their patrons: let them answer for themselves." unless "_ipsi prodeant_" was pronounced after a pause, the hearer must have discovered a complete iambic verse. it would have had a better cadence in prose if he had said "_prodeant ipsi_." but i am only to consider the species, and not the cadence of the sentence. he goes on, "_cur clandestinis consiliis nos oppugnant? cur de perfugis nostris copias comparant contra nos_?" "why do they attack us by clandestine measures? why do they collect forces against us from our own deserters?" in the former passage there are two _commas_: in the latter he first makes use of the _colon_, and afterwards of the _period_: but the period is not a long one, as only consisting of two _colons_, and the whole terminates in _spondees_. in this manner crassus generally expressed himself; and i much approve his method. but when we speak either in _commas_, or _colons_, we should be very attentive to the harmony of their cadence: as in the following instance.--"_domus tibi deerat? at habebas. pecunia superabat? at egebas_." "was you without a habitation? you had a house of your own. was your pocket well provided? you was not master of a farthing." these are four _commas_; but the two following members are both _colons_;--"_incurristi omens in columnas, in alienos insanus insanisti_." "you rushed like a madman upon your best supporters; you vented your fury on your enemies withput mercy." the whole is afterwards supported by a full period, as by a solid basis;--"depressam, caecam, jacentem domum, pluris quam te, et fortunas tuas aestimâsti." "you have shewn more regard to an unprosperous, an obscure, and a fallen family, than to your own safety and reputation." this sentence ends with a _dichoree_, but the preceeding one in a _double spondee_. for in those sentences which are to be used like daggers for close-fighting, their very shortness makes our numbers less exceptionable. they frequently consist of a single number;-- generally of _two_, with the addition perhaps of half a foot to each: and very seldom of more than three. to speak in _commas_ or _colons_ has a very good effect in real causes; and especially in those parts of an oration where it is your business either to prove or refute: as in my second defence of cornelius, where i exclaimed, "o callidos homines! o rem excogitatam! o ingenia metuenda!" "what admirable schemers! what a curious contrivance! what formidable talents!" thus far i spoke in _colons_; and afterwards by _commas_; and then returned to the colon, in "_testes dare volumus_," "we are willing to produce our witnesses." this was succeeded by the following _period_, consisting of two _colons_, which is the shortest that can be formed,--"_quem, quaeso, nostrûm sesellit ita vos esse facturos?_" "which of us, think you, had not the sense to foresee that you would proceed in this manner?" there is no method of expressing ourselves which, if properly timed, is more agreeable or forcible, than these rapid turns, which are completed in two or three words, and sometimes in a single one; especially, when they are properly diversified, and intermingled here and there with a _numerous_ period; which _egesias_ avoids with such a ridiculous nicety, that while he affects to imitate _lysias_ (who was almost a second _demosthenes_) he seems to be continually cutting capers, and clipping sentence after sentence. he is as frivolous in his sentiments as in his language: so that no person who is acquainted with his writings, need to seek any farther for a coxcomb. but i have selected several examples from crassus, and a few of my own, that any person, who is so inclined, may have an opportunity of judging with his own ears, what is really _numerous_, as well in the shortest as in any other kind of sentences. having, therefore, treated of a _numerous_ style more copiously than any author before me, i shall now proceed to say something of it's _utility_. for to speak handsomely, and like an orator (as no one, my brutus, knows better than yourself) is nothing more than to express the choicest sentiments in the finest language. the noblest thoughts will be of little service to an orator, unless he is able to communicate them in a correct and agreeable style: nor will the splendor of our expressions appear to a proper advantage, unless they are carefully and judiciously ranged. permit me to add, that the beauty of both will be considerably heightened by the harmony of our numbers:--such numbers (for i cannot repeat it too often) as are not only not cemented together, like those of the poets, but which avoid all appearance of metre, and have as little resemblance to it as possible; though it is certainly true that the numbers themselves are the same, not only of the poets and orators, but of all in general who exercise the faculty of speech, and, indeed, of every instrument which produces a sound whose time can be measured by the ear. it is owing entirely to the different arrangement of our feet that a sentence assumes either the easy air of prose, or the uniformity of verse. call it, therefore, by what name you please (_composition, perfection_, or _number_) it is a necessary restraint upon our language; not only (as _aristotle_ and _theophrastus_ have observed) to prevent our sentences (which should be limited neither by the breath of the speaker, nor the pointing of a transcriber, but by the sole restraint of _number_) from running on without intermission like a babbling current of water; but chiefly, because our language, when properly measured, has a much greater effect than when it is loose and unconfined. for as wrestlers and gladiators, whether they parry or make an assault, have a certain grace in their motions, so that every effort which contributes to the defence or the victory of the combatants, presents an agreeable attitude to the eye: so the powers of language can neither give nor evade an important blow, unless they are gracefully exerted. that style, therefore, which is not regulated by _numbers_, is to me as unbecoming as the motions of a gladiator who has not been properly trained and exercised: and so far is our language from being _enervated_ by a skilful arrangement of our words (as is pretended by those who, for want either of proper instructors, capacity, or diligence, have not been able to attain it) that, on the contrary, without this, it is impossible it should have any force or efficacy. but it requires a long and attentive course of practice to avoid the blemishes of those who were unacquainted with this numerous species of composition, so as not to transpose our words too openly to assist the cadence and harmony of our periods; which _l. caelius antipater_, in the introduction to his punic war, declares he would never attempt, unless when compelled by necessity. "_o virum simplicem_," (says he, speaking of himself) "_qui nos nihil celat; sapientem, qui serviendum necessitati putet_." "o simple man, who has not the skill his art to conceal; and yet to the rigid laws of necessity he has the wisdom to submit." but he was totally unskilled in composition. by us, however, both in writing and speaking, necessity is never admitted as a valid plea; for, in fact, there is no such thing as an absolute constraint upon the order and arrangement of our words; and, if there was, it is certainly unnecessary to own it. but _antipater_, though he requests the indulgence of laelius, to whom he dedicates his work, and attempts to excuse himself, frequently transposes his words without contributing in the least either to the harmony, or agreeable cadence of his periods. there are others, and particularly the _asiatics_, who are such slaves to _number_, as to insert words which have no use nor meaning to fill up the vacuities in a sentence. there are likewise some who, in imitation of _hegesias_ (a notorious trifler as well in this as in every other respect) curtail and mince their numbers, and are thus betrayed into the low and paltry style of the sicilians. another fault in composition is that which occurs in the speeches of _hierocles_ and _menecles_, two brothers, who may be considered as the princes of asiatic eloquence, and, in my opinion, are by no means contemptible: for though they deviate from the style of nature, and the strict laws of atticism, yet they abundantly compensate the defect by the richness and fertility of their language. but they have no variety of cadence, and their sentences are almost always terminated in the same manner. he therefore, who carefully avoids these blemishes, and who neither transposes his words too openly,--nor inserts any thing superfluous or unmeaning to fill up the chasms of a period,--nor curtails and clips his language, so as to interrupt and enervate the force of it,-- nor confines himself to a dull uniformity of cadence,--_he_ may justly be said to avoid the principal and most striking defects of prosaic harmony. as to its positive graces, these we have already specified; and from thence the particular blemishes which are opposite to each, will readily occur to the attentive reader. of what consequence it is to regulate the structure of our language, may be easily tried by selecting a well-wrought period from some orator of reputation, and changing the arrangement of the words; [footnote: professor _ward_ has commented upon an example of this kind from the preface to the vth volume of the spectator:--"_you have acted in so much consistency with yourself, and promoted the interests of your country in so uniform a manner; that even those, who would misrepresent your generous designs for the public good, cannot but approve the steadiness and intredipity, with which you pursue them_." i think, says the doctor, this may be justly esteemed an handsome period. it begins with ease, rises gradually till the voice is inflected, then sinks again, and ends with a just cadency, and perhaps there is not a word in it, whole situation would be altered to an advantage. let us now but shift the place of one word in the last member, and we shall spoil the beauty of the whole sentence. for if, instead of saying, as it now stands, _cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_; we put it thus, _cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity which you pursue them with_; the cadency will be flat and languid, and the harmony of the period entirely lost. let us try it again by altering the place of the two last members, which at present stand in this order, _that even those who would misrepresent your generous designs for the public good, cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_. now if the former member be thrown last, they will run thus, _that even those cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them, who would misrepresent your generous designs for the public good_. here the sense is much obscured by the inversion of the relative _them_, which ought to refer to something that went before, and not to the words _generous designs_, which in this situation of the members are placed after it. ward's rhetoric. vol. , p. , .] the beauty of it would then be mangled and destroyed. suppose, for instance, we take the following passage from my defence of _cornelius,--"neque me divitae movent, quibus omnes africanos et laelios, multi venalitii mercatoresque superarunt._" "nor am i dazzled by the splendor of wealth, in which many retailers, and private tradesmen have outvied all the _africani_ and the _lelii_" only invert the order a little, and say,--"_multi superârunt mercatores, venatitiique_," and the harmony of the period will be loft. try the experiment on the next sentence;--"_neque vestes, aut celatum aurum, & argentum, quo nostros veteres marcellos, maximosque multi eunuchi e syriâ egyptoque vicerunt_:" nor do. i pay the least regard to costly habits, or magnificent services of plate, in which many eunuchs, imported from syria and egypt, have far surpassed the illustrious _marcelli_, and the _maximi_. alter the disposition of the words into, "_vicerunt eunuchi e syria, egyptoque,_" and the whole beauty of the sentence will be destroyed. take a third passage from the same paragraph;--"_neque vero ornamenta ista villarum, quibus paulum & l. mummium, qui rebus his urbem, italiamque omnem reserserunt, ab aliquo video perfacile deliaco aut syro potuisse superari:"--"nor the splendid ornaments of a rural villa, in which i daily behold every paltry delian and syrian outvying the dignity of paulus and lucius mummius, who, by their victories, supplied the whole city, and indeed every part of italy, with a super- fluity of these glittering trifles!" only change the latter part of the sentence into,-- "_potuisse superari ab aliquo syro aut deliaco,_" and you will see, though the meaning and the words are still the same, that, by making this slight alteration in the order, and breaking the form of the period, the whole force and spirit of it will be lost. on the other hand, take one of the broken sentences of a writer unskilled in composition, and make the smallest alteration in the arrangement of the words,--and that which before was loose and disordered, will assume a just and a regular form. let us, for instance, take the following passage from the speech of gracchus to the censors;--"_abesse non potest, quin ejusdem hominis fit, probos improbare, qui improbos probet_;" "there is no possibility of doubting that the same person who is an enemy to virtue, must be a friend to vice." how much better would the period have terminated if he had said,--"_quin ejusdem hominis fit, qui improbos probet, probos improbare_!"--"that the same person who is a friend to vice, must be an enemy to virtue!" there is no one who would object to the last:--nay, it is impossible that any one who was able to speak thus, should have been willing to express himself otherwise. but those who have pretended to speak in a different manner, had not skill enough to speak as they ought; and for that reason, truly, we must applaud them for their _attic_ taste;--as if the great demosthenes could speak like an _asiatic_ [footnote: quasi vero trallianus fuerit demosthenes.] _trallianus_ signifies an inhabitant of _tralles_, a city in the lesser asia, between _caria_ and _lydia_. the asiatics, in the estimation of cicero, were not distinguished by the delicacy of their taste.,--that demosthenes, whose thunder would have lost half it's force, if it's flight had not been accelerated by the rapidity of his numbers. but if any are better pleased with a broken and dissipated style, let them follow their humour, provided they condescend to counterbalance it by the weight, and dignity of their sentiments: in the same manner, as if a person should dash to pieces the celebrated shield of _phidias_, though he would destroy the symmetry of the whole, the fragments would still retain their separate beauty;--or, as in the history of thucydides, though we discover no harmony in the structure of his periods, there are yet many beauties which excite our admiration. but these triflers, when they present us with one of their rugged and broken sentences, in which there is neither a thought, nor word, but what is low and puerile, appear to me (if i may venture on a comparison which is not indeed very elevated, but is strictly applicable to the case in hand) to have untied a besom, that we may contemplate the scattered twigs. if, however, they wish to convince us that they really despise the species of composition which i have now recommended, let them favour us with a few lines in the taste of isocrates, or such as we find in the orations of _aeschines_ and _demosthenes_. i will then believe they decline the use of it, not from a consciousness of their inability to put it in practice, but from a real conviction of it's futility; or, at least, i will engage to find a person, who, on the same condition, will undertake either to speak or write, in any language they may please to fix upon, in the very manner they propose. for it is much easier to disorder a good period, than to harmonize a bad one. but, to speak my whole meaning at once, to be scrupulously attentive to the measure and harmony of our periods, without a proper regard to our sentiments, is absolute madness:--and, on the other hand, to speak sensibly and judiciously, without attending to the arrangement of our words, and the regularity of our periods, is (at the best) to speak very awkwardly; but it is such a kind of awkwardness that those who are guilty of it, may not only escape the title of blockheads, but pass for men of good-sense and understanding;--a character which those speakers who are contented with it, are heartily welcome to enjoy! but an orator who is expected not only to merit the approbation, but to excite the wonder, the acclamations, and the plaudits of those who hear him, must excel in every part of eloquence, and be so thoroughly accomplished, that it would be a disgrace to him that any thing should be either seen or heard with greater pleasure than himself. * * * * * thus, my brutus, i have given you my opinion of a complete orator; which you are at liberty either to adopt or reject, as your better judgment shall incline you. if you see reason to think differently, i shall have no objection to it; nor so far indulge my vanity as to presume that my sentiments, which i have so freely communicated in the present essay, are more just and accurate than yours. for it is very possible not only that you and i may have different notions, but that what appears true even to myself at one time, may appear otherwise at another. nor only in the present case, which be determined by the taste of the multitude, and the capricious pleasure of the ear (which are, perhaps, the most uncertain judges we can fix upon)--but in the most important branches of science, have i yet been able to discover a surer rule to direct my judgment, than to embrace that which has the greatest appearance of probability: for _truth_ is covered with too thick a veil to be distinguished to a certainty. i request, therefore, if what i have advanced should not have the happiness to merit your approbation, that you will be so much my friend as to conclude, either that the talk i have attempted is impracticable, or that my unwillingness to disoblige you has betrayed me into the rash presumption of undertaking a subject to which my abilities are unequal. successful methods of public speaking _by grenville kleiser_ inspiration and ideals how to build mental power how to develop self-confidence in speech and manner how to read and declaim how to speak in public how to develop power and personality in speaking great speeches and how to make them how to argue and win humorous hits and how to hold an audience complete guide to public speaking talks on talking fifteen thousand useful phrases the world's great sermons mail course in public speaking mail course in practical english how to speak without notes something to say: how to say it successful methods of public speaking model speeches for practise the training of a public speaker how to sell through speech impromptu speeches: how to make them word-power: how to develop it christ: the master speaker vital english for speakers and writers successful methods of public speaking by grenville kleiser _formerly instructor in public speaking at yale divinity school, yale university. author of "how to speak in public," "great speeches and how to make them," "complete guide to public speaking," "how to build mental power," "talks on talking," etc., etc._ [illustration: publisher's logo] funk & wagnalls company new york and london copyright, , by grenville kleiser [_printed in the united states of america_] published, february, copyright under the articles of the copyright convention of the pan-american republics and the united states, august , preface as you carefully study the successful methods of public speakers, as briefly set forth in this book, you will observe that there is nothing that can be substituted for personal sincerity. unless you thoroughly believe in the message you wish to convey to others, you are not likely to impress them favorably. it was said of an eminent british orator, that when one heard him speak in public, one instinctively felt that there was something finer in the man than in anything he said. therein lies the key to successful oratory. when the truth of your message is deeply engraved on your own mind; when your own heart has been touched as by a living flame; when your own character and personality testify to the innate sincerity and nobility of your life, then your speech will be truly eloquent, and men will respond to your fervent appeal. grenville kleiser. new york city, august, . contents page preface v successful methods of public speaking study of model speeches history of public speaking extracts for study, with lesson talk how to speak in public successful methods of public speaking you can acquire valuable knowledge for use in your own public speaking by studying the successful methods of other men. this does not mean, however, that you are to imitate others, but simply to profit by their experience and suggestions in so far as they fit in naturally with your personality. all successful speakers do not speak alike. each man has found certain things to be effective in his particular case, but which would not necessarily be suited to a different type of speaker. when, therefore, you read the following methods of various men, ask yourself in each case whether you can apply the ideas to advantage in your own speaking. put the method to a practical test, and decide for yourself whether it is advisable for you to adopt it or not. requirements of effective speaking there are certain requirements in public speaking which you and every other speaker must observe. you must be grammatical, intelligent, lucid, and sincere. these are essential. you must know your subject thoroughly, and have the ability to put it into pleasing and persuasive form. but beyond these considerations there are many things which must be left to your temperament, taste, and individuality. to compel you to speak according to inflexible rules would make you not an orator but an automaton. the temperamental differences in successful speakers have been very great. one eminent speaker used practically no gesture; another was in almost constant action. one was quiet, modest, and conversational in his speaking style; another was impulsive and resistless as a mountain torrent. it is safe to say that almost any man, however unpretentious his language, will command a hearing in congress, parliament, or elsewhere, if he gives accurate information upon a subject of importance and in a manner of unquestioned sincerity. you will observe in the historical accounts of great orators, that without a single exception they studied, read, practised, conversed, and meditated, not occasionally, but with daily regularity. many of them were endowed with natural gifts, but they supplemented these with indefatigable work. well-known speakers and their methods _chalmers_ there is a rugged type of speaker who transcends and seemingly defies all rules of oratory. such a man was the great scottish preacher chalmers, who was without polished elocution, grace, or manner, but who through his intellectual power and moral earnestness thrilled all who heard him. he read his sermons entirely from manuscripts, but it is evident from the effects of his preaching that he was not a slave to the written word as many such speakers have been. while he read, he retained much of his freedom of gesture and physical expression, doubtless due to familiarity with his subject and thorough preparation of his message. _john bright_ you can profitably study the speeches of john bright. they are noteworthy for their simplicity of diction and uniform quality of directness. his method was to make a plain statement of facts, enunciate certain fundamental principles, then follow with his argument and application. his choice of words and style of delivery were most carefully studied, and his sonorous voice was under such complete control that he could speak at great length without the slightest fatigue. many of his illustrations were drawn from the bible, which he is said to have known better than any other book. _lord brougham_ lord brougham wrote nine times the concluding parts of his speech for the defense of queen caroline. he once told a young man that if he wanted to speak well he must first learn to talk well. he recognized that good talking was the basis of effective public speaking. bear in mind, however, that this does not mean you are always to confine yourself to a conversational level. there are themes which demand large treatment, wherein vocal power and impassioned feeling are appropriate and essential. but what lord brougham meant, and it is equally true to-day, was that good public speaking is fundamentally good talking. _edmund burke_ edmund burke recommended debate as one of the best means for developing facility and power in public speaking. himself a master of debate, he said, "he that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. our antagonist is our helper. this amiable conflict with difficulty obliges us to have an intimate acquaintance with our subject, and compels us to consider it in all its relations. it will not suffer us to be superficial." burke, like all great orators, believed in premeditation, and always wrote and corrected his speeches with fastidious care. while such men knew that inspiration might come at the moment of speaking, they preferred to base their chances of success upon painstaking preparation. _massillon_ massillon, the great french divine, spoke in a commanding voice and in a style so direct that at times he almost overwhelmed his hearers. his pointed and personal questions could not be evaded. he sent truth like fiery darts to the hearts of his hearers. i ask you to note very carefully the following eloquent passage from a sermon in which he explained how men justified themselves because they were no worse than the multitude: "on this account it is, my brethren, that i confine myself to you who at present are assembled here; i include not the rest of men, but consider you as alone existing on the earth. the idea which occupies and frightens me is this: i figure to myself the present as your last hour and the end of the world; that the heavens are going to open above your heads; our savior, in all his glory, to appear in the midst of the temple; and that you are only assembled here to wait his coming; like trembling criminals on whom the sentence is to be pronounced, either of life eternal or of everlasting death; for it is vain to flatter yourselves that you shall die more innocent than you are at this hour. all those desires of change with which you are amused will continue to amuse you till death arrives, the experience of all ages proves it; the only difference you have to expect will most likely be a larger balance against you than what you would have to answer for at present; and from what would be your destiny were you to be judged this moment, you may almost decide upon what will take place at your departure from life. now, i ask you (and connecting my own lot with yours i ask with dread), were jesus christ to appear in this temple, in the midst of this assembly, to judge us, to make the dreadful separation betwixt the goats and sheep, do you believe that the greatest number of us would be placed at his right hand? do you believe that the number would at least be equal? do you believe there would even be found ten upright and faithful servants of the lord, when formerly five cities could not furnish so many? i ask you. you know not, and i know it not. thou alone, o my god, knowest who belong to thee. but if we know not who belong to him, at least we know that sinners do not. now, who are the just and faithful assembled here at present? titles and dignities avail nothing, you are stript of all these in the presence of your savior. who are they? many sinners who wish not to be converted; many more who wish, but always put it off; many others who are only converted in appearance, and again fall back to their former courses. in a word, a great number who flatter themselves they have no occasion for conversion. this is the party of the reprobate. ah! my brethren, cut off from this assembly these four classes of sinners, for they will be cut off at the great day. and now appear, ye just! where are ye? o god, where are thy chosen? and what a portion remains to thy share." _gladstone_ gladstone had by nature a musical and melodious voice, but through practise he developed an unusual range of compass and variety. he could sink it to a whisper and still be audible, while in open-air meetings he could easily make himself heard by thousands. he was courteous, and even ceremonious, in his every-day meeting with men, so that it was entirely natural for him to be deferential and ingratiating in his public speaking. he is an excellent illustration of the value of cultivating in daily conversation and manner the qualities you desire to have in your public address. _john quincy adams_ john quincy adams read two chapters from the bible every morning, which accounted in large measure for his resourceful english style. he was fond of using the pen in daily composition, and constantly committed to paper the first thoughts which occurred to him upon any important subject. _fox_ the ambition of fox was to become a great political orator and debater, in which at last he succeeded. his mental agility was manifest in his reply to an elector whom he had canvassed for a vote, and who offered him a halter instead. "oh thank you," said fox, "i would not deprive you of what is evidently a family relic." his method was to take each argument of an opponent, and dispose of it in regular order. his passion was for argument, upon great or petty subjects. he availed himself of every opportunity to speak. "during five whole sessions," he said, "i spoke every night but one; and i regret that i did not speak on that night, too." _theodore parker_ theodore parker always read his sermons aloud while writing them, in order to test their "speaking quality." his opinion was that an impressive delivery depended particularly upon vigorous feeling, energetic thinking, and clearness of statement. _henry ward beecher_ henry ward beecher's method was to practise vocal exercises in the open air, exploding all the vowel sounds in various keys. this practise duly produced a most flexible instrument, which served him throughout his brilliant career. he said: "i had from childhood impediments of speech arising from a large palate, so that when a boy i used to be laughed at for talking as if i had a pudding in my mouth. when i went to amherst, i was fortunate in passing into the hands of john lovell, a teacher of elocution, and a better teacher for my purpose i can not conceive of. his system consisted in drill, or the thorough practise of inflections by the voice, of gesture, posture and articulation. sometimes i was a whole hour practising my voice on a word--like justice. i would have to take a posture, frequently at a mark chalked on the floor. then we would go through all the gestures, exercising each movement of the arm and throwing open the hand. all gestures except those of precision go in curves, the arm rising from the side, coming to the front, turning to the left or right. i was drilled as to how far the arm should come forward, where it should start from, how far go back, and under what circumstances these movements should be made. it was drill, drill, drill, until the motions almost became a second nature. now, i never know what movements i shall make. my gestures are natural, because this drill made them natural to me. the only method of acquiring effective elocution is by practise, of not less than an hour a day, until the student has his voice and himself thoroughly subdued and trained to get right expression." _lord bolingbroke_ lord bolingbroke made it a rule always to speak well in daily conversation, however unimportant the occasion. his taste and accuracy at last gave him a style in ordinary speech worthy to have been put into print as it fell from his lips. _lord chatham_ lord chatham, despite his great natural endowments for speaking, devoted a regular time each day to developing a varied and copious vocabulary. he twice examined each word in the dictionary, from beginning to end, in his ardent desire to master the english language. _john philpot curran_ the well-known case of john philpot curran should give encouragement to every aspiring student of public speaking. he was generally known as "orator mum," because of his failure in his first attempt at public speaking. but he resolved to develop his oratorical powers, and devoted every morning to intense reading. in addition, he regularly carried in his pocket a small copy of a classic for convenient reading at odd moments. it is said that he daily practised declamation before a looking-glass, closely scrutinizing his gesture, posture, and manner. he was an earnest student of public speaking, and eventually became one of the most eloquent of world orators. _balfour_ among present-day speakers in england mr. balfour occupies a leading place. he possesses the gift of never saying a word too much, a habit which might be copied to advantage by many public speakers. his habit during a debate is to scribble a few words on an envelop, and then to speak with rare facility of english style. _bonar law_ bonar law does not use any notes in the preparation of a speech, but carefully thinks out the various parts, and then by means of a series of "mental rehearsals" fixes them indelibly in his mind. the result of this conscientious practise has made him a formidable debater and extempore speaker. _asquith_ herbert h. asquith, who possesses the rare gift of summoning the one inevitable word, and of compressing his speeches into a small space of time, speaks with equal success whether from a prepared manuscript or wholly extempore. his unsurpassed english style is the result of many years reading and study of prose masterpieces. "he produces, wherever and whenever he wants them, an endless succession of perfectly coined sentences, conceived with unmatched felicity and delivered without hesitation in a parliamentary style which is at once the envy and the despair of imitators." _bryan_ william jennings bryan is by common consent one of the greatest public speakers in america. he has a voice of unusual power and compass, and his delivery is natural and deliberate. his style is generally forensic, altho he frequently rises to the dramatic. he has been a diligent student of oratory, and once said: "the age of oratory has not passed; nor will it pass. the press, instead of displacing the orator, has given him a larger audience and enabled him to do a more extended work. as long as there are human rights to be defended; as long as there are great interests to be guarded; as long as the welfare of nations is a matter for discussion, so long will public speaking have its place." _roosevelt_ theodore roosevelt was one of the most effective of american public speakers, due in large measure to intense moral earnestness and great stores of physical vitality. his diction was direct and his style energetic. he spoke out of the fulness of a well-furnished mind. success factors in platform speaking constant practise of composition has been the habit of all great orators. this, combined with the habit of reading and re-reading the best prose writers and poets, accounts in large measure for the felicitous style of such men as burke, erskine, macaulay, bolingbroke, phillips, everett and webster. i can not too often urge you to use your pen in daily composition as a means to felicity and facility of speech. the act of writing out your thoughts is a direct aid to concentration, and tends to enforce the habit of choosing the best language. it gives clearness, force, precision, beauty, and copiousness of style, so valuable in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. advantages and disadvantages of memorizing speeches some of the most highly successful speakers carefully wrote out, revised, and committed to memory important passages in their speeches. these they dexterously wove into the body of their addresses in such a natural manner as not to expose their method. this plan, however, is not to be generally recommended, since few men have the faculty of rendering memorized parts so as to make them appear extempore. if you recite rather than speak to an audience, you may be a good entertainer, but just to that degree will you impair your power and effectiveness as a public speaker. there are speakers who have successfully used the plan of committing to memory significant sentences, statements, or sayings, and skilfully embodying them in their speeches. you might test this method for yourself, tho it is attended with danger. if possible, join a local debating society, where you will have excellent opportunity for practise in thinking and speaking on your feet. many distinguished public speakers have owed their fluency of speech and self-confidence to early practise in debate. the value of repetition persuasion is a task of skill. you must bring to your aid in speaking every available resource. an effective weapon at times is a "remorseless iteration." have the courage to repeat yourself as often as may be necessary to impress your leading ideas upon the minds of your hearers. note the forensic maxim, "tell a judge twice whatever you want him to hear; tell a special jury thrice, and a common jury half a dozen times, the view of a case you wish them to entertain." the need of self-confidence whatever methods of premeditation you adopt in the preparation of a speech, having planned everything to the best of your ability, dismiss from your mind all anxiety and all thought about yourself. right preparation and earnest practise should give you a full degree of confidence in your ability to perform the task before you. when you stand at last before the audience, it should be with the assurance that you are thoroughly equipped to say something of real interest and importance. the power of personality personality plays a vital part in a speaker's success. gladstone described cardinal newman's manner in the pulpit as unsatisfactory if considered in its separate parts. "there was not much change in the inflection of his voice; action there was none; his sermons were read, and his eyes were always on his book; and all that, you will say, is against efficiency in preaching. yes; but you take the man as a whole, and there was a stamp and a seal upon him, there was solemn music and sweetness in his tone, there was a completeness in the figure, taken together with the tone and with the manner, which made even his delivery such as i have described it, and tho exclusively with written sermons, singularly attractive." the danger of imitation it is a fatal mistake, as i have said, to set out deliberately to imitate some favorite speaker, and to mold your style after his. you will observe certain things and methods in other speakers which will fit in naturally with your style and temperament. to this extent you may advantageously adopt them, but always be on your guard against anything which might in the slightest degree impair your own individuality. speech for study, with lesson talk features of an eloquent address you will find useful material for study and practise in the speech which follows, delivered by lord rosebery at the unveiling of the statue of gladstone at glasgow, scotland, october th, . the english style is noteworthy for its uniform charm and naturalness. there is an unmistakable personal note which contributes greatly to the effect of the speaker's words. this eloquent address is a model for such an occasion, and a good illustration of the work of a speaker thoroughly familiar with his theme. it has sufficient variety to sustain interest, dignity in keeping with the subject, and a note of inspiration which would profoundly impress an audience of thinking men. it is a scholarly address. note the concise introductory sentences. repeat them aloud and observe how easily they flow from the lips. notice the balance and variety of successive sentences, the stately diction, and the underlying tone of deep sincerity. examine every phrase and sentence of this eloquent speech. study the conclusion and particularly the closing paragraph. when you have thoroughly analyzed the speech, stand up and render it aloud in clear-cut tones and appropriately dignified style. speech for study at the unveiling of the statue of gladstone (_address of lord rosebery_) i am here to-day to unveil the image of one of the great figures of our country. it is right and fitting that it should stand here. a statue of mr. gladstone is congenial in any part of scotland. but in this scottish city, teeming with eager workers, endowed with a great university, a center of industry, commerce, and thought, a statue of william ewart gladstone is at home. but you in glasgow have more personal claims to a share in the inheritance of mr. gladstone's fame. i, at any rate, can recall one memory--the record of that marvelous day in december, , nearly twenty-three years ago, when the indomitable old man delivered his rectorial address to the students at noon, a long political speech in st. andrew's hall in the evening, and a substantial discourse on receiving an address from the corporation at ten o'clock at night. some of you may have been present at all these gatherings, some only at the political meeting. if they were, they may remember the little incidents of the meeting--the glasses which were hopelessly lost and then, of course, found on the orator's person--the desperate candle brought in, stuck in a water-bottle, to attempt sufficient light to read an extract. and what a meeting it was--teeming, delirious, absorbed! do you have such meetings now? they seem to me pretty good; but the meetings of that time stand out before all others in my mind. this statue is erected, not out of the national subscription, but by the contributions from men of all creeds in glasgow and in the west. i must then, in what i have to say, leave out altogether the political aspect of mr. gladstone. in some cases such a rule would omit all that was interesting in a man. there are characters, from which if you subtracted politics, there would be nothing left. it was not so with mr. gladstone. to the great mass of his fellow-countrymen he was of course a statesman, wildly worshipped by some, wildly detested by others. but, to those who were privileged to know him, his politics seemed but the least part of him. the predominant part, to which all else was subordinated, was his religion; the life which seemed to attract him most was the life of the library; the subject which engrossed him most was the subject of the moment, whatever it might be, and that, when he was out of office, was very rarely politics. indeed, i sometimes doubt whether his natural bent was toward politics at all. had his course taken him that way, as it very nearly did, he would have been a great churchman, greater perhaps than any that this island has known; he would have been a great professor, if you could have found a university big enough to hold him; he would have been a great historian, a great bookman, he would have grappled with whole libraries and wrestled with academies, had the fates placed him in a cloister; indeed it is difficult to conceive the career, except perhaps the military, in which his energy and intellect and application would not have placed him on a summit. politics, however, took him and claimed his life service, but, jealous mistress as she is, could never thoroughly absorb him. such powers as i have indicated seem to belong to a giant and a prodigy, and i can understand many turning away from the contemplation of such a character, feeling that it is too far removed from them to interest them, and that it is too unapproachable to help them--that it is like reading of hercules or hector, mythical heroes whose achievements the actual living mortal can not hope to rival. well, that is true enough; we have not received intellectual faculties equal to mr. gladstone's, and can not hope to vie with him in their exercise. but apart from them, his great force was character, and amid the vast multitude that i am addressing, there is none who may not be helped by him. the three signal qualities which made him what he was, were courage, industry, and faith; dauntless courage, unflagging industry, a faith which was part of his fiber; these were the levers with which he moved the world. i do not speak of his religious faith, that demands a worthier speaker and another occasion. but no one who knew mr. gladstone could fail to see that it was the essence, the savor, the motive power of his life. strange as it may seem, i can not doubt that while this attracted many to him, it alienated others, others not themselves irreligious, but who suspected the sincerity of so manifest a devotion, and who, reared in the moderate atmosphere of the time, disliked the intrusion of religious considerations into politics. these, however, though numerous enough, were the exceptions, and it can not, i think, be questioned that mr. gladstone not merely raised the tone of public discussion, but quickened and renewed the religious feeling of the society in which he moved. but this is not the faith of which i am thinking to-day. what is present to me is the faith with which he espoused and pursued great causes. there also he had faith sufficient to move mountains, and did sometimes move mountains. he did not lightly resolve, he came to no hasty conclusion, but when he had convinced himself that a cause was right, it engrossed him, it inspired him, with a certainty as deep-seated and as imperious as ever moved mortal man. to him, then, obstacles, objections, the counsels of doubters and critics were as nought, he pressed on with the passion of a whirlwind, but also with the steady persistence of some puissant machine. he had, of course, like every statesman, often to traffic with expediency, he had always, i suppose, to accept something less than his ideal, but his unquenchable faith, not in himself--tho that with experience must have waxed strong--not in himself but in his cause, sustained him among the necessary shifts and transactions of the moment, and kept his head high in the heavens. such faith, such moral conviction, is not given to all men, for the treasures of his nature were in ingots, and not in dust. but there is, perhaps, no man without some faith in some cause or some person; if so, let him take heart, in however small a minority he may be, by remembering how mighty a strength was gladstone's power of faith. his next great force lay in his industry. i do not know if the aspersions of "ca' canny" be founded, but at any rate there was no "ca' canny" about him. from his earliest school-days, if tradition be true, to the bed of death, he gave his full time and energy to work. no doubt his capacity for labor was unusual. he would sit up all night writing a pamphlet, and work next day as usual. an eight-hours' day would have been a holiday to him, for he preached and practised the gospel of work to its fullest extent. he did not, indeed, disdain pleasure; no one enjoyed physical exercise, or a good play, or a pleasant dinner, more than he; he drank in deep draughts of the highest and the best that life had to offer; but even in pastime he was never idle. he did not know what it was to saunter, he debited himself with every minute of his time; he combined with the highest intellectual powers the faculty of utilizing them to the fullest extent by intense application. moreover, his industry was prodigious in result, for he was an extraordinarily rapid worker. dumont says of mirabeau, that till he met that marvelous man he had no idea of how much could be achieved in a day. "had i not lived with him," he says, "i should not know what can be accomplished in a day, all that can be comprest into an interval of twelve hours. a day was worth more to him than a week or a month to others." many men can be busy for hours with a mighty small product, but with mr. gladstone every minute was fruitful. that, no doubt, was largely due to his marvelous powers of concentration. when he was staying at dalmeny in he kindly consented to sit for his bust. the only difficulty was that there was no time for sittings. so the sculptor with his clay model was placed opposite mr. gladstone as he worked, and they spent the mornings together, mr. gladstone writing away, and the clay figure of himself less than a yard off gradually assuming shape and form. anything more distracting i can not conceive, but it had no effect on the busy patient. and now let me make a short digression. i saw recently in your newspapers that there was some complaint of the manners of the rising generation in glasgow. if that be so, they are heedless of mr. gladstone's example. it might be thought that so impetuous a temper as his might be occasionally rough or abrupt. that was not so. his exquisite urbanity was one of his most conspicuous graces. i do not now only allude to that grave, old-world courtesy, which gave so much distinction to his private life; for his sweetness of manner went far beyond demeanor. his spoken words, his letters, even when one differed from him most acutely, were all marked by this special note. he did not like people to disagree with him, few people do; but, so far as manner went, it was more pleasant to disagree with mr. gladstone than to be in agreement with some others. lastly, i come to his courage--that perhaps was his greatest quality, for when he gave his heart and reason to a cause, he never counted the cost. most men are physically brave, and this nation is reputed to be especially brave, but mr. gladstone was brave among the brave. he had to the end the vitality of physical courage. when well on in his ninth decade, well on to ninety, he was knocked over by a cab, and before the bystanders could rally to his assistance, he had pursued the cab with a view to taking its number. he had, too, notoriously, political courage in a not less degree than sir robert walpole. we read that george ii, who was little given to enthusiasm, would often cry out, with color flushing into his cheeks, and tears sometimes in his eyes, and with a vehement oath:--"he (walpole) is a brave fellow; he has more spirit than any man i ever knew." mr. gladstone did not yield to walpole in political and parliamentary courage--it was a quality which he closely observed in others, and on which he was fond of descanting. but he had the rarest and choicest courage of all--i mean moral courage. that was his supreme characteristic, and it was with him, like others, from the first. a contemporary of his at eton once told me of a scene, at which my informant was present, when some loose or indelicate toast was proposed, and all present drank it but young gladstone. in spite of the storm of objurgation and ridicule that raged around him, he jammed his face, as it were, down in his hands on the table and would not budge. every schoolboy knows, for we may here accurately use macaulay's well-known expression, every schoolboy knows the courage that this implies. and even by the heedless generation of boyhood it was appreciated, for we find an etonian writing to his parents to ask that he might go to oxford rather than cambridge, on the sole ground that at oxford he would have the priceless advantage of gladstone's influence and example. nor did his courage ever flag. he might be right, or he might be wrong--that is not the question here--but when he was convinced that he was right, not all the combined powers of parliament or society or the multitude could for an instant hinder his course, whether it ended in success or in failure. success left him calm, he had had so much of it; nor did failures greatly depress him. the next morning found him once more facing the world with serene and undaunted brow. there was a man. the nation has lost him, but preserves his character, his manhood, as a model, on which she may form if she be fortunate, coming generations of men. with his politics, with his theology, with his manifold graces and gifts of intellect, we are not concerned to-day, not even with his warm and passionate human sympathies. they are not dead with him, but let them rest with him, for we can not in one discourse view him in all his parts. to-day it is enough to have dealt for a moment on three of his great moral characteristics, enough to have snatched from the fleeting hour a few moments of communion with the mighty dead. history has not yet allotted him his definite place, but no one would now deny that he bequeathed a pure standard of life, a record of lofty ambition for the public good as he understood it, a monument of life-long labor. such lives speak for themselves, they need no statues, they face the future with the confidence of high purpose and endeavor. the statues are not for them but for us, to bid us be conscious of our trust, mindful of our duty, scornful of opposition to principle and faith. they summon us to account for time and opportunity, they embody an inspiring tradition, they are milestones in the life of a nation. the effigy of pompey was bathed in the blood of his great rival: let this statue have the nobler destiny of constantly calling to life worthy rivals of gladstone's fame and character. unveil, then, that statue. let it stand to glasgow in all time coming for faith, fortitude, courage, industry, qualities apart from intellect or power or wealth, which may inspire all her citizens however humble, however weak; let it remind the most unthinking passer-by of the dauntless character which it represents, of his long life and honest purpose; let it leaven by an immortal tradition the population which lives and works and dies around this monument. study of model speeches model speeches, with suggestions for their study there is no better way for you to improve your own public speaking than to analyze and study the speeches of successful orators. first read such speeches aloud, since by that means you fit words to your lips and acquire a familiarity with oratorical style. then examine the speaker's method of arranging his thoughts, and the precise way in which they lead up and contribute to his ultimate object. carefully note any special means employed--story, illustration, appeal, or climax,--to increase the effectiveness of the speech. _john stuart mill_ read the following speech delivered by john stuart mill, in his tribute to garrison. note the clear-cut english of the speaker. observe how promptly he goes to his subject, and how steadily he keeps to it. particularly note the high level of thought maintained throughout. this is an excellent model of dignified, well-reasoned, convincing speech. "mr. chairman, ladies, and gentlemen,--the speakers who have preceded me have, with an eloquence far beyond anything which i can command, laid before our honored guest the homage of admiration and gratitude which we all feel due to his heroic life. instead of idly expatiating upon things which have been far better said than i could say them, i would rather endeavor to recall one or two lessons applicable to ourselves, which may be drawn from his career. a noble work nobly done always contains in itself not one but many lessons; and in the case of him whose character and deeds we are here to commemorate, two may be singled out specially deserving to be laid to heart by all who would wish to leave the world better than they found it. "the first lesson is,--aim at something great; aim at things which are difficult; and there is no great thing which is not difficult. do not pare down your undertaking to what you can hope to see successful in the next few years, or in the years of your own life. fear not the reproach of quixotism or of fanaticism; but after you have well weighed what you undertake, if you see your way clearly, and are convinced that you are right, go forward, even tho you, like mr. garrison, do it at the risk of being torn to pieces by the very men through whose changed hearts your purpose will one day be accomplished. fight on with all your strength against whatever odds and with however small a band of supporters. if you are right, the time will come when that small band will swell into a multitude; you will at least lay the foundations of something memorable, and you may, like mr. garrison--tho you ought not to need or expect so great a reward--be spared to see that work completed which, when you began it, you only hoped it might be given to you to help forward a few stages on its way. "the other lesson which it appears to me important to enforce, amongst the many that may be drawn from our friend's life, is this: if you aim at something noble and succeed in it, you will generally find that you have succeeded not in that alone. a hundred other good and noble things which you never dreamed of will have been accomplished by the way, and the more certainly, the sharper and more agonizing has been the struggle which preceded the victory. the heart and mind of a nation are never stirred from their foundations without manifold good fruits. in the case of the great american contest these fruits have been already great, and are daily becoming greater. the prejudices which beset every form of society--and of which there was a plentiful crop in america--are rapidly melting away. the chains of prescription have been broken; it is not only the slave who has been freed--the mind of america has been emancipated. the whole intellect of the country has been set thinking about the fundamental questions of society and government; and the new problems which have to be solved and the new difficulties which have to be encountered are calling forth new activity of thought, and that great nation is saved probably for a long time to come, from the most formidable danger of a completely settled state of society and opinion--intellectual and moral stagnation. this, then, is an additional item of the debt which america and mankind owe to mr. garrison and his noble associates; and it is well calculated to deepen our sense of the truth which his whole career most strikingly illustrates--that tho our best directed efforts may often seem wasted and lost, nothing coming of them that can be pointed to and distinctly identified as a definite gain to humanity, tho this may happen ninety-nine times in every hundred, the hundredth time the result may be so great and dazzling that we had never dared to hope for it, and should have regarded him who had predicted it to us as sanguine beyond the bounds of mental sanity. so has it been with mr. garrison." it will be beneficial for your all-round development in speaking to choose for earnest study several speeches of widely different character. as you compare one speech with another, you will more readily see why each subject requires a different form of treatment, and also learn to judge how the speaker has availed himself of the possibilities afforded him. _judge story_ the speech which follows is a fine example of elevated and impassioned oratory. judge story here lauds the american republic, and employs to advantage the rhetorical figures of exclamation and interrogation. as you examine this speech you will notice that the speaker himself was moved by deep conviction. his own belief stamped itself upon his words, and throughout there is the unmistakable mark of sincerity. you are impressed by the comprehensive treatment of the subject. the orator here speaks out of a full mind, and you feel that you would confidently trust yourself to his leadership. "when we reflect on what has been and what is, how is it possible not to feel a profound sense of the responsibilities of this republic to all future ages? what vast motives press upon us for lofty efforts! what brilliant prospects invite our enthusiasm! what solemn warnings at once demand our vigilance and moderate our confidence! the old world has already revealed to us, in its unsealed books, the beginning and the end of all marvelous struggles in the cause of liberty. "greece! lovely greece! 'the land of scholars and the nurse of arms,' where sister republics, in fair processions chanted the praise of liberty and the good, where and what is she? for two thousand years the oppressors have bound her to the earth. her arts are no more. the last sad relics of her temples are but the barracks of a ruthless soldiery; the fragments of her columns and her palaces are in the dust, yet beautiful in ruins. "she fell not when the mighty were upon her. her sons united at thermopylæ and marathon; and the tide of her triumph rolled back upon the hellespont. she was conquered by her own factions--she fell by the hands of her own people. the man of macedonia did not the work of destruction. it was already done by her own corruptions, banishments, and dissensions. rome! whose eagles glanced in the rising and setting sun, where and what is she! the eternal city yet remains, proud even in her desolation, noble in her decline, venerable in the majesty of religion, and calm as in the composure of death. "the malaria has but traveled in the parts won by the destroyers. more than eighteen centuries have mourned over the loss of the empire. a mortal disease was upon her before cæsar had crossed the rubicon; and brutus did not restore her health by the deep probings of the senate-chamber. the goths, and vandals, and huns, the swarms of the north, completed only what was begun at home. romans betrayed rome. the legions were bought and sold, but the people offered the tribute-money. "and where are the republics of modern times, which cluster around immortal italy? venice and genoa exist but in name. the alps, indeed, look down upon the brave and peaceful swiss in their native fastnesses; but the guaranty of their freedom is in their weakness, and not in their strength. the mountains are not easily crossed, and the valleys are not easily retained. "when the invader comes, he moves like an avalanche, carrying destruction in his path. the peasantry sink before him. the country, too, is too poor for plunder, and too rough for a valuable conquest. nature presents her eternal barrier on every side, to check the wantonness of ambition. and switzerland remains with her simple institutions, a military road to climates scarcely worth a permanent possession, and protected by the jealousy of her neighbors. "we stand the latest, and if we fall, probably the last experiment of self-government by the people. we have begun it under circumstances of the most auspicious nature. we are in the vigor of youth. our growth has never been checked by the oppression of tyranny. our constitutions never have been enfeebled by the vice or the luxuries of the world. such as we are, we have been from the beginning: simple, hardy, intelligent, accustomed to self-government and self-respect. "the atlantic rolls between us and a formidable foe. within our own territory, stretching through many degrees of latitude, we have the choice of many products, and many means of independence. the government is mild. the press is free. religion is free. knowledge reaches, or may reach every home. what fairer prospects of success could be presented? what means more adequate to accomplish the sublime end? what more is necessary than for the people to preserve what they themselves have created? "already has the age caught the spirit of our institutions. it has already ascended the andes, and snuffed the breezes of both oceans. it has infused itself into the life-blood of europe, and warmed the sunny plains of france and the lowlands of holland. it has touched the philosophy of germany and the north, and, moving onward to the south, has opened to greece the lesson of her better days. "can it be that america under such circumstances should betray herself? that she is to be added to the catalog of republics, the inscription upon whose ruin is, 'they were but they are not!' forbid it, my countrymen! forbid it, heaven! i call upon you, fathers, by the shades of your ancestors, by the dear ashes which repose in this precious soil, by all you are, and all you hope to be, resist every attempt to fetter your consciences, or smother your public schools, or extinguish your system of public instruction. "i call upon you, mothers, by that which never fails in woman, the love of your offspring, to teach them as they climb your knees or lean on your bosoms, the blessings of liberty. swear them at the altar, as with their baptismal vows, to be true to their country, and never forsake her. i call upon you, young men, to remember whose sons you are--whose inheritance you possess. life can never be too short, which brings nothing but disgrace and oppression. death never comes too soon, if necessary, in defense of the liberties of our country." you can advantageously read aloud many times a speech like the foregoing. stand up and read it aloud once a day for a month, and you will be conscious of a distinct improvement in your own command of persuasive speech. _w. j. fox_ the following is a specimen of masterly oratorical style, from a sermon preached in london, england, by w. j. fox: "from the dawn of intellect and freedom greece has been a watchword on the earth. there rose the social spirit to soften and refine her chosen race, and shelter as in a nest her gentleness from the rushing storm of barbarism; there liberty first built her mountain throne, first called the waves her own, and shouted across them a proud defiance to despotism's banded myriads, there the arts and graces danced around humanity, and stored man's home with comforts, and strewed his path with roses, and bound his brows with myrtle, and fashioned for him the breathing statue, and summoned him to temples of snowy marble, and charmed his senses with all forms of eloquence, and threw over his final sleep their veil of loveliness; there sprung poetry, like their own fabled goddess, mature at once from the teeming intellect, gilt with arts and armour that defy the assaults of time and subdue the heart of man; there matchless orators gave the world a model of perfect eloquence, the soul the instrument on which they played, and every passion of our nature but a tone which the master's touch called forth at will; there lived and taught the philosophers of bower and porch, of pride and pleasure, of deep speculation, and of useful action, who developed all the acuteness and refinement, and excursiveness, and energy of mind, and were the glory of their country when their country was the glory of the earth." _william mckinley_ an eloquent speech, worthy of close study, is that of william mckinley on "the characteristics of washington." as you read it aloud, note the short, clear-cut sentences used in the introduction. observe how the long sentence at the third paragraph gives the needed variation. carefully study the compact english style, and the use of forceful expressions of the speaker, as "he blazed the path to liberty." "fellow citizens:--there is a peculiar and tender sentiment connected with this memorial. it expresses not only the gratitude and reverence of the living, but is a testimonial of affection and homage from the dead. "the comrades of washington projected this monument. their love inspired it. their contributions helped to build it. past and present share in its completion, and future generations will profit by its lessons. to participate in the dedication of such a monument is a rare and precious privilege. every monument to washington is a tribute to patriotism. every shaft and statue to his memory helps to inculcate love of country, encourage loyalty, and establish a better citizenship. god bless every undertaking which revives patriotism and rebukes the indifferent and lawless! a critical study of washington's career only enhances our estimation of his vast and varied abilities. "as commander-in-chief of the colonial armies from the beginning of the war to the proclamation of peace, as president of the convention which framed the constitution of the united states, and as the first president of the united states under that constitution, washington has a distinction differing from that of all other illustrious americans. no other name bears or can bear such a relation to the government. not only by his military genius--his patience, his sagacity, his courage, and his skill--was our national independence won, but he helped in largest measure to draft the chart by which the nation was guided; and he was the first chosen of the people to put in motion the new government. his was not the boldness of martial display or the charm of captivating oratory, but his calm and steady judgment won men's support and commanded their confidence by appealing to their best and noblest aspirations. and withal washington was ever so modest that at no time in his career did his personality seem in the least intrusive. he was above the temptation of power. he spurned the suggested crown. he would have no honor which the people did not bestow. "an interesting fact--and one which i love to recall--is that the only time washington formally addrest the constitutional convention during all its sessions over which he presided in this city, he appealed for a larger representation of the people in the national house of representatives, and his appeal was instantly heeded. thus was he ever keenly watchful of the rights of the people in whose hands was the destiny of our government then as now. "masterful as were his military campaigns, his civil administration commands equal admiration. his foresight was marvelous; his conception of the philosophy of government, his insistence upon the necessity of education, morality, and enlightened citizenship to the progress and permanence of the republic can not be contemplated even at this period without filling us with astonishment at the breadth of his comprehension and the sweep of his vision. his was no narrow view of government. the immediate present was not the sole concern, but our future good his constant theme of study. he blazed the path of liberty. he laid the foundation upon which we have grown from weak and scattered colonial governments to a united republic whose domains and power as well as whose liberty and freedom have become the admiration of the world. distance and time have not detracted from the fame and force of his achievements or diminished the grandeur of his life and work. great deeds do not stop in their growth, and those of washington will expand in influence in all the centuries to follow. "the bequest washington has made to civilization is rich beyond computation. the obligations under which he has placed mankind are sacred and commanding. the responsibility he has left, for the american people to preserve and perfect what he accomplished, is exacting and solemn. let us rejoice in every new evidence that the people realize what they enjoy, and cherish with affection the illustrious heroes of revolutionary story whose valor and sacrifices made us a nation. they live in us, and their memory will help us keep the covenant entered into for the maintenance of the freest government of earth. "the nation and the name washington are inseparable. one is linked indissolubly with the other. both are glorious, both triumphant. washington lives and will live because of what he did for the exaltation of man, the enthronement of conscience, and the establishment of a government which recognizes all the governed. and so, too, will the nation live victorious over all obstacles, adhering to the immortal principles which washington taught and lincoln sustained." _edward everett_ the following extract from "the foundation of national character," by edward everett, is a fine example of patriotic appeal. read it aloud, and note how the orator speaks with deep feeling and stirs the same feeling in you. this impression is largely due to the simple, sincere, right-onward style of the speaker,--qualities of his own well-known character. it will amply repay you to read this extract aloud at least once a day for a week or more, so that its superior elements of thought and style may be deeply imprest on your mind. "how is the spirit of a free people to be formed, and animated, and cheered, but out of the storehouse of its historic recollections? are we to be eternally ringing the changes upon marathon and thermopylæ; and going back to read in obscure texts of greek and latin, of the exemplars of patriotic virtue? "i thank god that we can find them nearer home, in our own soil; that strains of the noblest sentiment that ever swelled in the breast of man, are breathing to us out of every page of our country's history, in the native eloquence of our mother-tongue,--that the colonial and provincial councils of america exhibit to us models of the spirits and character which gave greece and rome their name and their praise among nations. "here we ought to go for our instruction;--the lesson is plain, it is clear, it is applicable. when we go to ancient history, we are bewildered with the difference of manners and institutions. we are willing to pay our tribute of applause to the memory of leonidas, who fell nobly for his country in the face of his foe. "but when we trace him to his home, we are confounded at the reflection, that the same spartan heroism, to which he sacrificed himself at thermopylæ, would have led him to tear his own child, if it had happened to be a sickly babe,--the very object for which all that is kind and good in man rises up to plead,--from the bosom of his mother, and carry it out to be eaten by the wolves of taygetus. "we feel a glow of admiration at the heroism displayed at marathon by the ten thousand champions of invaded greece; but we can not forget that the tenth part of the number were slaves, unchained from the workshops and doorposts of their masters, to go and fight the battles of freedom. "i do not mean that these examples are to destroy the interest with which we read the history of ancient times; they possibly increase that interest by the very contrast they exhibit. but they warn us, if we need the warning, to seek our great practical lessons of patriotism at home; out of the exploits and sacrifices of which our own country is the theater; out of the characters of our own fathers. "them we know,--the high-souled, natural, unaffected, the citizen heroes. we know what happy firesides they left for the cheerless camp. we know with what pacific habits they dared the perils of the field. there is no mystery, no romance, no madness, under the name of chivalry about them. it is all resolute, manly resistance for conscience and liberty's sake not merely of an overwhelming power, but of all the force of long-rooted habits and native love of order and peace. "above all, their blood calls to us from the soil which we tread; it beats in our veins; it cries to us not merely in the thrilling words of one of the first victims in this cause--'my sons, scorn to be slaves!'--but it cries with a still more moving eloquence--'my sons, forget not your fathers!'" _john quincy adams_ john quincy adams, in his speech on "the life and character of lafayette," gives us a fine example of elevated and serious-minded utterance. the following extract from this speech can be studied with profit. particularly note the use of sustained sentences, and the happy collocation of words. the concluding paragraph should be closely examined as a study in impressive climax. "pronounce him one of the first men of his age, and you have yet not done him justice. try him by that test to which he sought in vain to stimulate the vulgar and selfish spirit of napoleon; class him among the men who, to compare and seat themselves, must take in the compass of all ages; turn back your eyes upon the records of time; summon, from the creation of the world to this day, the mighty dead of every age and every clime,--and where, among the race of merely mortal men, shall one be found who, as the benefactor of his kind, shall claim to take precedence of lafayette? "there have doubtless been in all ages men whose discoveries or inventions in the world of matter, or of mind, have opened new avenues to the dominion of man over the material creation; have increased his means or his faculties of enjoyment; have raised him in nearer approximation to that higher and happier condition, the object of his hopes and aspirations in his present state of existence. "lafayette discovered no new principle of politics or of morals. he invented nothing in science. he disclosed no new phenomenon in the laws of nature. born and educated in the highest order of feudal nobility, under the most absolute monarchy of europe; in possession of an affluent fortune, and master of himself and of all his capabilities, at the moment of attaining manhood the principle of republican justice and of social equality took possession of his heart and mind, as if by inspiration from above. "he devoted himself, his life, his fortune, his hereditary honors, his towering ambition, his splendid hopes, all to the cause of liberty. he came to another hemisphere to defend her. he became one of the most effective champions of our independence; but, that once achieved, he returned to his own country, and thenceforward took no part in the controversies which have divided us. "in the events of our revolution, and in the forms of policy which we have adopted for the establishment and perpetuation of our freedom, lafayette found the most perfect form of government. he wished to add nothing to it. he would gladly have abstracted nothing from it. instead of the imaginary republic of plato, or the utopia of sir thomas more, he took a practical existing model in actual operation here, and never attempted or wished more than to apply it faithfully to his own country. "it was not given to moses to enter the promised land; but he saw it from the summit of pisgah. it was not given to lafayette to witness the consummation of his wishes in the establishment of a republic and the extinction of all hereditary rule in france. his principles were in advance of the age and hemisphere in which he lived.... the prejudices and passions of the people of france rejected the principle of inherited power in every station of public trust, excepting the first and highest of them all; but there they clung to it, as did the israelites of old to the savory deities of egypt. "when the principle of hereditary dominion shall be extinguished in all the institutions of france; when government shall no longer be considered as property transmissible from sire to son, but as a trust committed for a limited time, and then to return to the people whence it came; as a burdensome duty to be discharged, and not as a reward to be abused;--then will be the time for contemplating the character of lafayette, not merely in the events of his life, but in the full development of his intellectual conceptions, of his fervent aspirations, of the labors, and perils, and sacrifices of his long and eventful career upon earth; and thenceforward till the hour when the trumpet of the archangel shall sound to announce that time shall be no more, the name of lafayette shall stand enrolled upon the annals of our race high on the list of pure and disinterested benefactors of mankind." i have selected these extracts for your convenient use, as embodying both thought and style worthy of your careful study. read them aloud at every opportunity, and you will be gratified at the steady improvement such practise will make in your own speaking power. history of public speaking men who have made history in public speaking--and their methods the great orators of the world did not regard eloquence as simply an endowment of nature, but applied themselves diligently to cultivating their powers of expression. in many cases there was unusual natural ability, but such men knew that regular study and practise were essential to success in this coveted art. the oration can be traced back to hebrew literature. in the first chapter of deuteronomy we find moses' speech in the end of the fortieth year, briefly rehearsing the story of god's promise, and of god's anger for their incredulity and disobedience. the four orations in deuteronomy, by moses, are highly commended for their tenderness, sublimity and passionate appeal. you can advantageously read them aloud. the oration of pericles over the graves of those who fell in the peloponnesian war, is said to have been the first athenian oration designed for the public. the agitated political times and the people's intense desire for learning combined to favor the development of oratory in ancient greece. questions of great moment had to be discust and serious problems solved. as the orator gradually became the most powerful influence in the state, the art of oratory was more and more recognized as the supreme accomplishment of the educated man. _demosthenes_ demosthenes stands preeminent among greek orators. his well-known oration "on the crown," the preparation of which occupied a large part of seven years, is regarded as the oratorical masterpiece of all history. it is encouraging to the student of public speaking to recall that this distinguished orator at first had serious natural defects to overcome. his voice was weak, he stammered in his speech, and was painfully diffident. these faults were remedied, as is well-known, by earnest daily practise in declaiming on the sea-shore, with pebbles in the mouth, walking up and down hill while reciting, and deliberately seeking occasions for conversing with groups of people. the chief lesson for you to draw from demosthenes is that he was indefatigable in his study of the art of oratory. he left nothing to chance. his speeches were characterized by deliberate forethought. he excelled other men not because of great natural ability but because of intelligent and continuous industry. he stands for all time as the most inspiring example of oratorical achievement, despite almost insuperable difficulties. _cicero_ the fame of roman oratory rests upon cicero, whose eloquence was second only to that of demosthenes. he was a close student of the art of speaking. he was so intense and vehement by nature that he was obliged in his early career to spend two years in greece, exercising in the gymnasium in order to restore his shattered constitution. his nervous temperament clung to him, however, since he made this significant confession after long years of practise in public speaking. "i declare that when i think of the moment when i shall have to rise and speak in defense of a client, i am not only disturbed in mind, but tremble in every limb of my body." it is well to note here that a nervous temperament may be a help rather than a hindrance to a speaker. indeed, it is the highly sensitive nature that often produces the most persuasive orator, but only when he has learned to conserve and properly use this valuable power. cicero was a living embodiment of the comprehensive requirements laid down by the ancients as essential to the orator. he had a knowledge of logic, ethics, astronomy, philosophy, geometry, music, and rhetoric. little wonder, therefore, that his amazing eloquence was described as a resistless torrent. _luther_ martin luther was the dominating orator of the reformation. he combined a strong physique with great intellectual power. "if i wish to compose, or write, or pray, or preach well," said he, "i must be angry. then all the blood in my veins is stirred, my understanding is sharpened, and all dismal thoughts and temptations are dissipated." what the great reformer called "anger," we would call indignation or earnestness. _john knox_ john knox, the scotch reformer, was a preeminent preacher. his pulpit style was characterized by a fiery eloquence which stirred his hearers to great enthusiasm and sometimes to violence. _bossuet_ bossuet, regarded as the greatest orator france has produced, was a fearless and inspired speaker. his style was dignified and deliberate, but as he warmed with his theme his thought took fire and he carried his hearers along upon a swiftly moving tide of impassioned eloquence. when he spoke from the text, "be wise, therefore, o ye kings! be instructed, ye judges of the earth!" the king himself was thrilled as with a religious terror. to ripe scholarship bossuet added a voice that was deep and sonorous, an imposing personality, and an animated style of gesture. lamartine described his voice as "like that of the thunder in the clouds, or the organ in the cathedral." _bourdaloue_ louis bourdaloue, styled "the preacher of kings, and the king of preachers," was a speaker of versatile powers. he could adapt his style to any audience, and "mechanics left their shops, merchants their business, and lawyers their court house" in order to hear him. his high personal character, simplicity of life, and clear and logical utterance combined to make him an accomplished orator. _massillon_ massillon preached directly to the hearts of his hearers. he was of a deeply affectionate nature, hence his style was that of tender persuasiveness rather than of declamation. he had remarkable spiritual insight and knowledge of the human heart, and was himself deeply moved by the truths which he proclaimed to other men. _lord chatham_ lord chatham's oratorical style was formed on the classic model. his intellect, at once comprehensive and vigorous, combined with deep and intense feeling, fitted him to become one of the highest types of orators. he was dignified and graceful, sometimes vehement, always commanding. he ruled the british parliament by sheer force of eloquence. his voice was a wonderful instrument, so completely under control that his lowest whisper was distinctly heard, and his full tones completely filled the house. he had supreme self-confidence, and a sense of superiority over those around him which acted as an inspiration to his own mind. _burke_ burke was a great master of english prose as well as a great orator. he took large means to deal with large subjects. he was a man of immense power, and his stride was the stride of a giant. he has been credited with passion, intensity, imagination, nobility, and amplitude. his style was sonorous and majestic. _sheridan_ sheridan became a foremost parliamentary speaker and debater, despite early discouragements. his well-known answer to a friend, who adversely criticized his speaking, "it is in me, and it shall come out of me!" has for years given new encouragement to many a student of public speaking. he applied himself with untiring industry to the development of all his powers, and so became one of the most distinguished speakers of his day. _charles james fox_ charles james fox was a plain, practical, forceful orator of the thoroughly english type. his qualities of sincerity, vehemence, simplicity, ruggedness, directness and dexterity, combined with a manly fearlessness, made him a formidable antagonist in any debate. facts, analogies, illustrations, intermingled with wit, feeling, and ridicule, gave charm and versatility to his speaking unsurpassed in his time. _lord brougham_ lord brougham excelled in cogent, effective argument. his impassioned reasoning often made ordinary things interesting. he ingratiated himself by his wise and generous sentiments, and his uncompromising solicitude for his country. he always succeeded in getting through his protracted and parenthetical sentences without confusion to his hearers or to himself. he could see from the beginning of a sentence precisely what the end would be. _john quincy adams_ john quincy adams won a high place as a debater and orator in his speech in congress upon the right of petition, delivered in . a formidable antagonist, pugnacious by temperament, uniformly dignified, a profound scholar,--his is "a name recorded on the brightest page of american history, as statesman, diplomatist, philosopher, orator, author, and, above all a christian." _patrick henry_ patrick henry was a man of extraordinary eloquence. in his day he was regarded as the greatest orator in america. in his early efforts as a speaker he hesitated much and throughout his career often gave an impression of natural timidity. he has been favorably compared with lord chatham for fire, force, and personal energy. his power was largely due to a rare gift of lucid and concise statement. _henry clay_ the eloquence of henry clay was magisterial, persuasive, and irresistible. so great was his personal magnetism that multitudes came great distances to hear him. he was a man of brilliant intellect, fertile fancy, chivalrous nature, and patriotic fervor. he had a clear, rotund, melodious voice, under complete command. he held, it is said, the keys to the hearts of his countrymen. _calhoun_ the eloquence of john caldwell calhoun has been described by daniel webster as "plain, strong, terse, condensed, concise; sometimes impassioned, still always severe. rejecting ornament, not often seeking far for illustrations, his power consisted in the plainness of his propositions, in the closeness of his logic, and in the earnestness and energy of his manner." he exerted unusual influence over the opinions of great masses of men. he had remarkable power of analysis and logical skill. originality, self-reliance, impatience, aggressiveness, persistence, sincerity, honesty, ardor,--these were some of the personal qualities which gave him dominating influence over his generation. _daniel webster_ daniel webster was a massive orator. he combined logical and argumentative skill with a personality of extraordinary power and attractiveness. he had a supreme scorn for tricks of oratory, and a horror of epithets and personalities. his best known speeches are those delivered on the anniversary at plymouth, the laying of the corner-stone of bunker hill monument, and the deaths of jefferson and adams. _edward everett_ edward everett was a man of scholastic tastes and habits. his speaking style was remarkable for its literary finish and polished precision. his sense of fitness saved him from serious faults of speech or manner. he blended many graces in one, and his speeches are worthy of study as models of oratorical style. _rufus choate_ rufus choate was a brilliant and persuasive extempore speaker. he possest in high degree faculties essential to great oratory--a capacious mind, retentive memory, logical acumen, vivid imagination, deep concentration, and wealth of language. he had an extraordinary personal fascination, largely due to his broad sympathy and geniality. _charles sumner_ charles sumner was a gifted orator. his delivery was highly impressive, due fundamentally to his innate integrity and elevated personal character. he was a wide reader and profound student. his style was energetic, logical, and versatile. his intense patriotism and argumentative power, won large favor with his hearers. _william e. channing_ william ellery channing was a preacher of unusual eloquence and intellectual power. he was small in stature, but of surpassing grace. his voice was soft and musical, and wonderfully responsive to every change of emotion that arose in his mind. his eloquence was not forceful nor forensic, but gentle and persuasive. his monument bears this high tribute: "in memory of william ellery channing, honored throughout christendom for his eloquence and courage in maintaining and advancing the great cause of truth, religion, and human freedom." _wendell phillips_ wendell phillips was one of the most graceful and polished orators. to his conversational style he added an exceptional vocabulary, a clear and flexible voice, and a most fascinating personality. he produced his greatest effects by the simplest means. he combined humor, pathos, sarcasm and invective with rare skill, yet his style was so simple that a child could have understood him. _george william curtis_ george william curtis has been described in his private capacity as natural, gentle, manly, refined, simple, and unpretending. he was the last of the great school of everett, sumner, and phillips. his art of speaking had an enduring charm, and he completely satisfied the taste for pure and dignified speech. his voice was of silvery clearness, which carried to the furthermost part of the largest hall. _gladstone_ gladstone was an orator of preeminent power. in fertility of thought, spontaneity of expression, modulation of voice, and grace of gesture, he has had few equals. he always spoke from a deep sense of duty. when he began a sentence you could not always foresee how he would end it, but he always succeeded. he had an extraordinary wealth of words and command of the english language. gladstone has been described as having eagerness, self-control, mastery of words, gentle persuasiveness, prodigious activity, capacity for work, extreme seriousness, range of experience, constructive power, mastery of detail, and deep concentration. "so vast and so well ordered was the arsenal of his mind, that he could both instruct and persuade, stimulate his friends and demolish his opponents, and do all these things at an hour's notice." he was essentially a devout man, and unquestionably his spiritual character was the fundamental secret of his transcendent power. a keen observer thus describes him: "while this great and famous figure was in the house of commons, the house had eyes for no other person. his movements on the bench, restless and eager, his demeanor when on his legs, whether engaged in answering a simple question, expounding an intricate bill, or thundering in vehement declamation, his dramatic gestures, his deep and rolling voice with its wide compass and marked northern accent, his flashing eye, his almost incredible command of ideas and words, made a combination of irresistible fascination and power." _john bright_ john bright won a foremost place among british orators largely because of his power of clear statement and vivid description. his manner was at once ingratiating and commanding. his way of putting things was so lucid and convincing that it was difficult to express the same ideas in any other words with equal force. one of the secrets of his success, it is said, was his command of colloquial simile, apposite stories, and ready wit. mr. bright always had himself well in hand, yet his style at times was volcanic in its force and impetuosity. he would shut himself up for days preparatory to delivering a great speech, and tho he committed many passages to memory, his manner in speaking was entirely free from artifice. _lincoln_ lincoln's power as a speaker was due to a combination of rugged gifts. self-reliance, sympathy, honesty, penetration, broad-mindedness, modesty, and independence,--these were keynotes to his great character. the gettysburg speech of less than words is regarded as the greatest short speech in history. lincoln's aim was always to say the most sensible thing in the clearest terms, and in the fewest possible words. his supreme respect for his hearers won their like respect for him. there is a valuable suggestion for the student of public speaking in this description of lincoln's boyhood: "abe read diligently. he read every book he could lay his hands on, and when he came across a passage that struck him, he would write it down on boards if he had no paper, and keep it there until he did get paper. then he would rewrite it, look at it, repeat it. he had a copy book, a kind of scrap-book, in which he put down all things, and thus preserved them." _daniel o'connell_ daniel o'connell was one of the most popular orators of his day. he had a deep, sonorous, flexible voice, which he used to great advantage. he had a wonderful gift of touching the human heart, now melting his hearers by his pathos, then convulsing them with his quaint humor. he was attractive in manner, generous in feeling, spontaneous in expression, and free from rhetorical trickery. as you read this brief sketch of some of the world's great orators, it should be inspiring to you as a student of public speaking to know something of their trials, difficulties, methods and triumphs. they have left great examples to be emulated, and to read about them and to study their methods is to follow somewhat in their footsteps. great speeches, like great pictures, are inspired by great subjects and great occasions. when a speaker is moved to vindicate the national honor, to speak in defense of human rights, or in some other great cause, his thought and expression assume new and wonderful power. all the resources of his mind--will, imagination, memory, and emotion,--are stimulated into unusual activity. his theme takes complete possession of him and he carries conviction to his hearers by the force, sincerity, and earnestness of his delivery. it is to this exalted type of oratory i would have you aspire. extracts for study, with lesson talk examples of oratory and how to study them it will be beneficial to you in this connection to study examples of speeches by the world's great orators. i furnish you here with a few short specimens which will serve this purpose. carefully note the suggestions and the numbered extract to which they refer. . practise this example for climax. as you read it aloud, gradually increase the intensity of your voice but do not unduly elevate the key. . study this particularly for its suggestive value to you as a public speaker. . practise this for fervent appeal. articulate distinctly. pause after each question. do not rant or declaim, but speak it. . study this for its sustained sentences and dignity of style. . analyze this for its strength of thought and diction. note the effective repetition of "i care not." commit the passage to memory. . read this for elevated and patriotic feeling. render it aloud in deliberate and thoughtful style. . particularly observe the judicial clearness of this example. note the felicitous use of language. . read this aloud for oratorical style. fit the words to your lips. engrave the passage on your mind by frequent repetition. . study this passage for its profound and prophetic thought. render it aloud in slow and dignified style. . practise this for its sustained power. the words "let him" should be intensified at each repetition, and the phrase "and show me the man" brought out prominently. . study this for its beauty and variety of language. meditate upon it as a model of what a speaker should be. . note the strength in the repeated phrase "i will never say." observe the power, nobility and courage manifest throughout. the closing sentence should be read in a deeply earnest tone and at a gradually slower rate. . read this for its purity and strength of style. note the effective use of question and answer. . study this passage for its common sense and exalted thought. note how each sentence is rounded out into fulness, until it is imprest upon your memory. extracts for study specimens of eloquence _a study in climax_ . my lords, these are the securities which we have in all the constituent parts of the body of this house. we know them, we reckon them, rest upon them, and commit safely the interests of india and of humanity into your hands. therefore it is with confidence that, ordered by the commons, i impeach him in the name of all the commons of great britain in parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed. i impeach him in the name of the commons of great britain, whose national character he has dishonored. i impeach him in the name of the people of india, whose laws, rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose properties he has destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate. i impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of justice which he has violated. i impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and opprest in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life.--_impeachment of warren hastings:_ edmund burke. _suggestions to the public speaker_ . i am now requiring not merely great preparation while the speaker is learning his art but after he has accomplished his education. the most splendid effort of the most mature orator will be always finer for being previously elaborated with much care. there is, no doubt, a charm in extemporaneous elocution, derived from the appearance of artless, unpremeditated effusion, called forth by the occasion, and so adapting itself to its exigencies, which may compensate the manifold defects incident to this kind of composition: that which is inspired by the unforeseen circumstances of the moment, will be of necessity suited to those circumstances in the choice of the topics, and pitched in the tone of the execution, to the feelings upon which it is to operate. these are great virtues: it is another to avoid the besetting vice of modern oratory--the overdoing everything--the exhaustive method--which an off-hand speaker has no time to fall into, and he accordingly will take only the grand and effective view; nevertheless, in oratorical merit, such effusions must needs be very inferior; much of the pleasure they produce depends upon the hearer's surprize that in such circumstances anything can be delivered at all, rather than upon his deliberate judgment, that he has heard anything very excellent in itself. we may rest assured that the highest reaches of the art, and without any necessary sacrifice of natural effect, can only be attained by him who well considers, and maturely prepares, and oftentimes sedulously corrects and refines his oration. such preparation is quite consistent with the introduction of passages prompted by the occasion, nor will the transition from one to the other be perceptible in the execution of the practised master.--_inaugural discourse:_ lord brougham. _a study in fervent appeal_ . it is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. gentlemen may cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. the war is actually begun! the next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! our brethren are already in the field! why stand we here idle? what is it that gentlemen wish? what would they have? is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god! i know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!--_the war inevitable:_ patrick henry. _a study in dignity and style_ . in retiring as i am about to do, forever, from the senate, suffer me to express my heartfelt wishes that all the great and patriotic objects of the wise framers of our constitution may be fulfilled; that the high destiny designed for it may be fully answered; and that its deliberations, now and hereafter, may eventuate in securing the prosperity of our beloved country, in maintaining its rights and honor abroad, and upholding its interests at home. i retire, i know, at a period of infinite distress and embarrassment. i wish i could take my leave of you under more favorable auspices; but without meaning at this time to say whether on any or on whom reproaches for the sad condition of the country should fall, i appeal to the senate and to the world to bear testimony to my earnest and continued exertions to avert it, and to the truth that no blame can justly attach to me.--_farewell address:_ henry clay. _a study in strength and diction_ . for myself, i believe there is no limit fit to be assigned to it by the human mind, because i find at work everywhere, on both sides of the atlantic, under various forms and degrees of restriction on the one hand, and under various degrees of motive and stimulus on the other, in these branches of the common race, the great principle of the freedom of human thought, and the respectability of individual character. i find everywhere an elevation of the character of man as man, an elevation of the individual as a component part of society. i find everywhere a rebuke of the idea that the many are made for the few, or that government is anything but an agency for mankind. and i care not beneath what zone, frozen, temperate, or torrid; i care not of what complexion, white, or brown; i care not under what circumstances of climate or cultivation--if i can find a race of men on an inhabited spot of earth whose general sentiment it is, and whose general feeling it is, that government is made for man--man, as a religious, moral, and social being--and not man for government, there i know that i shall find prosperity and happiness.--_the landing at plymouth:_ daniel webster. _a study in patriotic feeling_ . friends, fellow citizens, free, prosperous, happy americans! the men who did so much to make you are no more. the men who gave nothing to pleasure in youth, nothing to repose in age, but all to that country whose beloved name filled their hearts, as it does ours, with joy, can now do no more for us; nor we for them. but their memory remains, we will cherish it; their bright example remains, we will strive to imitate it; the fruit of their wise counsels and noble acts remains, we will gratefully enjoy it. they have gone to the companions of their cares, of their dangers, and their toils. it is well with them. the treasures of america are now in heaven. how long the list of our good, and wise, and brave, assembled there! how few remain with us! there is our washington; and those who followed him in their country's confidence are now met together with him and all that illustrious company.--_adams and jefferson:_ edward everett. _a study in clearness of expression_ . i can not leave this life and character without selecting and dwelling a moment on one or two of his traits, or virtues, or felicities, a little longer. there is a collective impression made by the whole of an eminent person's life, beyond, and other than, and apart from, that which the mere general biographer would afford the means of explaining. there is an influence of a great man derived from things indescribable, almost, or incapable of enumeration, or singly insufficient to account for it, but through which his spirit transpires, and his individuality goes forth on the contemporary generation. and thus, i should say, one grand tendency of his life and character was to elevate the whole tone of the public mind. he did this, indeed, not merely by example. he did it by dealing, as he thought, truly and in manly fashion with that public mind. he evinced his love of the people not so much by honeyed phrases as by good counsels and useful service, _vera pro gratis_. he showed how he appreciated them by submitting sound arguments to their understandings, and right motives to their free will. he came before them, less with flattery than with instruction; less with a vocabulary larded with the words humanity and philanthropy, and progress and brotherhood, than with a scheme of politics, an educational, social and governmental system, which would have made them prosperous, happy and great.--_on the death of daniel webster:_ rufus choate. _a study of oratorical style_ . and yet this small people--so obscure and outcast in condition--so slender in numbers and in means--so entirely unknown to the proud and great--so absolutely without name in contemporary records--whose departure from the old world took little more than the breath of their bodies--are now illustrious beyond the lot of men; and the mayflower is immortal beyond the grecian argo or the stately ship of any victorious admiral. tho this was little foreseen in their day, it is plain now how it has come to pass. the highest greatness surviving time and storm is that which proceeds from the soul of man. monarchs and cabinets, generals and admirals, with the pomp of courts and the circumstance of war, in the gradual lapse of time disappear from sight; but the pioneers of truth, the poor and lowly, especially those whose example elevates human nature and teaches the rights of man, so that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth, such harbingers can never be forgotten, and their renown spreads coextensive with the cause they served.--_the qualities that win:_ charles sumner. _a study in profound thinking_ . there is something greater in the age than its greatest men; it is the appearance of a new power in the world, the appearance of the multitude of men on the stage where as yet the few have acted their parts alone. this influence is to endure to the end of time. what more of the present is to survive? perhaps much of which we now fail to note. the glory of an age is often hidden from itself. perhaps some word has been spoken in our day which we have not designed to hear, but which is to grow clearer and louder through all ages. perhaps some silent thinker among us is at work in his closet whose name is to fill the earth. perhaps there sleeps in his cradle some reformer who is to move the church and the world, who is to open a new era in history, who is to fire the human soul with new hope and new daring. what else is to survive the age? that which the age has little thought of, but which is living in us all; i mean the soul, the immortal spirit. of this all ages are the unfoldings, and it is greater than all. we must not feel, in the contemplation of the vast movements in our own and former times, as if we ourselves were nothing. i repeat it, we are greater than all. we are to survive our age, to comprehend it, and to pronounce its sentence.--_the present age:_ w. e. channing. _a study of sustained power_ . now, blue-eyed saxon, proud of your race, go back with me to the commencement of the century, and select what statesman you please. let him be either american or european; let him have a brain the result of six generations of culture; let him have the ripest training of university routine; let him add to it the better education of practical life; crown his temples with the silver locks of seventy years, and show me the man of saxon lineage for whom his most sanguine admirer will wreathe a laurel, rich as embittered foes have placed on the brow of this negro,--rare military skill, profound knowledge of human nature, content to blot out all party distinctions, and trust a state to the blood of its sons,--anticipating sir robert peel fifty years, and taking his station by the side of roger williams, before any englishman or american had won the right; and yet this is the record which the history of rival states makes up for this inspired black of st. domingo.--_toussaint l'ouverture:_ wendell phillips. _study in beauty of language_ . he faced his audience with a tranquil mien and a beaming aspect that was never dimmed. he spoke, and in the measured cadence of his quiet voice there was intense feeling, but no declamation, no passionate appeal, no superficial and feigned emotion. it was simple colloquy--a gentleman conversing. unconsciously and surely the ear and heart were charmed. how was it done?--ah! how did mozart do it, how raffael? the secret of the rose's sweetness, of the bird's ecstacy, of the sunset's glory--that is the secret of genius and of eloquence. what was heard, what was seen, was the form of noble manhood, the courteous and self-possest tone, the flow of modulated speech, sparkling with matchless richness of illustration, with apt allusion and happy anecdote and historic parallel, with wit and pitiless invective, with melodious pathos, with stinging satire, with crackling epigram and limpid humor, like the bright ripples that play around the sure and steady prow of the resistless ship. like an illuminated vase of odors, he glowed with concentrated and perfumed fire. the divine energy of his conviction utterly possest him, and his "pure and eloquent blood spoke in his cheek, and so distinctly wrought, that one might almost say his body thought." was it pericles swaying the athenian multitude? was it apollo breathing the music of the morning from his lips?--no, no! it was an american patriot, a modern son of liberty, with a soul as firm and as true as was ever consecrated to unselfish duty, pleading with the american conscience for the chained and speechless victims of american inhumanity.--_eulogy of wendell phillips:_ george william curtis. _a study in powerful delivery_ . i thank you very cordially, both friends and opponents, if opponents you be, for the extreme kindness with which you have heard me. i have spoken, and i must speak in very strong terms of the acts done by my opponents. i will never say that they did it from passion; i will never say that they did it from a sordid love of office; i have no right to use such words; i have no right to entertain such sentiments; i repudiate and abjure them; i give them credit for patriotic motives--i give them credit for those patriotic motives which are incessantly and gratuitously denied to us. i believe we are all united in a fond attachment to the great country to which we belong; to the great empire which has committed to it a trust and function from providence, as special and remarkable as was ever entrusted to any portion of the family of man. when i speak of that trust and that function i feel that words fail. i can not tell you what i think of the nobleness of the inheritance which has descended upon us, of the sacredness of the duty of maintaining it. i will not condescend to make it a part of controversial politics. it is a part of my being, of my flesh and blood, of my heart and soul. for those ends i have labored through my youth and manhood, and, more than that, till my hairs are gray. in that faith and practise i have lived, and in that faith and practise i shall die.--_midlothian speech:_ william ewart gladstone. _a study in purity of style_ . is this a reality? or is your christianity a romance? is your profession a dream? no, i am sure that your christianity is not a romance, and i am equally sure that your profession is not a dream. it is because i believe this that i appeal to you with confidence, and that i have hope and faith in the future. i believe that we shall see, and at no very distant time, sound economic principles spreading much more widely among the people; a sense of justice growing up in a soil which hitherto has been deemed unfruitful; and, which will be better than all--the churches of the united kingdom--the churches of britain awaking, as it were, from their slumbers, and girding up their loins to more glorious work, when they shall not only accept and believe in the prophecy, but labor earnestly for its fulfilment, that there shall come a time--a blessed time--a time which shall last forever--when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."--_peace:_ john bright. _a study in common sense and exalted thought_ . my countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. if there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. if it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in this dispute there is still no single good reason for precipitate action. intelligence, patriotism, christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, are the momentous issues of civil war. the government will not assail you. you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while i shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.--_the first inaugural address:_ abraham lincoln. how to speak in public[ ] by grenville kleiser [footnote : a talk given before the public speaking club of america.] the art of public speaking is so simple that it is difficult. there is an erroneous impression that in order to make a successful speech a man must have unusual natural talent in addition to long and arduous study. consequently, many a person, when asked to make a speech, is immediately subjected to a feeling of fear or depression. once committed to the undertaking, he spends anxious days and sleepless nights in mental agony, much as a criminal is said to do just prior to his execution. when at last he attempts his "maiden effort," he is almost wholly unfit for his task because of the needless waste of thought and energy expended in fear. elbert hubbard once confided to me that when he made deliberate preparation for an elaborate speech,--which was seldom,--it was invariably a disappointment. to push a great speech before him for an hour or more used up most of his vitality. it was like making a speech while attempting to carry a heavy burden on the back. how the speaker must prepare himself there is, of course, certain preparation necessary for effective public speaking. the so-called impromptu speech is largely the product of previous knowledge and study. what the speaker has read, what he has seen, what he has heard,--in short, what he actually knows, furnishes the available material for his use. as the public speaker gains in experience, however, he learns to put aside, at the time of speaking, all conscious thought of rules or methods. he learns through discipline how to abandon himself to the subject in hand and to give spontaneous expression to all his powers. _primarily, then, the public speaker should have a well-stored mind._ he should have mental culture in a broad way; sound judgment, a sense of proportion, mental alertness, a retentive memory, tact, and common sense,--these are vital to good speaking. _the physical requirements of the public speaker_ comprise good health and bodily vigor. he must have power of endurance, since there will be at times arduous demands upon him. it is worthy of note that most of the world's great orators have been men with great animal vitality. the student of public speaking should give careful attention to his personal appearance, which includes care of the teeth. his clothes, linen, and the evidence of general care and cleanliness, will play an important part in the impression he makes upon an audience. _elocutionary training is essential._ daily drill in deep breathing, articulation, pronunciation, voice culture, gesture, and expression, are prerequisites to polished speech. experienced public speakers of the best type know the necessity for daily practise. _the mental training of the public speaker_, so often neglected, should be regular and thorough. a reliable memory and a vivid imagination are his indispensable allies. _the moral side of the public speaker_ will include the development of character, sympathy, self-confidence and kindred qualities. to be a leader of other men, a speaker must have clear, settled, vigorous views upon the subject under consideration. so much, briefly, as to the previous preparation of the speaker. how the speaker must prepare his speech _as to the speech itself, the speaker first chooses a subject._ this will depend upon the nature of the occasion and the purpose in view. he proceeds intelligently to gather material on his selected theme, supplementing the resources of his own mind with information from books, periodicals, and other sources. _the next step is to make a brief_, or outline of his subject. a brief is composed of three parts, called the introduction, the discussion or statement of facts, and the conclusion. principal ideas are placed under headings and subheadings. _the speaker next writes out his speech in full_, using the brief as the basis of procedure. the discipline of writing out a speech, even tho the intention is to speak without notes, is of inestimable value. it is one of the best indications of the speaker's thoroughness and sincerity. when the speech has at last been carefully written out, revised, and approved, should it be committed word for word to memory, or only in part, or should the speaker read from the manuscript? the part memory plays in public speaking here circumstances must govern. _the most approved method is to fix the thoughts clearly in mind, and to trust to the time of speaking for exact phraseology._ this method requires, however, that the speaker rehearse his speech over and over again, changing the form of the words frequently, so as to acquire facility in the use of language. _the great objection to memoriter speaking is that it limits and handicaps the speaker._ he is like a schoolboy "saying his piece." he is in constant danger of running off the prescribed track and of having to begin again at some definite point. the most effective speaker to-day is the one who can think clearly and promptly on his feet, and can speak from his personality rather than from his memory. untrammelled by manuscript or effort of memory, he gives full and spontaneous expression to his powers. on the other hand, a speech from memory is like a recitation, almost inevitably stilted and artificial in character. the study of words and ideas those who would become highly proficient in public speaking should form the dictionary habit. it is a profitable and pleasant exercise to study lists of words and to incorporate them in one's daily conversation. ten minutes devoted regularly every day to this study will build the vocabulary in a rapid manner. the study of words is really a study of ideas,--since words are symbols of ideas,--and while the student is increasing his working vocabulary, in the way indicated, he is at the same time furnishing his mind with new and useful ideas. _one of the best exercises for the student of public speaking is to read aloud daily, taking care to read as he would speak._ he should choose one of the standard writers, such as stevenson, ruskin, newman, or carlyle, and while reading severely criticize his delivery. such reading should be done standing up and as if addressing an audience. this simple exercise will, in the course of a few weeks, yield the most gratifying results. it is true that "all art must be preceded by a certain mechanical expertness," but as the highest art is to conceal art, a student must learn eventually to abandon thought of "exercises" and "rules." essential qualities of the public speaker the three greatest qualities in a successful public speaker are simplicity, directness, and deliberateness. lincoln had these qualities in preeminent degree. his speech at gettysburg--the model short speech of all history--occupied about three minutes in delivery. edward everett well said afterward that he would have been content to make the same impression in three hours which lincoln made in that many minutes. the great public speakers in all times have been earnest and diligent students. we are familiar with the indefatigable efforts of demosthenes, who rose from very ordinary circumstances, and goaded by the realization of great natural defects, through assiduous self-training eventually made the greatest of the world's orations, "the speech on the crown." cicero was a painstaking disciple of the speaker's art and gave himself much to the discipline of the pen. his masterly work on oratory in which he commends others to write much, remains unsurpassed to this day. john bright, the eminent british orator, always required time for preparation. he read every morning from the bible, from which he drew rich material for argument and illustration. a remarkable thing about him was that he spoke seldom. phillips brooks was an ideal speaker, combining simplicity and sympathy in large degree. he was a splendid type of pulpit orator produced by broad spiritual culture. henry ward beecher had unique powers as a dramatic and eloquent speaker. in his youth he hesitated in his speech, which led him to study elocution. he himself tells of how he went to the woods daily to practise vocal exercises. he was an exponent of thorough preparation, never speaking upon a subject until he had made it his own by diligent study. like phillips brooks, he was a man of large sympathy and imagination--two faculties indispensable to persuasive eloquence. it was his oratory that first brought fame to gladstone. he had a superb voice, and he possest that fighting force essential to a great public debater. when he quitted the house of commons in his eighty-fifth year his powers of eloquence were practically unimpaired. wendell phillips was distinguished for his personality, conversational style, and thrilling voice. he had a wonderful vocabulary, and a personal magnetism which won men instantly to him. it is said that he relied principally upon the power of truth to make his speaking eloquent. he, too, was an untiring student of the speaker's art. as we examine the lives and records of eminent speakers of other days, we are imprest with the fact that they were sincere and earnest students of the art in which they ultimately excelled. learning to think on your feet one of the best exercises for learning to think and speak on the feet is to practise daily giving one minute impromptu talks upon chosen subjects. a good plan is to write subjects of a general character, on say fifty or more cards, and then to speak on each subject as it is chosen. this simple exercise will rapidly develop facility of thought and expression and give greatly increased self-confidence. it is a good plan to prepare more material than one intends to use--at least twice as much. it gives a comfortable feeling of security when one stands before an audience, to know that if some of the prepared matter evades his memory, he still has ample material at his ready service. there is no more interesting and valuable study than that of speaking in public. it confers distinct advantages by way of improved health, through special exercise in deep breathing and voice culture; by way of stimulated thought and expression; and by an increase of self-confidence and personal power. men and women in constantly increasing numbers are realizing the importance of public speaking, and as questions multiply for debate and solution the need for this training will be still more widely appreciated, so that a practical knowledge of public speaking will in time be considered indispensable to a well-rounded education. speech for study, with lesson talk the style of theodore roosevelt the speeches of mr. roosevelt commend themselves to the student of public speaking for their fearlessness, frankness, and robustness of thought. his aim was deliberate and effective. his style was generally exuberant, and the note of personal assertion prominent. he was direct in diction, often vehement in feeling, and one of his characteristics was a visible satisfaction when he drove home a special thought to his hearers. it is hoped that the extract reprinted here, from mr. roosevelt's famous address, "the strenuous life," will lead the student to study the speech in its entirety. the speech will be found in "essays and addresses," published by the century company. the strenuous life[ ] by theodore roosevelt [footnote : extract from speech before the hamilton club, chicago, april , . from the "strenuous life. essays and addresses" by theodore roosevelt. the century co., .] in speaking to you, men of the greatest city of the west, men of the state which gave to the country lincoln and grant, men who preeminently and distinctly embody all that is most american in the american character, i wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph. a life of slothful ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual. i ask only that what every self-respecting american demands from himself and his sons shall be demanded of the american nation as a whole. who among you would teach the boys that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration in their eyes--to be the ultimate goal after which they strive? you men of chicago have made this city great, you men of illinois have done your share, and more than your share, in making america great, because you neither preach nor practise such a doctrine. you work, yourselves, and you bring up your sons to work. if you are rich and are worth your salt you will teach your sons that tho they may have leisure, it is not to be spent in idleness; for wisely used leisure merely means that those who possess it, being free from the necessity of working for their livelihood, are all the more bound to carry on some kind of non-remunerative work in science, in letters, in art, in exploration, in historical research--work of the type we most need in this country, the successful carrying out of which reflects most honor upon the nation. we do not admire the man of timid peace. we admire the man who embodies victorious effort; the man who never wrongs his neighbor, who is prompt to help a friend, but who has those virile qualities necessary to win in the stern strife of actual life. it is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. in this life we get nothing save by effort. freedom from effort in the present merely means that there has been stored up effort in the past. a man can be freed from the necessity of work only by the fact that he or his fathers before him have worked to good purpose. if the freedom thus purchased is used aright and the man still does actual work tho of a different kind, whether as a writer or a general, whether in the field of politics or in the field of exploration and adventure, he shows he deserves his good fortune. but if he treats this period of freedom from the need of actual labor as a period, not of preparation, but of more enjoyment, he shows that he is simply a cumberer on the earth's surface, and he surely unfits himself to hold his own with his fellows if the need to do so should again arise. a mere life of ease is not in the end a very satisfactory life, and, above all, it is a life which ultimately unfits those who follow it for serious work in the world. in the last analysis a healthy state can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean, vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk. the man must be glad to do a man's work, to dare and endure and to labor; to keep himself, and to keep those dependent upon him. the woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children. in one of daudet's powerful and melancholy books he speaks of "the fear of maternity, the haunting terror of the young wife of the present day." when such words can be truthfully written of a nation, that nation is rotten to the heart's core. when men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth, where they are fit subjects for the scorn of all men and women who are themselves strong and brave and high-minded. as it is with the individual, so it is with the nation. it is a base untruth to say that happy is the nation that has no history. thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even tho checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. if in the men who loved the union had believed that peace was the end of all things, and war and strife the worst of all things, and had acted up to their belief, we would have saved hundreds of lives, we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. moreover, besides saving all the blood and treasure we then lavished, we would have prevented the heartbreak of many women, the dissolution of many homes, and we would have spared the country those months of gloom and shame when it seemed as if our armies marched only to defeat. we could have avoided all this suffering simply by shrinking from strife. and if we had thus avoided it, we would have shown that we were weaklings, and that we were unfit to stand among the great nations of the earth. thank god for the iron in the blood of our fathers, the men who upheld the wisdom of lincoln, and bore sword or rifle in the armies of grant! let us, the children of the men who proved themselves equal to the mighty days, let us the children of the men who carried the great civil war to a triumphant conclusion, praise the god of our fathers that the ignoble counsels of peace were rejected; that the suffering and loss, the blackness of sorrow and despair were unflinchingly faced, and the years of strife endured; for in the end the slave was freed, the union restored, and the mighty american republic placed once more as a helmeted queen among nations.... the army and navy are the sword and shield which this nation must carry if she is to do her duty among the nations of the earth--if she is not to stand merely as the china of the western hemisphere. our proper conduct toward the tropic islands we have wrested from spain is merely the form which our duty has taken at the moment. of course, we are bound to handle the affairs of our own household well. we must see that there is civic good sense in our home administration of city, state and nation. we must strive for honesty in office, for honesty toward the creditors of the nation and of the individual, for the widest freedom of individual initiative where possible, and for the wisest control of individual initiative where it is hostile to the welfare of the many. but because we set our own household in order we are not thereby excused from playing our part in the great affairs of the world. a man's first duty is to his own home, but he is not thereby excused from doing his duty to the state; for if he fails in this second duty, it is under the penalty of ceasing to be a freeman. in the same way, while a nation's first duty is within its own borders it is not thereby absolved from facing its duties in the world as a whole; and if it refuses to do so, it merely forfeits its right to struggle for a place among the peoples that shape the destiny of mankind. i preach to you, then, my countrymen, that our country calls not for the life of ease, but for the life of strenuous endeavor. the twentieth century looms before us big with the fate of many nations. if we stand idly by, if we seek merely swollen, slothful ease and ignoble peace, if we shrink from the hard contests where men must win at hazard of their lives and at the risk of all they hold dear, then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by, and will win for themselves the domination of the world. let us, therefore, boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well and manfully; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve high ideals, yet to use practical methods. above all, let us shrink from no strife, moral or physical, within or without the nation, provided we are certain that the strife is justified, for it is only through strife, through hard and dangerous endeavor, that we shall ultimately win the goal of true national greatness. advertisements * * * * * how to develop self-confidence in speech and manner by grenville kleiser _author of "how to argue and win."_ in all fields of endeavor there are thousands of people who are forced to remain in the background because they lack self-confidence in speech and manner--the very fundamental of success. for just such people grenville kleiser has written his book "how to develop self-confidence in speech and manner." the work deals with methods of correction for self-consciousness, with manners as a power in the making of men, with the value of a cultivated and agreeable voice, with confidence in society and business. a series of suggestions is given for an every-day cultivation of these qualities. "embodies in a most encouraging and practical way all that is needed to make one who is naturally timid or fearful in speech and manner, self-poised, calm, dignified and confident of himself. it must be said that the method proposed is one of sober self-estimate and persistent effort along well considered lines of thought and action, designed to eradicate this uneasiness."--_times dispatch_, richmond, va. _ mo, cloth. $ . , net; by mail, $ . _ funk & wagnalls company, publishers new york and london * * * * * _elsie janis, the wonderful protean actress, says:--"i can not speak in too high praise of the opening remarks. if carefully read, will greatly assist. have several books of choice selections, but i find some in 'humorous hits' never before published."_ humorous hits and how to hold an audience by grenville kleiser _author of "how to argue and win."_ this is a choice, new collection of effective recitations, sketches, stories, poems, monologues; the favorite numbers of world-famed humorists such as james whitcomb riley, eugene field, mark twain, finley peter dunne, w. j. lampton, thomas bailey aldrich, chas. batell loomis, wallace irwin, richard mansfield, bill nye, s. e. kiser, tom masson, and others. it is the best book for home entertainment, and the most useful for teachers, orators, after-dinner speakers, and actors. in this book, mr. kleiser also gives practical suggestions on how to deliver humorous or other selections so that they will make the strongest possible impression on the audience. _cloth mo, pages. price, $ . , net; post-paid, $ . _ funk & wagnalls company, publishers new york and london the fireside chats of franklin delano roosevelt radio addresses to the american people broadcast between and . march , . i want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the united states about banking--with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking but more particularly with the overwhelming majority who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks. i want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. i recognize that the many proclamations from state capitols and from washington, the legislation, the treasury regulations, etc., couched for the most part in banking and legal terms should be explained for the benefit of the average citizen. i owe this in particular because of the fortitude and good temper with which everybody has accepted the inconvenience and hardships of the banking holiday. i know that when you understand what we in washington have been about i shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as i have had your sympathy and help during the past week. first of all let me state the simple fact that when you deposit money in a bank the bank does not put the money into a safe deposit vault. it invests your money in many different forms of credit-- bonds, commercial paper, mortgages and many other kinds of loans. in other words, the bank puts your money to work to keep the wheels of industry and of agriculture turning around. a comparatively small part of the money you put into the bank is kept in currency-- an amount which in normal times is wholly sufficient to cover the cash needs of the average citizen. in other words, the total amount of all the currency in the country is only a small fraction of the total deposits in all of the banks. what, then, happened during the last few days of february and the first few days of march? because of undermined confidence on the part of the public, there was a general rush by a large portion of our population to turn bank deposits into currency or gold--a rush so great that the soundest banks could not get enough currency to meet the demand. the reason for this was that on the spur of the moment it was, of course, impossible to sell perfectly sound assets of a bank and convert them into cash except at panic prices far below their real value. by the afternoon of march d scarcely a bank in the country was open to do business. proclamations temporarily closing them in whole or in part had been issued by the governors in almost all the states. it was then that i issued the proclamation providing for the nation-wide bank holiday, and this was the first step in the government's reconstruction of our financial and economic fabric. the second step was the legislation promptly and patriotically passed by the congress confirming my proclamation and broadening my powers so that it became possible in view of the requirement of time to extend the holiday and lift the ban of that holiday gradually. this law also gave authority to develop a program of rehabilitation of our banking facilities. i want to tell our citizens in every part of the nation that the national congress-- republicans and democrats alike--showed by this action a devotion to public welfare and a realization of the emergency and the necessity for speed that it is difficult to match in our history. the third stage has been the series of regulations permitting the banks to continue their functions to take care of the distribution of food and household necessities and the payment of payrolls. this bank holiday, while resulting in many cases in great inconvenience, is affording us the opportunity to supply the currency necessary to meet the situation. no sound bank is a dollar worse off than it was when it closed its doors last monday. neither is any bank which may turn out not to be in a position for immediate opening. the new law allows the twelve federal reserve banks to issue additional currency on good assets and thus the banks which reopen will be able to meet every legitimate call. the new currency is being sent out by the bureau of engraving and printing in large volume to every part of the country. it is sound currency because it is backed by actual, good assets. a question you will ask is this: why are all the banks not to be reopened at the same time? the answer is simple. your government does not intend that the history of the past few years shall be repeated. we do not want and will not have another epidemic of bank failures. as a result, we start tomorrow, monday, with the opening of banks in the twelve federal reserve bank cities--those banks which on first examination by the treasury have already been found to be all right. this will be followed on tuesday by the resumption of all their functions by banks already found to be sound in cities where there are recognized clearing houses. that means about cities of the united states. on wednesday and succeeding days banks in smaller places all through the country will resume business, subject, of course, to the government's physical ability to complete its survey. it is necessary that the reopening of banks be extended over a period in order to permit the banks to make applications for necessary loans, to obtain currency needed to meet their requirements and to enable the government to make common sense checkups. let me make it clear to you that if your bank does not open the first day you are by no means justified in believing that it will not open. a bank that opens on one of the subsequent days is in exactly the same status as the bank that opens tomorrow. i know that many people are worrying about state banks not members of the federal reserve system. these banks can and will receive assistance from members banks and from the reconstruction finance corporation. these state banks are following the same course as the national banks except that they get their licenses to resume business from the state authorities, and these authorities have been asked by the secretary of the treasury to permit their good banks to open up on the same schedule as the national banks. i am confident that the state banking departments will be as careful as the national government in the policy relating to the opening of banks and will follow the same broad policy. it is possible that when the banks resume a very few people who have not recovered from their fear may again begin withdrawals. let me make it clear that the banks will take care of all needs--and it is my belief that hoarding during the past week has become an exceedingly unfashionable pastime. it needs no prophet to tell you that when the people find that they can get their money--that they can get it when they want it for all legitimate purposes--the phantom of fear will soon be laid. people will again be glad to have their money where it will be safely taken care of and where they can use it conveniently at any time. i can assure you that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress. the success of our whole great national program depends, of course, upon the cooperation of the public--on its intelligent support and use of a reliable system. remember that the essential accomplishment of the new legislation is that it makes it possible for banks more readily to convert their assets into cash than was the case before. more liberal provision has been made for banks to borrow on these assets at the reserve banks and more liberal provision has also been made for issuing currency on the security of those good assets. this currency is not fiat currency. it is issued only on adequate security--and every good bank has an abundance of such security. one more point before i close. there will be, of course, some banks unable to reopen without being reorganized. the new law allows the government to assist in making these reorganizations quickly and effectively and even allows the government to subscribe to at least a part of new capital which may be required. i hope you can see from this elemental recital of what your government is doing that there is nothing complex, or radical, in the process. we had a bad banking situation. some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in their handling of the people's funds. they had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans. this was, of course, not true in the vast majority of our banks, but it was true in enough of them to shock the people for a time into a sense of insecurity and to put them into a frame of mind where they did not differentiate, but seemed to assume that the acts of a comparative few had tainted them all. it was the government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible--and the job is being performed. i do not promise you that every bank will be reopened or that individual losses will not be suffered, but there will be no losses that possibly could be avoided; and there would have been more and greater losses had we continued to drift. i can even promise you salvation for some at least of the sorely pressed banks. we shall be engaged not merely in reopening sound banks but in the creation of sound banks through reorganization. it has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. i can never be sufficiently grateful to the people for the loyal support they have given me in their acceptance of the judgment that has dictated our course, even though all our processes may not have seemed clear to them. after all, there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. you people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. let us unite in banishing fear. we have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work. it is your problem no less than it is mine. together we cannot fail. may , . on a sunday night a week after my inauguration i used the radio to tell you about the banking crisis and the measures we were taking to meet it. i think that in that way i made clear to the country various facts that might otherwise have been misunderstood and in general provided a means of understanding which did much to restore confidence. tonight, eight weeks later, i come for the second time to give you my report; in the same spirit and by the same means to tell you about what we have been doing and what we are planning to do. two months ago we were facing serious problems. the country was dying by inches. it was dying because trade and commerce had declined to dangerously low levels; prices for basic commodities were such as to destroy the value of the assets of national institutions such as banks, savings banks, insurance companies, and others. these institutions, because of their great needs, were foreclosing mortgages, calling loans, refusing credit. thus there was actually in process of destruction the property of millions of people who had borrowed money on that property in terms of dollars which had had an entirely different value from the level of march, . that situation in that crisis did not call for any complicated consideration of economic panaceas or fancy plans. we were faced by a condition and not a theory. there were just two alternatives: the first was to allow the foreclosures to continue, credit to be withheld and money to go into hiding, and thus forcing liquidation and bankruptcy of banks, railroads and insurance companies and a recapitalizing of all business and all property on a lower level. this alternative meant a continuation of what is loosely called "deflation", the net result of which would have been extraordinary hardships on all property owners and, incidentally, extraordinary hardships on all persons working for wages through an increase in unemployment and a further reduction of the wage scale. it is easy to see that the result of this course would have not only economic effects of a very serious nature but social results that might bring incalculable harm. even before i was inaugurated i came to the conclusion that such a policy was too much to ask the american people to bear. it involved not only a further loss of homes, farms, savings and wages but also a loss of spiritual values--the loss of that sense of security for the present and the future so necessary to the peace and contentment of the individual and of his family. when you destroy these things you will find it difficult to establish confidence of any sort in the future. it was clear that mere appeals from washington for confidence and the mere lending of more money to shaky institutions could not stop this downward course. a prompt program applied as quickly as possible seemed to me not only justified but imperative to our national security. the congress, and when i say congress i mean the members of both political parties, fully understood this and gave me generous and intelligent support. the members of congress realized that the methods of normal times had to be replaced in the emergency by measures which were suited to the serious and pressing requirements of the moment. there was no actual surrender of power, congress still retained its constitutional authority, and no one has the slightest desire to change the balance of these powers. the function of congress is to decide what has to be done and to select the appropriate agency to carry out its will. to this policy it has strictly adhered. the only thing that has been happening has been to designate the president as the agency to carry out certain of the purposes of the congress. this was constitutional and in keeping with the past american tradition. the legislation which has been passed or is in the process of enactment can properly be considered as part of a well-grounded plan. first, we are giving opportunity of employment to one-quarter of a million of the unemployed, especially the young men who have dependents, to go into the forestry and flood prevention work. this is a big task because it means feeding, clothing and caring for nearly twice as many men as we have in the regular army itself. in creating this civilian conservation corps we are killing two birds with one stone. we are clearly enhancing the value of our natural resources and we are relieving an appreciable amount of actual distress. this great group of men has entered upon its work on a purely voluntary basis; no military training is involved and we are conserving not only our natural resources, but our human resources. one of the great values to this work is the fact that it is direct and requires the intervention of very little machinery. second, i have requested the congress and have secured action upon a proposal to put the great properties owned by our government at muscle shoals to work after long years of wasteful inaction, and with this a broad plan for the improvement of a vast area in the tennessee valley. it will add to the comfort and happiness of hundreds of thousands of people and the incident benefits will reach the entire nation. next, the congress is about to pass legislation that will greatly ease the mortgage distress among the farmers and the home owners of the nation, by providing for the easing of the burden of debt now bearing so heavily upon millions of our people. our next step in seeking immediate relief is a grant of half a billion dollars to help the states, counties and municipalities in their duty to care for those who need direct and immediate relief. the congress also passed legislation authorizing the sale of beer in such states as desired it. this has already resulted in considerable reemployment and incidentally has provided much needed tax revenue. we are planning to ask the congress for legislation to enable the government to undertake public works, thus stimulating directly and indirectly the employment of many others in well-considered projects. further legislation has been taken up which goes much more fundamentally into our economic problems. the farm relief bill seeks by the use of several methods, alone or together, to bring about an increased return to farmers for their major farm products, seeking at the same time to prevent in the days to come disastrous overproduction which so often in the past has kept farm commodity prices far below a reasonable return. this measure provides wide powers for emergencies. the extent of its use will depend entirely upon what the future has in store. well-considered and conservative measures will likewise be proposed which will attempt to give to the industrial workers of the country a more fair wage return, prevent cut-throat competition and unduly long hours for labor, and at the same time encourage each industry to prevent overproduction. our railroad bill falls into the same class because it seeks to provide and make certain definite planning by the railroads themselves, with the assistance of the government, to eliminate the duplication and waste that is now resulting in railroad receiverships and continuing operating deficits. i am certain that the people of this country understand and approve the broad purposes behind these new governmental policies relating to agriculture and industry and transportation. we found ourselves faced with more agricultural products than we could possibly consume ourselves and surpluses which other nations did not have the cash to buy from us except at prices ruinously low. we found our factories able to turn out more goods than we could possibly consume, and at the same time we were faced with a falling export demand. we found ourselves with more facilities to transport goods and crops than there were goods and crops to be transported. all of this has been caused in large part by a complete lack of planning and a complete failure to understand the danger signals that have been flying ever since the close of the world war. the people of this country have been erroneously encouraged to believe that they could keep on increasing the output of farm and factory indefinitely and that some magician would find ways and means for that increased output to be consumed with reasonable profit to the producer. today we have reason to believe that things are a little better than they were two months ago. industry has picked up, railroads are carrying more freight, farm prices are better, but i am not going to indulge in issuing proclamations of overenthusiastic assurance. we cannot ballyhoo ourselves back to prosperity. i am going to be honest at all times with the people of the country. i do not want the people of this country to take the foolish course of letting this improvement come back on another speculative wave. i do not want the people to believe that because of unjustified optimism we can resume the ruinous practice of increasing our crop output and our factory output in the hope that a kind providence will find buyers at high prices. such a course may bring us immediate and false prosperity but it will be the kind of prosperity that will lead us into another tailspin. it is wholly wrong to call the measure that we have taken government control of farming, control of industry, and control of transportation. it is rather a partnership between government and farming and industry and transportation, not partnership in profits, for the profits still go to the citizens, but rather a partnership in planning and partnership to see that the plans are carried out. let me illustrate with an example. take the cotton goods industry. it is probably true that ninety percent of the cotton manufacturers would agree to eliminate starvation wages, would agree to stop long hours of employment, would agree to stop child labor, would agree to prevent an overproduction that would result in unsalable surpluses. but, what good is such an agreement if the other ten percent of cotton manufacturers pay starvation wages, require long hours, employ children in their mills and turn out burdensome surpluses? the unfair ten percent could produce goods so cheaply that the fair ninety percent would be compelled to meet the unfair conditions. here is where government comes in. government ought to have the right and will have the right, after surveying and planning for an industry to prevent, with the assistance of the overwhelming majority of that industry, unfair practice and to enforce this agreement by the authority of government. the so- called anti-trust laws were intended to prevent the creation of monopolies. that purpose of the anti-trust laws must be continued, but these laws were never intended to encourage the kind of unfair competition that results in long hours, starvation wages and overproduction. the same principle applies to farm products and to transportation and every other field of organized private industry. we are working toward a definite goal, which is to prevent the return of conditions which came very close to destroying what we call modern civilization. the actual accomplishment of our purpose cannot be attained in a day. our policies are wholly within purposes for which our american constitutional government was established years ago. i know that the people of this country will understand this and will also understand the spirit in which we are undertaking this policy. i do not deny that we may make mistakes of procedure as we carry out the policy. i have no expectation of making a hit every time i come to bat. what i seek is the highest possible batting average, not only for myself but for the team. theodore roosevelt once said to me: "if i can be right percent of the time i shall come up to the fullest measure of my hopes." much has been said of late about federal finances and inflation, the gold standard, etc. let me make the facts very simple and my policy very clear. in the first place, government credit and government currency are really one and the same thing. behind government bonds there is only a promise to pay. behind government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver. in this connection it is worth while remembering that in the past the government has agreed to redeem nearly thirty billions of its debts and its currency in gold, and private corporations in this country have agreed to redeem another sixty or seventy billions of securities and mortgages in gold. the government and private corporations were making these agreements when they knew full well that all of the gold in the united states amounted to only between three and four billions and that all of the gold in all of the world amounted to only about eleven billions. if the holders of these promises to pay started in to demand gold the first comers would get gold for a few days and they would amount to about one twenty-fifth of the holders of the securities and the currency. the other twenty-four people out of twenty-five, who did not happen to be at the top of the line, would be told politely that there was no more gold left. we have decided to treat all twenty-five in the same way in the interest of justice and the exercise of the constitutional powers of this government. we have placed everyone on the same basis in order that the general good may be preserved. nevertheless, gold, and to a partial extent silver, are perfectly good bases for currency and that is why i decided not to let any of the gold now in the country go out of it. a series of conditions arose three weeks ago which very readily might have meant, first, a drain on our gold by foreign countries, and second, as a result of that, a flight of american capital, in the form of gold, out of our country. it is not exaggerating the possibility to tell you that such an occurrence might well have taken from us the major part of our gold reserve and resulted in such a further weakening of our government and private credit as to bring on actual panic conditions and the complete stoppage of the wheels of industry. the administration has the definite objective of raising commodity prices to such an extent that those who have borrowed money will, on the average, be able to repay that money in the same kind of dollar which they borrowed. we do not seek to let them get such a cheap dollar that they will be able to pay back a great deal less than they borrowed. in other words, we seek to correct a wrong and not to create another wrong in the opposite direction. that is why powers are being given to the administration to provide, if necessary, for an enlargement of credit, in order to correct the existing wrong. these powers will be used when, as, and if it may be necessary to accomplish the purpose. hand in hand with the domestic situation which, of course, is our first concern, is the world situation, and i want to emphasize to you that the domestic situation is inevitably and deeply tied in with the conditions in all of the other nations of the world. in other words, we can get, in all probability, a fair measure of prosperity to return in the united states, but it will not be permanent unless we get a return to prosperity all over the world. in the conferences which we have held and are holding with the leaders of other nations, we are seeking four great objectives: first, a general reduction of armaments and through this the removal of the fear of invasion and armed attack, and, at the same time, a reduction in armament costs, in order to help in the balancing of government budgets and the reduction of taxation; second, a cutting down of the trade barriers, in order to restart the flow of exchange of crops and goods between nations; third, the setting up of a stabilization of currencies, in order that trade can make contracts ahead; fourth, the reestablishment of friendly relations and greater confidence between all nations. our foreign visitors these past three weeks have responded to these purposes in a very helpful way. all of the nations have suffered alike in this great depression. they have all reached the conclusion that each can best be helped by the common action of all. it is in this spirit that our visitors have met with us and discussed our common problems. the international conference that lies before us must succeed. the future of the world demands it and we have each of us pledged ourselves to the best joint efforts to this end. to you, the people of this country, all of us, the members of the congress and the members of this administration, owe a profound debt of gratitude. throughout the depression you have been patient. you have granted us wide powers; you have encouraged us with a widespread approval of our purposes. every ounce of strength and every resource at our command we have devoted to the end of justifying your confidence. we are encouraged to believe that a wise and sensible beginning has been made. in the present spirit of mutual confidence and mutual encouragement we go forward. july , . after the adjournment of the historical special session of the congress five weeks ago i purposely refrained from addressing you for two very good reasons. first, i think that we all wanted the opportunity of a little quiet thought to examine and assimilate in a mental picture the crowding events of the hundred days which had been devoted to the starting of the wheels of the new deal. secondly, i wanted a few weeks in which to set up the new administrative organization and to see the first fruits of our careful planning. i think it will interest you if i set forth the fundamentals of this planning for national recovery; and this i am very certain will make it abundantly clear to you that all of the proposals and all of the legislation since the fourth day of march have not been just a collection of haphazard schemes but rather the orderly component parts of a connected and logical whole. long before inauguration day i became convinced that individual effort and local effort and even disjointed federal effort had failed and of necessity would fail and, therefore, that a rounded leadership by the federal government had become a necessity both of theory and of fact. such leadership, however, had its beginning in preserving and strengthening the credit of the united states government, because without that no leadership was a possibility. for years the government had not lived within its income. the immediate task was to bring our regular expenses within our revenues. that has been done. it may seem inconsistent for a government to cut down its regular expenses and at the same time to borrow and to spend billions for an emergency. but it is not inconsistent because a large portion of the emergency money has been paid out in the form of sound loans which will be repaid to the treasury over a period of years; and to cover the rest of the emergency money we have imposed taxes to pay the interest and the installments on that part of the debt. so you will see that we have kept our credit good. we have built a granite foundation in a period of confusion. that foundation of the federal credit stands there broad and sure. it is the base of the whole recovery plan. then came the part of the problem that concerned the credit of the individual citizens themselves. you and i know of the banking crisis and of the great danger to the savings of our people. on march sixth every national bank was closed. one month later percent of the deposits in the national banks had been made available to the depositors. today only about percent of the deposits in national banks are still tied up. the condition relating to state banks, while not quite so good on a percentage basis, is showing a steady reduction in the total of frozen deposits--a result much better than we had expected three months ago. the problem of the credit of the individual was made more difficult because of another fact. the dollar was a different dollar from the one with which the average debt had been incurred. for this reason large numbers of people were actually losing possession of and title to their farms and homes. all of you know the financial steps which have been taken to correct this inequality. in addition the home loan act, the farm loan act and the bankruptcy act were passed. it was a vital necessity to restore purchasing power by reducing the debt and interest charges upon our people, but while we were helping people to save their credit it was at the same time absolutely essential to do something about the physical needs of hundreds of thousands who were in dire straits at that very moment. municipal and state aid were being stretched to the limit. we appropriated half a billion dollars to supplement their efforts and in addition, as you know, we have put , young men into practical and useful work in our forests and to prevent flood and soil erosion. the wages they earn are going in greater part to the support of the nearly one million people who constitute their families. in this same classification we can properly place the great public works program running to a total of over three billion dollars--to be used for highways and ships and flood prevention and inland navigation and thousands of self-sustaining state and municipal improvements. two points should be made clear in the allotting and administration of these projects--first, we are using the utmost care to choose labor-creating, quick-acting, useful projects, avoiding the smell of the pork barrel; and secondly, we are hoping that at least half of the money will come back to the government from projects which will pay for themselves over a period of years. thus far i have spoken primarily of the foundation stones--the measures that were necessary to reestablish credit and to head people in the opposite direction by preventing distress and providing as much work as possible through governmental agencies. now i come to the links which will build us a more lasting prosperity. i have said that we cannot attain that in a nation half boom and half broke. if all of our people have work and fair wages and fair profits, they can buy the products of their neighbors and business is good. but if you take away the wages and the profits of half of them, business is only half as good. it doesn't help much if the fortunate half is very prosperous--the best way is for everybody to be reasonably prosperous. for many years the two great barriers to a normal prosperity have been low farm prices and the creeping paralysis of unemployment. these factors have cut the purchasing power of the country in half. i promised action. congress did its part when it passed the farm and the industrial recovery acts. today we are putting these two acts to work and they will work if people understand their plain objectives. first the farm act: it is based on the fact that the purchasing power of nearly half our population depends on adequate prices for farm products. we have been producing more of some crops than we consume or can sell in a depressed world market. the cure is not to produce so much. without our help the farmers cannot get together and cut production, and the farm bill gives them a method of bringing their production down to a reasonable level and of obtaining reasonable prices for their crops. i have clearly stated that this method is in a sense experimental, but so far as we have gone we have reason to believe that it will produce good results. it is obvious that if we can greatly increase the purchasing power of the tens of millions of our people who make a living from farming and the distribution of farm crops, we will greatly increase the consumption of those goods which are turned out by industry. that brings me to the final step--bringing back industry along sound lines. last autumn, on several occasions, i expressed my faith that we can make possible by democratic self-discipline in industry general increases in wages and shortening of hours sufficient to enable industry to pay its own workers enough to let those workers buy and use the things that their labor produces. this can be done only if we permit and encourage cooperative action in industry because it is obvious that without united action a few selfish men in each competitive group will pay starvation wages and insist on long hours of work. others in that group must either follow suit or close up shop. we have seen the result of action of that kind in the continuing descent into the economic hell of the past four years. there is a clear way to reverse that process: if all employers in each competitive group agree to pay their workers the same wages-- reasonable wages--and require the same hours--reasonable hours-- then higher wages and shorter hours will hurt no employer. moreover, such action is better for the employer than unemployment and low wages, because it makes more buyers for his product. that is the simple idea which is the very heart of the industrial recovery act. on the basis of this simple principle of everybody doing things together, we are starting out on this nationwide attack on unemployment. it will succeed if our people understand it--in the big industries, in the little shops, in the great cities and in the small villages. there is nothing complicated about it and there is nothing particularly new in the principle. it goes back to the basic idea of society and of the nation itself that people acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about. here is an example. in the cotton textile code and in other agreements already signed, child labor has been abolished. that makes me personally happier than any other one thing with which i have been connected since i came to washington. in the textile industry--an industry which came to me spontaneously and with a splendid cooperation as soon as the recovery act was signed--child labor was an old evil. but no employer acting alone was able to wipe it out. if one employer tried it, or if one state tried it, the costs of operation rose so high that it was impossible to compete with the employers or states which had failed to act. the moment the recovery act was passed, this monstrous thing which neither opinion nor law could reach through years of effort went out in a flash. as a british editorial put it, we did more under a code in one day than they in england had been able to do under the common law in eighty-five years of effort. i use this incident, my friends, not to boast of what has already been done but to point the way to you for even greater cooperative efforts this summer and autumn. we are not going through another winter like the last. i doubt if ever any people so bravely and cheerfully endured a season half so bitter. we cannot ask america to continue to face such needless hardships. it is time for courageous action, and the recovery bill gives us the means to conquer unemployment with exactly the same weapon that we have used to strike down child labor. the proposition is simply this: if all employers will act together to shorten hours and raise wages we can put people back to work. no employer will suffer, because the relative level of competitive cost will advance by the same amount for all. but if any considerable group should lag or shirk, this great opportunity will pass us by and we will go into another desperate winter. this must not happen. we have sent out to all employers an agreement which is the result of weeks of consultation. this agreement checks against the voluntary codes of nearly all the large industries which have already been submitted. this blanket agreement carries the unanimous approval of the three boards which i have appointed to advise in this, boards representing the great leaders in labor, in industry and in social service. the agreement has already brought a flood of approval from every state, and from so wide a cross- section of the common calling of industry that i know it is fair for all. it is a plan--deliberate, reasonable and just--intended to put into effect at once the most important of the broad principles which are being established, industry by industry, through codes. naturally, it takes a good deal of organizing and a great many hearings and many months, to get these codes perfected and signed, and we cannot wait for all of them to go through. the blanket agreements, however, which i am sending to every employer will start the wheels turning now, and not six months from now. there are, of course, men, a few of them who might thwart this great common purpose by seeking selfish advantage. there are adequate penalties in the law, but i am now asking the cooperation that comes from opinion and from conscience. these are the only instruments we shall use in this great summer offensive against unemployment. but we shall use them to the limit to protect the willing from the laggard and to make the plan succeed. in war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure that comrades do not fire on comrades. on that principle, those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance. that is why we have provided a badge of honor for this purpose, a simple design with a legend. "we do our part," and i ask that all those who join with me shall display that badge prominently. it is essential to our purpose. already all the great, basic industries have come forward willingly with proposed codes, and in these codes they accept the principles leading to mass reemployment. but, important as is this heartening demonstration, the richest field for results is among the small employers, those whose contribution will give new work for from one to ten people. these smaller employers are indeed a vital part of the backbone of the country, and the success of our plans lies largely in their hands. already the telegrams and letters are pouring into the white house--messages from employers who ask that their names be placed on this special roll of honor. they represent great corporations and companies, and partnerships and individuals. i ask that even before the dates set in the agreements which we have sent out, the employers of the country who have not already done so--the big fellows and the little fellows--shall at once write or telegraph to me personally at the white house, expressing their intention of going through with the plan. and it is my purpose to keep posted in the post office of every town, a roll of honor of all those who join with me. i want to take this occasion to say to the twenty-four governors who are now in conference in san francisco, that nothing thus far has helped in strengthening this great movement more than their resolutions adopted at the very outset of their meeting, giving this plan their unanimous and instant approval, and pledging to support it in their states. to the men and women whose lives have been darkened by the fact or the fear of unemployment, i am justified in saying a word of encouragement because the codes and the agreements already approved, or about to be passed upon, prove that the plan does raise wages, and that it does put people back to work. you can look on every employer who adopts the plan as one who is doing his part, and those employers deserve well of everyone who works for a living. it will be clear to you, as it is to me, that while the shirking employer may undersell his competitor, the saving he thus makes is made at the expense of his country's welfare. while we are making this great common effort there should be no discord and dispute. this is no time to cavil or to question the standard set by this universal agreement. it is time for patience and understanding and cooperation. the workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away, but, on the other hand, no aggression is now necessary to attain those rights. the whole country will be united to get them for you. the principle that applies to the employers applies to the workers as well, and i ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit. when andrew jackson, "old hickory," died, someone asked, "will he go to heaven?" and the answer was, "he will if he wants to." if i am asked whether the american people will pull themselves out of this depression, i answer, "they will if they want to." the essence of the plan is a universal limitation of hours of work per week for any individual by common consent, and a universal payment of wages above a minimum, also by common consent. i cannot guarantee the success of this nationwide plan, but the people of this country can guarantee its success. i have no faith in "cure-alls" but i believe that we can greatly influence economic forces. i have no sympathy with the professional economists who insist that things must run their course and that human agencies can have no influence on economic ills. one reason is that i happen to know that professional economists have changed their definition of economic laws every five or ten years for a very long time, but i do have faith, and retain faith, in the strength of common purpose, and in the strength of unified action taken by the american people. that is why i am describing to you the simple purposes and the solid foundations upon which our program of recovery is built. that is why i am asking the employers of the nation to sign this common covenant with me--to sign it in the name of patriotism and humanity. that is why i am asking the workers to go along with us in a spirit of understanding and of helpfulness. october , . it is three months since i have talked with the people of this country about our national problems; but during this period many things have happened, and i am glad to say that the major part of them have greatly helped the well-being of the average citizen. because, in every step which your government is taking we are thinking in terms of the average of you--in the old words, "the greatest good to the greatest number"--we, as reasonable people, cannot expect to bring definite benefits to every person or to every occupation or business, or industry or agriculture. in the same way, no reasonable person can expect that in this short space of time, during which new machinery had to be not only put to work, but first set up, that every locality in every one of the forty- eight states of the country could share equally and simultaneously in the trend to better times. the whole picture, however--the average of the whole territory from coast to coast--the average of the whole population of , , people--shows to any person willing to look, facts and action of which you and i can be proud. in the early spring of this year there were actually and proportionately more people out of work in this country than in any other nation in the world. fair estimates showed twelve or thirteen millions unemployed last march. among those there were, of course, several millions who could be classed as normally unemployed-- people who worked occasionally when they felt like it, and others who preferred not to work at all. it seems, therefore, fair to say that there were about millions of our citizens who earnestly, and in many cases hungrily, were seeking work and could not get it. of these, in the short space of a few months, i am convinced that at least millions have been given employment--or, saying it another way, percent of those seeking work have found it. that does not mean, my friends, that i am satisfied, or that you are satisfied that our work is ended. we have a long way to go but we are on the way. how are we constructing the edifice of recovery--the temple which, when completed, will no longer be a temple of money-changers or of beggars, but rather a temple dedicated to and maintained for a greater social justice, a greater welfare for america--the habitation of a sound economic life? we are building, stone by stone, the columns which will support that habitation. those columns are many in number and though, for a moment the progress of one column may disturb the progress on the pillar next to it, the work on all of them must proceed without let or hindrance. we all know that immediate relief for the unemployed was the first essential of such a structure and that is why i speak first of the fact that three hundred thousand young men have been given employment and are being given employment all through this winter in the civilian conservation corps camps in almost every part of the nation. so, too, we have, as you know, expended greater sums in cooperation with states and localities for work relief and home relief than ever before--sums which during the coming winter cannot be lessened for the very simple reason that though several million people have gone back to work, the necessities of those who have not yet obtained work is more severe than at this time last year. then we come to the relief that is being given to those who are in danger of losing their farms or their homes. new machinery had to be set up for farm credit and for home credit in every one of the thirty-one hundred counties of the united states, and every day that passes is saving homes and farms to hundreds of families. i have publicly asked that foreclosures on farms and chattels and on homes be delayed until every mortgagor in the country shall have had full opportunity to take advantage of federal credit. i make the further request which many of you know has already been made through the great federal credit organizations that if there is any family in the united states about to lose its home or about to lose its chattels, that family should telegraph at once either to the farm credit administration or the home owners loan corporation in washington requesting their help. two other great agencies are in full swing. the reconstruction finance corporation continues to lend large sums to industry and finance with the definite objective of making easy the extending of credit to industry, commerce and finance. the program of public works in three months has advanced to this point: out of a total appropriated for public works of three billion three hundred million, one billion eight hundred million has already been allocated to federal projects of all kinds and literally in every part of the united states and work on these is starting forward. in addition, three hundred millions have been allocated to public works to be carried out by states, municipalities and private organizations, such as those undertaking slum clearance. the balance of the public works money, nearly all of it intended for state or local projects, waits only on the presentation of proper projects by the states and localities themselves. washington has the money and is waiting for the proper projects to which to allot it. another pillar in the making is the agricultural adjustment administration. i have been amazed by the extraordinary degree of cooperation given to the government by the cotton farmers in the south, the wheat farmers of the west, the tobacco farmers of the southeast, and i am confident that the corn-hog farmers of the middle west will come through in the same magnificent fashion. the problem we seek to solve had been steadily getting worse for twenty years, but during the last six months we have made more rapid progress than any nation has ever made in a like period of time. it is true that in july farm commodity prices had been pushed up higher than they are today, but that push came in part from pure speculation by people who could not tell you the difference between wheat and rye, by people who had never seen cotton growing, by people who did not know that hogs were fed on corn--people who have no real interest in the farmer and his problems. in spite, however, of the speculative reaction from the speculative advance, it seems to be well established that during the course of the year the farmers of the united states will receive percent more dollars for what they have produced than they received in the year . put in another way, they will receive $ in , where they received $ the year before. that, remember, is for the average of the country, for i have reports that some sections are not any better off than they were a year ago. this applies among the major products, especially to cattle raising and the dairy industry. we are going after those problems as fast as we can. i do not hesitate to say, in the simplest, clearest language of which i am capable, that although the prices of many products of the farm have gone up and although many farm families are better off than they were last year, i am not satisfied either with the amount or the extent of the rise, and that it is definitely a part of our policy to increase the rise and to extend it to those products which have as yet felt no benefit. if we cannot do this one way we will do it another. do it, we will. standing beside the pillar of the farm--the a.a.a.--is the pillar of industry--the n.r.a. its object is to put industry and business workers into employment and to increase their purchasing power through increased wages. it has abolished child labor. it has eliminated the sweat shop. it has ended sixty cents a week paid in some mills and eighty cents a week paid in some mines. the measure of the growth of this pillar lies in the total figures of reemployment which i have already given you and in the fact that reemployment is continuing and not stopping. the secret of n.r.a. is cooperation. that cooperation has been voluntarily given through the signing of the blanket codes and through the signing of specific codes which already include all of the greater industries of the nation. in the vast majority of cases, in the vast majority of localities-- the n.r.a. has been given support in unstinted measure. we know that there are chiselers. at the bottom of every case of criticism and obstruction we have found some selfish interest, some private ax to grind. ninety percent of complaints come from misconception. for example, it has been said that n.r.a. has failed to raise the price of wheat and corn and hogs; that n.r.a. has not loaned enough money for local public works. of course, n.r.a. has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of farm products, nor with public works. it has to do only with industrial organization for economic planning to wipe out unfair practices and to create reemployment. even in the field of business and industry, n.r.a. does not apply to the rural communities or to towns of under twenty-five hundred population, except in so far as those towns contain factories or chain stores which come under a specific code. it is also true that among the chiselers to whom i have referred, there are not only the big chiselers but also petty chiselers who seek to make undue profit on untrue statements. let me cite to you the example of the salesman in a store in a large eastern city who tried to justify the increase in the price of a cotton shirt from one dollar and a half to two dollars and a half by saying to the customer that it was due to the cotton processing tax. actually in that shirt there was about one pound of cotton and the processing tax amounted to four and a quarter cents on that pound of cotton. at this point it is only fair that i should give credit to the sixty or seventy million people who live in the cities and larger towns of the nation for their understanding and their willingness to go along with the payment of even these small processing taxes, though they know full well that the proportion of the processing taxes on cotton goods and on food products paid for by city dwellers goes percent towards increasing the agricultural income of the farm dwellers of the land. the last pillar of which i speak is that of the money of the country in the banks of the country. there are two simple facts. first, the federal government is about to spend one billion dollars as an immediate loan on the frozen or non-liquid assets of all banks closed since january , , giving a liberal appraisal to those assets. this money will be in the hands of the depositors as quickly as it is humanly possible to get it out. second, the government bank deposit insurance on all accounts up to $ goes into effect on january first. we are now engaged in seeing to it that on or before that date the banking capital structure will be built up by the government to the point that the banks will be in sound condition when the insurance goes into effect. finally, i repeat what i have said on many occasions, that ever since last march the definite policy of the government has been to restore commodity price levels. the object has been the attainment of such a level as will enable agriculture and industry once more to give work to the unemployed. it has been to make possible the payment of public and private debts more nearly at the price level at which they were incurred. it has been gradually to restore a balance in the price structure so that farmers may exchange their products for the products of industry on a fairer exchange basis. it has been and is also the purpose to prevent prices from rising beyond the point necessary to attain these ends. the permanent welfare and security of every class of our people ultimately depends on our attainment of these purposes. obviously, and because hundreds of different kinds of crops and industrial occupations in the huge territory that makes up this nation are involved, we cannot reach the goal in only a few months. we may take one year or two years or three years. no one who considers the plain facts of our situation believes that commodity prices, especially agricultural prices, are high enough yet. some people are putting the cart before the horse. they want a permanent revaluation of the dollar first. it is the government's policy to restore the price level first. i would not know, and no one else could tell, just what the permanent valuation of the dollar will be. to guess at a permanent gold valuation now would certainly require later changes caused by later facts. when we have restored the price level, we shall seek to establish and maintain a dollar which will not change its purchasing and debt paying power during the succeeding generation. i said that in my message to the american delegation in london last july. and i say it now once more. because of conditions in this country and because of events beyond our control in other parts of the world, it becomes increasingly important to develop and apply the further measures which may be necessary from time to time to control the gold value of our own dollar at home. our dollar is now altogether too greatly influenced by the accidents of international trade, by the internal policies of other nations and by political disturbance in other continents. therefore the united states must take firmly in its own hands the control of the gold value of our dollar. this is necessary in order to prevent dollar disturbances from swinging us away from our ultimate goal, namely, the continued recovery of our commodity prices. as a further effective means to this end, i am going to establish a government market for gold in the united states. therefore, under the clearly defined authority of existing law, i am authorizing the reconstruction finance corporation to buy gold newly mined in the united states at prices to be determined from time to time after consultation with the secretary of the treasury and the president. whenever necessary to the end in view, we shall also buy or sell gold in the world market. my aim in taking this step is to establish and maintain continuous control. this is a policy and not an expedient. it is not to be used merely to offset a temporary fall in prices. we are thus continuing to move towards a managed currency. you will recall the dire predictions made last spring by those who did not agree with our common policies of raising prices by direct means. what actually happened stood out in sharp contrast with those predictions. government credit is high, prices have risen in part. doubtless prophets of evil still exist in our midst. but government credit will be maintained and a sound currency will accompany a rise in the american commodity price level. i have told you tonight the story of our steady but sure work in building our common recovery. in my promises to you both before and after march th, i made two things plain: first, that i pledged no miracles and, second, that i would do my best. i thank you for your patience and your faith. our troubles will not be over tomorrow, but we are on our way and we are headed in the right direction. june , . it has been several months since i have talked with you concerning the problems of government. since january, those of us in whom you have vested responsibility have been engaged in the fulfillment of plans and policies which had been widely discussed in previous months. it seemed to us our duty not only to make the right path clear but also to tread that path. as we review the achievements of this session of the seventy-third congress, it is made increasingly clear that its task was essentially that of completing and fortifying the work it had begun in march, l . that was no easy task, but the congress was equal to it. it has been well said that while there were a few exceptions, this congress displayed a greater freedom from mere partisanship than any other peace-time congress since the administration of president washington himself. the session was distinguished by the extent and variety of legislation enacted and by the intelligence and good will of debate upon these measures. i mention only a few of the major enactments. it provided for the readjustment of the debt burden through the corporate and municipal bankruptcy acts and the farm relief act. it lent a hand to industry by encouraging loans to solvent industries unable to secure adequate help from banking institutions. it strengthened the integrity of finance through the regulation of securities exchanges. it provided a rational method of increasing our volume of foreign trade through reciprocal trading agreements. it strengthened our naval forces to conform with the intentions and permission of existing treaty rights. it made further advances towards peace in industry through the labor adjustment act. it supplemented our agricultural policy through measures widely demanded by farmers themselves and intended to avert price destroying surpluses. it strengthened the hand of the federal government in its attempts to suppress gangster crime. it took definite steps towards a national housing program through an act which i signed today designed to encourage private capital in the rebuilding of the homes of the nation. it created a permanent federal body for the just regulation of all forms of communication, including the telephone, the telegraph and the radio. finally, and i believe most important, it reorganized, simplified and made more fair and just our monetary system, setting up standards and policies adequate to meet the necessities of modern economic life, doing justice to both gold and silver as the metal bases behind the currency of the united states. in the consistent development of our previous efforts toward the saving and safeguarding of our national life, i have continued to recognize three related steps. the first was relief, because the primary concern of any government dominated by the humane ideals of democracy is the simple principle that in a land of vast resources no one should be permitted to starve. relief was and continues to be our first consideration. it calls for large expenditures and will continue in modified form to do so for a long time to come. we may as well recognize that fact. it comes from the paralysis that arose as the after-effect of that unfortunate decade characterized by a mad chase for unearned riches and an unwillingness of leaders in almost every walk of life to look beyond their own schemes and speculations. in our administration of relief we follow two principles: first, that direct giving shall, wherever possible, be supplemented by provision for useful and remunerative work and, second, that where families in their existing surroundings will in all human probability never find an opportunity for full self- maintenance, happiness and enjoyment, we will try to give them a new chance in new surroundings. the second step was recovery, and it is sufficient for me to ask each and every one of you to compare the situation in agriculture and in industry today with what it was fifteen months ago. at the same time we have recognized the necessity of reform and reconstruction--reform because much of our trouble today and in the past few years has been due to a lack of understanding of the elementary principles of justice and fairness by those in whom leadership in business and finance was placed--reconstruction because new conditions in our economic life as well as old but neglected conditions had to be corrected. substantial gains well known to all of you have justified our course. i could cite statistics to you as unanswerable measures of our national progress--statistics to show the gain in the average weekly pay envelope of workers in the great majority of industries--statistics to show hundreds of thousands reemployed in private industries and other hundreds of thousands given new employment through the expansion of direct and indirect government assistance of many kinds, although, of course, there are those exceptions in professional pursuits whose economic improvement, of necessity, will be delayed. i also could cite statistics to show the great rise in the value of farm products--statistics to prove the demand for consumers' goods, ranging all the way from food and clothing to automobiles, and of late to prove the rise in the demand for durable goods--statistics to cover the great increase in bank deposits and to show the scores of thousands of homes and of farms which have been saved from foreclosure. but the simplest way for each of you to judge recovery lies in the plain facts of your own individual situation. are you better off than you were last year? are your debts less burdensome? is your bank account more secure? are your working conditions better? is your faith in your own individual future more firmly grounded? also, let me put to you another simple question: have you as an individual paid too high a price for these gains? plausible self- seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. answer this question also out of the facts of your own life. have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice? turn to the bill of rights of the constitution, which i have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. read each provision of that bill of rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered the impairment of a single jot of these great assurances. i have no question in my mind as to what your answer will be. the record is written in the experiences of your own personal lives. in other words, it is not the overwhelming majority of the farmers or manufacturers or workers who deny the substantial gains of the past year. the most vociferous of the doubting thomases may be divided roughly into two groups: first, those who seek special political privilege and, second, those who seek special financial privilege. about a year ago i used as an illustration the percent of the cotton manufacturers of the united states who wanted to do the right thing by their employees and by the public but were prevented from doing so by the percent who undercut them by unfair practices and un-american standards. it is well for us to remember that humanity is a long way from being perfect and that a selfish minority in every walk of life--farming, business, finance and even government service itself--will always continue to think of themselves first and their fellow-beings second. in the working out of a great national program which seeks the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on and are going to be stepped on. but these toes belong to the comparative few who seek to retain or to gain position or riches or both by some short cut which is harmful to the greater good. in the execution of the powers conferred on it by congress, the administration needs and will tirelessly seek the best ability that the country affords. public service offers better rewards in the opportunity for service than ever before in our history--not great salaries, but enough to live on. in the building of this service there are coming to us men and women with ability and courage from every part of the union. the days of the seeking of mere party advantage through the misuse of public power are drawing to a close. we are increasingly demanding and getting devotion to the public service on the part of every member of the administration, high and low. the program of the past year is definitely in operation and that operation month by month is being made to fit into the web of old and new conditions. this process of evolution is well illustrated by the constant changes in detailed organization and method going on in the national recovery administration. with every passing month we are making strides in the orderly handling of the relationship between employees and employers. conditions differ, of course, in almost every part of the country and in almost every industry. temporary methods of adjustment are being replaced by more permanent machinery and, i am glad to say, by a growing recognition on the part of employers and employees of the desirability of maintaining fair relationships all around. so also, while almost everybody has recognized the tremendous strides in the elimination of child labor, in the payment of not less than fair minimum wages and in the shortening of hours, we are still feeling our way in solving problems which relate to self- government in industry, especially where such self-government tends to eliminate the fair operation of competition. in this same process of evolution we are keeping before us the objectives of protecting on the one hand industry against chiselers within its own ranks, and on the other hand the consumer through the maintenance of reasonable competition for the prevention of the unfair sky-rocketing of retail prices. but, in addition to this our immediate task, we must still look to the larger future. i have pointed out to the congress that we are seeking to find the way once more to well-known, long-established but to some degree forgotten ideals and values. we seek the security of the men, women and children of the nation. that security involves added means of providing better homes for the people of the nation. that is the first principle of our future program. the second is to plan the use of land and water resources of this country to the end that the means of livelihood of our citizens may be more adequate to meet their daily needs. and, finally, the third principle is to use the agencies of government to assist in the establishment of means to provide sound and adequate protection against the vicissitudes of modern life--in other words, social insurance. later in the year i hope to talk with you more fully about these plans. a few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. sometimes they will call it "fascism", sometimes "communism", sometimes "regimentation", sometimes "socialism". but, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical. i believe in practical explanations and in practical policies. i believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what americans have always been doing--a fulfillment of old and tested american ideals. let me give you a simple illustration: while i am away from washington this summer, a long needed renovation of and addition to our white house office building is to be started. the architects have planned a few new rooms built into the present all too small one-story structure. we are going to include in this addition and in this renovation modern electric wiring and modern plumbing and modern means of keeping the offices cool in the hot washington summers. but the structural lines of the old executive office building will remain. the artistic lines of the white house buildings were the creation of master builders when our republic was young. the simplicity and the strength of the structure remain in the face of every modern test. but within this magnificent pattern, the necessities of modern government business require constant reorganization and rebuilding. if i were to listen to the arguments of some prophets of calamity who are talking these days, i should hesitate to make these alterations. i should fear that while i am away for a few weeks the architects might build some strange new gothic tower or a factory building or perhaps a replica of the kremlin or of the potsdam palace. but i have no such fears. the architects and builders are men of common sense and of artistic american tastes. they know that the principles of harmony and of necessity itself require that the building of the new structure shall blend with the essential lines of the old. it is this combination of the old and the new that marks orderly peaceful progress--not only in building buildings but in building government itself. our new structure is a part of and a fulfillment of the old. all that we do seeks to fulfill the historic traditions of the american people. other nations may sacrifice democracy for the transitory stimulation of old and discredited autocracies. we are restoring confidence and well-being under the rule of the people themselves. we remain, as john marshall said a century ago, "emphatically and truly, a government of the people." our government "in form and in substance. . . emanates from them. its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefits." before i close, i want to tell you of the interest and pleasure with which i look forward to the trip on which i hope to start in a few days. it is a good thing for everyone who can possibly do so to get away at least once a year for a change of scene. i do not want to get into the position of not being able to see the forest because of the thickness of the trees. i hope to visit our fellow americans in puerto rico, in the virgin islands, in the canal zone and in hawaii. and, incidentally, it will give me an opportunity to exchange a friendly word of greeting to the presidents of our sister republics: haiti, colombia and panama. after four weeks on board ship, i plan to land at a port in our pacific northwest, and then will come the best part of the whole trip, for i am hoping to inspect a number of our new great national projects on the columbia, missouri and mississippi rivers, to see some of our national parks and, incidentally, to learn much of actual conditions during the trip across the continent back to washington. while i was in france during the war our boys used to call the united states "god's country". let us make it and keep it "god's country". september , . three months have passed since i talked with you shortly after the adjournment of the congress. tonight i continue that report, though, because of the shortness of time, i must defer a number of subjects to a later date. recently the most notable public questions that have concerned us all have had to do with industry and labor and with respect to these, certain developments have taken place which i consider of importance. i am happy to report that after years of uncertainty, culminating in the collapse of the spring of , we are bringing order out of the old chaos with a greater certainty of the employment of labor at a reasonable wage and of more business at a fair profit. these governmental and industrial developments hold promise of new achievements for the nation. men may differ as to the particular form of governmental activity with respect to industry and business, but nearly all are agreed that private enterprise in times such as these cannot be left without assistance and without reasonable safeguards lest it destroy not only itself but also our processes of civilization. the underlying necessity for such activity is indeed as strong now as it was years ago when elihu root said the following very significant words: "instead of the give and take of free individual contract, the tremendous power of organization has combined great aggregations of capital in enormous industrial establishments working through vast agencies of commerce and employing great masses of men in movements of production and transportation and trade, so great in the mass that each individual concerned in them is quite helpless by himself. the relations between the employer and the employed, between the owners of aggregated capital and the units of organized labor, between the small producer, the small trader, the consumer, and the great transporting and manufacturing and distributing agencies, all present new questions for the solution of which the old reliance upon the free action of individual wills appears quite inadequate. and in many directions, the intervention of that organized control which we call government seems necessary to produce the same result of justice and right conduct which obtained through the attrition of individuals before the new conditions arose." it was in this spirit thus described by secretary root that we approached our task of reviving private enterprise in march, . our first problem was, of course, the banking situation because, as you know, the banks had collapsed. some banks could not be saved but the great majority of them, either through their own resources or with government aid, have been restored to complete public confidence. this has given safety to millions of depositors in these banks. closely following this great constructive effort we have, through various federal agencies, saved debtors and creditors alike in many other fields of enterprise, such as loans on farm mortgages and home mortgages; loans to the railroads and insurance companies and, finally, help for home owners and industry itself. in all of these efforts the government has come to the assistance of business and with the full expectation that the money used to assist these enterprises will eventually be repaid. i believe it will be. the second step we have taken in the restoration of normal business enterprise has been to clean up thoroughly unwholesome conditions in the field of investment. in this we have had assistance from many bankers and businessmen, most of whom recognize the past evils in the banking system, in the sale of securities, in the deliberate encouragement of stock gambling, in the sale of unsound mortgages and in many other ways in which the public lost billions of dollars. they saw that without changes in the policies and methods of investment there could be no recovery of public confidence in the security of savings. the country now enjoys the safety of bank savings under the new banking laws, the careful checking of new securities under the securities act and the curtailment of rank stock speculation through the securities exchange act. i sincerely hope that as a result people will be discouraged in unhappy efforts to get rich quick by speculating in securities. the average person almost always loses. only a very small minority of the people of this country believe in gambling as a substitute for the old philosophy of benjamin franklin that the way to wealth is through work. in meeting the problems of industrial recovery the chief agency of the government has been the national recovery administration. under its guidance, trades and industries covering over percent of all industrial employees have adopted codes of fair competition, which have been approved by the president. under these codes, in the industries covered, child labor has been eliminated. the work day and the work week have been shortened. minimum wages have been established and other wages adjusted toward a rising standard of living. the emergency purpose of the n.r.a. was to put men to work and since its creation more than four million persons have been reemployed, in great part through the cooperation of american business brought about under the codes. benefits of the industrial recovery program have come, not only to labor in the form of new jobs, in relief from overwork and in relief from underpay, but also to the owners and managers of industry because, together with a great increase in the payrolls, there has come a substantial rise in the total of industrial profits--a rise from a deficit figure in the first quarter of to a level of sustained profits within one year from the inauguration of n.r.a. now it should not be expected that even employed labor and capital would be completely satisfied with present conditions. employed workers have not by any means all enjoyed a return to the earnings of prosperous times, although millions of hitherto underprivileged workers are today far better paid than ever before. also, billions of dollars of invested capital have today a greater security of present and future earning power than before. this is because of the establishment of fair, competitive standards and because of relief from unfair competition in wage cutting which depresses markets and destroys purchasing power. but it is an undeniable fact that the restoration of other billions of sound investments to a reasonable earning power could not be brought about in one year. there is no magic formula, no economic panacea, which could simply revive over-night the heavy industries and the trades dependent upon them. nevertheless the gains of trade and industry, as a whole, have been substantial. in these gains and in the policies of the administration there are assurances that hearten all forward- looking men and women with the confidence that we are definitely rebuilding our political and economic system on the lines laid down by the new deal--lines which as i have so often made clear, are in complete accord with the underlying principles of orderly popular government which americans have demanded since the white man first came to these shores. we count, in the future as in the past, on the driving power of individual initiative and the incentive of fair private profit, strengthened with the acceptance of those obligations to the public interest which rest upon us all. we have the right to expect that this driving power will be given patriotically and whole-heartedly to our nation. we have passed through the formative period of code making in the national recovery administration and have effected a reorganization of the n.r.a. suited to the needs of the next phase, which is, in turn, a period of preparation for legislation which will determine its permanent form. in this recent reorganization we have recognized three distinct functions: first, the legislative or policy making function; second, the administrative function of code making and revision; and, third, the judicial function, which includes enforcement, consumer complaints and the settlement of disputes between employers and employees and between one employer and another. we are now prepared to move into this second phase, on the basis of our experience in the first phase under the able and energetic leadership of general johnson. we shall watch carefully the working of this new machinery for the second phase of n.r.a., modifying it where it needs modification and finally making recommendations to the congress, in order that the functions of n.r.a. which have proved their worth may be made a part of the permanent machinery of government. let me call your attention to the fact that the national industrial recovery act gave businessmen the opportunity they had sought for years to improve business conditions through what has been called self-government in industry. if the codes which have been written have been too complicated, if they have gone too far in such matters as price fixing and limitation of production, let it be remembered that so far as possible, consistent with the immediate public interest of this past year and the vital necessity of improving labor conditions, the representatives of trade and industry were permitted to write their ideas into the codes. it is now time to review these actions as a whole to determine through deliberative means in the light of experience, from the standpoint of the good of the industries themselves, as well as the general public interest, whether the methods and policies adopted in the emergency have been best calculated to promote industrial recovery and a permanent improvement of business and labor conditions. there may be a serious question as to the wisdom of many of those devices to control production, or to prevent destructive price cutting which many business organizations have insisted were necessary, or whether their effect may have been to prevent that volume of production which would make possible lower prices and increased employment. another question arises as to whether in fixing minimum wages on the basis of an hourly or weekly wage we have reached into the heart of the problem which is to provide such annual earnings for the lowest paid worker as will meet his minimum needs. we also question the wisdom of extending code requirements suited to the great industrial centers and to large employers, to the great number of small employers in the smaller communities. during the last twelve months our industrial recovery has been to some extent retarded by strikes, including a few of major importance. i would not minimize the inevitable losses to employers and employees and to the general public through such conflicts. but i would point out that the extent and severity of labor disputes during this period has been far less than in any previous, comparable period. when the businessmen of the country were demanding the right to organize themselves adequately to promote their legitimate interests; when the farmers were demanding legislation which would give them opportunities and incentives to organize themselves for a common advance, it was natural that the workers should seek and obtain a statutory declaration of their constitutional right to organize themselves for collective bargaining as embodied in section (a) of the national industrial recovery act. machinery set up by the federal government has provided some new methods of adjustment. both employers and employees must share the blame of not using them as fully as they should. the employer who turns away from impartial agencies of peace, who denies freedom of organization to his employees, or fails to make every reasonable effort at a peaceful solution of their differences, is not fully supporting the recovery effort of his government. the workers who turn away from these same impartial agencies and decline to use their good offices to gain their ends are likewise not fully cooperating with their government. it is time that we made a clean-cut effort to bring about that united action of management and labor, which is one of the high purposes of the recovery act. we have passed through more than a year of education. step by step we have created all the government agencies necessary to insure, as a general rule, industrial peace, with justice for all those willing to use these agencies whenever their voluntary bargaining fails to produce a necessary agreement. there should be at least a full and fair trial given to these means of ending industrial warfare; and in such an effort we should be able to secure for employers and employees and consumers the benefits that all derive from the continuous, peaceful operation of our essential enterprises. accordingly, i propose to confer within the coming month with small groups of those truly representative of large employers of labor and of large groups of organized labor, in order to seek their cooperation in establishing what i may describe as a specific trial period of industrial peace. from those willing to join in establishing this hoped-for period of peace, i shall seek assurances of the making and maintenance of agreements, which can be mutually relied upon, under which wages, hours and working conditions may be determined and any later adjustments shall be made either by agreement or, in case of disagreement, through the mediation or arbitration of state or federal agencies. i shall not ask either employers or employees permanently to lay aside the weapons common to industrial war. but i shall ask both groups to give a fair trial to peaceful methods of adjusting their conflicts of opinion and interest, and to experiment for a reasonable time with measures suitable to civilize our industrial civilization. closely allied to the n.r.a. is the program of public works provided for in the same act and designed to put more men back to work, both directly on the public works themselves, and indirectly in the industries supplying the materials for these public works. to those who say that our expenditures for public works and other means for recovery are a waste that we cannot afford, i answer that no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order. some people try to tell me that we must make up our minds that for the future we shall permanently have millions of unemployed just as other countries have had them for over a decade. what may be necessary for those countries is not my responsibility to determine. but as for this country, i stand or fall by my refusal to accept as a necessary condition of our future a permanent army of unemployed. on the contrary, we must make it a national principle that we will not tolerate a large army of unemployed and that we will arrange our national economy to end our present unemployment as soon as we can and then to take wise measures against its return. i do not want to think that it is the destiny of any american to remain permanently on relief rolls. those, fortunately few in number, who are frightened by boldness and cowed by the necessity for making decisions, complain that all we have done is unnecessary and subject to great risks. now that these people are coming out of their storm cellars, they forget that there ever was a storm. they point to england. they would have you believe that england has made progress out of her depression by a do-nothing policy, by letting nature take her course. england has her peculiarities and we have ours but i do not believe any intelligent observer can accuse england of undue orthodoxy in the present emergency. did england let nature take her course? no. did england hold to the gold standard when her reserves were threatened? no. has england gone back to the gold standard today? no. did england hesitate to call in ten billion dollars of her war bonds bearing percent interest, to issue new bonds therefore bearing only - / percent interest, thereby saving the british treasury one hundred and fifty million dollars a year in interest alone? no. and let it be recorded that the british bankers helped. is it not a fact that ever since the year , great britain in many ways has advanced further along lines of social security than the united states? is it not a fact that relations between capital and labor on the basis of collective bargaining are much further advanced in great britain than in the united states? it is perhaps not strange that the conservative british press has told us with pardonable irony that much of our new deal program is only an attempt to catch up with english reforms that go back ten years or more. nearly all americans are sensible and calm people. we do not get greatly excited nor is our peace of mind disturbed, whether we be businessmen or workers or farmers, by awesome pronouncements concerning the unconstitutionality of some of our measures of recovery and relief and reform. we are not frightened by reactionary lawyers or political editors. all of these cries have been heard before. more than twenty years ago, when theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson were attempting to correct abuses in our national life, the great chief justice white said: "there is great danger it seems to me to arise from the constant habit which prevails where anything is opposed or objected to, of referring without rhyme or reason to the constitution as a means of preventing its accomplishment, thus creating the general impression that the constitution is but a barrier to progress instead of being the broad highway through which alone true progress may be enjoyed." in our efforts for recovery we have avoided on the one hand the theory that business should and must be taken over into an all- embracing government. we have avoided on the other hand the equally untenable theory that it is an interference with liberty to offer reasonable help when private enterprise is in need of help. the course we have followed fits the american practice of government--a practice of taking action step by step, of regulating only to meet concrete needs--a practice of courageous recognition of change. i believe with abraham lincoln, that "the legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities." i am not for a return to that definition of liberty under which for many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few. i prefer and i am sure you prefer that broader definition of liberty under which we are moving forward to greater freedom, to greater security for the average man than he has ever known before in the history of america. april , . since my annual message to the congress on january fourth, last, i have not addressed the general public over the air. in the many weeks since that time the congress has devoted itself to the arduous task of formulating legislation necessary to the country's welfare. it has made and is making distinct progress. before i come to any of the specific measures, however, i want to leave in your minds one clear fact. the administration and the congress are not proceeding in any haphazard fashion in this task of government. each of our steps has a definite relationship to every other step. the job of creating a program for the nation's welfare is, in some respects, like the building of a ship. at different points on the coast where i often visit they build great seagoing ships. when one of these ships is under construction and the steel frames have been set in the keel, it is difficult for a person who does not know ships to tell how it will finally look when it is sailing the high seas. it may seem confused to some, but out of the multitude of detailed parts that go into the making of the structure the creation of a useful instrument for man ultimately comes. it is that way with the making of a national policy. the objective of the nation has greatly changed in three years. before that time individual self- interest and group selfishness were paramount in public thinking. the general good was at a discount. three years of hard thinking have changed the picture. more and more people, because of clearer thinking and a better understanding, are considering the whole rather than a mere part relating to one section or to one crop, or to one industry, or to an individual private occupation. that is a tremendous gain for the principles of democracy. the overwhelming majority of people in this country know how to sift the wheat from the chaff in what they hear and what they read. they know that the process of the constructive rebuilding of america cannot be done in a day or a year, but that it is being done in spite of the few who seek to confuse them and to profit by their confusion. americans as a whole are feeling a lot better--a lot more cheerful than for many, many years. the most difficult place in the world to get a clear open perspective of the country as a whole is washington. i am reminded sometimes of what president wilson once said: "so many people come to washington who know things that are not so, and so few people who know anything about what the people of the united states are thinking about." that is why i occasionally leave this scene of action for a few days to go fishing or back home to hyde park, so that i can have a chance to think quietly about the country as a whole. "to get away from the trees", as they say, "and to look at the whole forest." this duty of seeing the country in a long-range perspective is one which, in a very special manner, attaches to this office to which you have chosen me. did you ever stop to think that there are, after all, only two positions in the nation that are filled by the vote of all of the voters--the president and the vice-president? that makes it particularly necessary for the vice- president and for me to conceive of our duty toward the entire country. i speak, therefore, tonight, to and of the american people as a whole. my most immediate concern is in carrying out the purposes of the great work program just enacted by the congress. its first objective is to put men and women now on the relief rolls to work and, incidentally, to assist materially in our already unmistakable march toward recovery. i shall not confuse my discussion by a multitude of figures. so many figures are quoted to prove so many things. sometimes it depends upon what paper you read and what broadcast you hear. therefore, let us keep our minds on two or three simple, essential facts in connection with this problem of unemployment. it is true that while business and industry are definitely better our relief rolls are still too large. however, for the first time in five years the relief rolls have declined instead of increased during the winter months. they are still declining. the simple fact is that many million more people have private work today than two years ago today or one year ago today, and every day that passes offers more chances to work for those who want to work. in spite of the fact that unemployment remains a serious problem here as in every other nation, we have come to recognize the possibility and the necessity of certain helpful remedial measures. these measures are of two kinds. the first is to make provisions intended to relieve, to minimize, and to prevent future unemployment; the second is to establish the practical means to help those who are unemployed in this present emergency. our social security legislation is an attempt to answer the first of these questions; our works relief program, the second. the program for social security now pending before the congress is a necessary part of the future unemployment policy of the government. while our present and projected expenditures for work relief are wholly within the reasonable limits of our national credit resources, it is obvious that we cannot continue to create governmental deficits for that purpose year after year. we must begin now to make provision for the future. that is why our social security program is an important part of the complete picture. it proposes, by means of old age pensions, to help those who have reached the age of retirement to give up their jobs and thus give to the younger generation greater opportunities for work and to give to all a feeling of security as they look toward old age. the unemployment insurance part of the legislation will not only help to guard the individual in future periods of lay-off against dependence upon relief, but it will, by sustaining purchasing power, cushion the shock of economic distress. another helpful feature of unemployment insurance is the incentive it will give to employers to plan more carefully in order that unemployment may be prevented by the stabilizing of employment itself. provisions for social security, however, are protections for the future. our responsibility for the immediate necessities of the unemployed has been met by the congress through the most comprehensive work plan in the history of the nation. our problem is to put to work three and one-half million employable persons now on the relief rolls. it is a problem quite as much for private industry as for the government. we are losing no time getting the government's vast work relief program underway, and we have every reason to believe that it should be in full swing by autumn. in directing it, i shall recognize six fundamental principles: ( ) the projects should be useful. ( ) projects shall be of a nature that a considerable proportion of the money spent will go into wages for labor. ( ) projects will be sought which promise ultimate return to the federal treasury of a considerable proportion of the costs. ( ) funds allotted for each project should be actually and promptly spent and not held over until later years. ( ) in all cases projects must be of a character to give employment to those on the relief rolls. ( ) projects will be allocated to localities or relief areas in relation to the number of workers on relief rolls in those areas. i next want to make it clear exactly how we shall direct the work. ( ) i have set up a division of applications and information to which all proposals for the expenditure of money must go for preliminary study and consideration. ( ) after the division of applications and information has sifted those projects, they will be sent to an allotment division composed of representatives of the more important governmental agencies charged with carrying on work relief projects. the group will also include representatives of cities, and of labor, farming, banking and industry. this allotment division will consider all of the recommendations submitted to it and such projects as they approve will be next submitted to the president who under the act is required to make final allocations. ( ) the next step will be to notify the proper government agency in whose field the project falls, and also to notify another agency which i am creating--a progress division. this division will have the duty of coordinating the purchases of materials and supplies and of making certain that people who are employed will be taken from the relief rolls. it will also have the responsibility of determining work payments in various localities, of making full use of existing employment services and to assist people engaged in relief work to move as rapidly as possible back into private employment when such employment is available. moreover, this division will be charged with keeping projects moving on schedule. ( ) i have felt it to be essentially wise and prudent to avoid, so far as possible, the creation of new governmental machinery for supervising this work. the national government now has at least sixty different agencies with the staff and the experience and the competence necessary to carry on the two hundred and fifty or three hundred kinds of work that will be undertaken. these agencies, therefore, will simply be doing on a somewhat enlarged scale the same sort of things that they have been doing. this will make certain that the largest possible portion of the funds allotted will be spent for actually creating new work and not for building up expensive overhead organizations here in washington. for many months preparations have been under way. the allotment of funds for desirable projects has already begun. the key men for the major responsibilities of this great task already have been selected. i well realize that the country is expecting before this year is out to see the "dirt fly", as they say, in carrying on the work, and i assure my fellow citizens that no energy will be spared in using these funds effectively to make a major attack upon the problem of unemployment. our responsibility is to all of the people in this country. this is a great national crusade to destroy enforced idleness which is an enemy of the human spirit generated by this depression. our attack upon these enemies must be without stint and without discrimination. no sectional, no political distinctions can be permitted. it must, however, be recognized that when an enterprise of this character is extended over more than three thousand counties throughout the nation, there may be occasional instances of inefficiency, bad management, or misuse of funds. when cases of this kind occur, there will be those, of course, who will try to tell you that the exceptional failure is characteristic of the entire endeavor. it should be remembered that in every big job there are some imperfections. there are chiselers in every walk of life; there are those in every industry who are guilty of unfair practices; every profession has its black sheep, but long experience in government has taught me that the exceptional instances of wrong-doing in government are probably less numerous than in almost every other line of endeavor. the most effective means of preventing such evils in this works relief program will be the eternal vigilance of the american people themselves. i call upon my fellow citizens everywhere to cooperate with me in making this the most efficient and the cleanest example of public enterprise the world has ever seen. it is time to provide a smashing answer for those cynical men who say that a democracy cannot be honest and efficient. if you will help, this can be done. i, therefore, hope you will watch the work in every corner of this nation. feel free to criticize. tell me of instances where work can be done better, or where improper practices prevail. neither you nor i want criticism conceived in a purely fault-finding or partisan spirit, but i am jealous of the right of every citizen to call to the attention of his or her government examples of how the public money can be more effectively spent for the benefit of the american people. i now come, my friends, to a part of the remaining business before the congress. it has under consideration many measures which provide for the rounding out of the program of economic and social reconstruction with which we have been concerned for two years. i can mention only a few of them tonight, but i do not want my mention of specific measures to be interpreted as lack of interest in or disapproval of many other important proposals that are pending. the national industrial recovery act expires on the sixteenth of june. after careful consideration, i have asked the congress to extend the life of this useful agency of government. as we have proceeded with the administration of this act, we have found from time to time more and more useful ways of promoting its purposes. no reasonable person wants to abandon our present gains--we must continue to protect children, to enforce minimum wages, to prevent excessive hours, to safeguard, define and enforce collective bargaining, and, while retaining fair competition, to eliminate so far as humanly possible, the kinds of unfair practices by selfish minorities which unfortunately did more than anything else to bring about the recent collapse of industries. there is likewise pending before the congress legislation to provide for the elimination of unnecessary holding companies in the public utility field. i consider this legislation a positive recovery measure. power production in this country is virtually back to the peak. the operating companies in the gas and electric utility field are by and large in good condition. but under holding company domination the utility industry has long been hopelessly at war within itself and with public sentiment. by far the greater part of the general decline in utility securities had occurred before i was inaugurated. the absentee management of unnecessary holding company control has lost touch with, and has lost the sympathy of, the communities it pretends to serve. even more significantly it has given the country as a whole an uneasy apprehension of overconcentrated economic power. a business that loses the confidence of its customers and the good- will of the public cannot long continue to be a good risk for the investor. this legislation will serve the investor by ending the conditions which have caused that lack of confidence and good-will. it will put the public utility operating industry on a sound basis for the future, both in its public relations and in its internal relations. this legislation will not only in the long run result in providing lower electric and gas rates to the consumer, but it will protect the actual value and earning power of properties now owned by thousands of investors who have little protection under the old laws against what used to be called frenzied finance. it will not destroy values. not only business recovery, but the general economic recovery of the nation will be greatly stimulated by the enactment of legislation designed to improve the status of our transportation agencies. there is need for legislation providing for the regulation of interstate transportation by buses and trucks, for the regulation of transportation by water, for the strengthening of our merchant marine and air transport, for the strengthening of the interstate commerce commission to enable it to carry out a rounded conception of the national transportation system in which the benefits of private ownership are retained while the public stake in these important services is protected by the public's government. finally, the reestablishment of public confidence in the banks of the nation is one of the most hopeful results of our efforts as a nation to reestablish public confidence in private banking. we all know that private banking actually exists by virtue of the permission of and regulation by the people as a whole, speaking through their government. wise public policy, however, requires not only that banking be safe but that its resources be most fully utilized in the economic life of the country. to this end it was decided more than twenty years ago that the government should assume the responsibility of providing a means by which the credit of the nation might be controlled, not by a few private banking institutions, but by a body with public prestige and authority. the answer to this demand was the federal reserve system. twenty years of experience with this system have justified the efforts made to create it, but these twenty years have shown by experience definite possibilities for improvement. certain proposals made to amend the federal reserve act deserve prompt and favorable action by the congress. they are a minimum of wise readjustments of our federal reserve system in the light of past experience and present needs. these measures i have mentioned are, in large part, the program which under my constitutional duty i have recommended to the congress. they are essential factors in a rounded program for national recovery. they contemplate the enrichment of our national life by a sound and rational ordering of its various elements and wise provisions for the protection of the weak against the strong. never since my inauguration in march, , have i felt so unmistakably the atmosphere of recovery. but it is more than the recovery of the material basis of our individual lives. it is the recovery of confidence in our democratic processes and institutions. we have survived all of the arduous burdens and the threatening dangers of a great economic calamity. we have in the darkest moments of our national trials retained our faith in our own ability to master our destiny. fear is vanishing and confidence is growing on every side, renewed faith in the vast possibilities of human beings to improve their material and spiritual status through the instrumentality of the democratic form of government. that faith is receiving its just reward. for that we can be thankful to the god who watches over america. september , . i have been on a journey of husbandry. i went primarily to see at first hand conditions in the drought states; to see how effectively federal and local authorities are taking care of pressing problems of relief and also how they are to work together to defend the people of this country against the effects of future droughts. i saw drought devastation in nine states. i talked with families who had lost their wheat crop, lost their corn crop, lost their livestock, lost the water in their well, lost their garden and come through to the end of the summer without one dollar of cash resources, facing a winter without feed or food-- facing a planting season without seed to put in the ground. that was the extreme case, but there are thousands and thousands of families on western farms who share the same difficulties. i saw cattlemen who because of lack of grass or lack of winter feed have been completely compelled to sell all but their breeding stock and will need help to carry even these through the coming winter. i saw livestock kept alive only because water had been brought to them long distances in tank cars. i saw other farm families who have not lost everything but who, because they have made only partial crops, must have some form of help if they are to continue farming next spring. i shall never forget the fields of wheat so blasted by heat that they cannot be harvested. i shall never forget field after field of corn stunted, earless and stripped of leaves, for what the sun left the grasshoppers took. i saw brown pastures which would not keep a cow on fifty acres. yet i would not have you think for a single minute that there is permanent disaster in these drought regions, or that the picture i saw meant depopulating these areas. no cracked earth, no blistering sun, no burning wind, no grasshoppers, are a permanent match for the indomitable american farmers and stockmen and their wives and children who have carried on through desperate days, and inspire us with their self-reliance, their tenacity and their courage. it was their fathers' task to make homes; it is their task to keep those homes; it is our task to help them win their fight. first let me talk for a minute about this autumn and the coming winter. we have the option, in the case of families who need actual subsistence, of putting them on the dole or putting them to work. they do not want to go on the dole and they are one thousand percent right. we agree, therefore, that we must put them to work for a decent wage; and when we reach that decision we kill two birds with one stone, because these families will earn enough by working, not only to subsist themselves, but to buy food for their stock, and seed for next year's planting. into this scheme of things there fit of course the government lending agencies which next year, as in the past, will help with production loans. every governor with whom i have talked is in full accord with this program of doing work for these farm families, just as every governor agrees that the individual states will take care of their unemployables but that the cost of employing those who are entirely able and willing to work must be borne by the federal government. if then we know, as we do today, the approximate number of farm families who will require some form of work relief from now on through the winter, we face the question of what kind of work they should do. let me make it clear that this is not a new question because it has already been answered to a greater or less extent in every one of the drought communities. beginning in , when we also had serious drought conditions, the state and federal governments cooperated in planning a large number of projects--many of them directly aimed at the alleviation of future drought conditions. in accordance with that program literally thousands of ponds or small reservoirs have been built in order to supply water for stock and to lift the level of the underground water to protect wells from going dry. thousands of wells have been drilled or deepened; community lakes have been created and irrigation projects are being pushed. water conservation by means such as these is being expanded as a result of this new drought all through the great plains area, the western corn belt and in the states that lie further south. in the middle west water conservation is not so pressing a problem. here the work projects run more to soil erosion control and the building of farm-to-market roads. spending like this is not waste. it would spell future waste if we did not spend for such things now. these emergency work projects provide money to buy food and clothing for the winter; they keep the livestock on the farm; they provide seed for a new crop, and, best of all, they will conserve soil and water in the future in those areas most frequently hit by drought. if, for example, in some local area the water table continues to drop and the topsoil to blow away, the land values will disappear with the water and the soil. people on the farms will drift into the nearby cities; the cities will have no farm trade and the workers in the city factories and stores will have no jobs. property values in the cities will decline. if, on the other hand, the farms within that area remain as farms with better water supply and no erosion, the farm population will stay on the land and prosper and the nearby cities will prosper too. property values will increase instead of disappearing. that is why it is worth our while as a nation to spend money in order to save money. i have used the argument in relation only to a small area. it holds good in its effect on the nation as a whole. every state in the drought area is now doing and always will do business with every state outside it. the very existence of the men and women working in the clothing factories of new york, making clothes worn by farmers and their families; of the workers in the steel mills in pittsburgh, in the automobile factories of detroit, and in the harvester factories of illinois, depend upon the farmers' ability to purchase the commodities they produce. in the same way it is the purchasing power of the workers in these factories in the cities that enables them and their wives and children to eat more beef, more pork, more wheat, more corn, more fruit and more dairy products, and to buy more clothing made from cotton, wool and leather. in a physical and a property sense, as well as in a spiritual sense, we are members one of another. i want to make it clear that no simple panacea can be applied to the drought problem in the whole of the drought area. plans must depend on local conditions, for these vary with annual rainfall, soil characteristics, altitude and topography. water and soil conservation methods may differ in one county from those in an adjoining county. work to be done in the cattle and sheep country differs in type from work in the wheat country or work in the corn belt. the great plains drought area committee has given me its preliminary recommendations for a long-time program for that region. using that report as a basis we are cooperating successfully and in entire accord with the governors and state planning boards. as we get this program into operation the people more and more will be able to maintain themselves securely on the land. that will mean a steady decline in the relief burdens which the federal government and states have had to assume in time of drought; but, more important, it will mean a greater contribution to general national prosperity by these regions which have been hit by drought. it will conserve and improve not only property values, but human values. the people in the drought area do not want to be dependent on federal, state or any other kind of charity. they want for themselves and their families an opportunity to share fairly by their own efforts in the progress of america. the farmers of america want a sound national agricultural policy in which a permanent land-use program will have an important place. they want assurance against another year like when they made good crops but had to sell them for prices that meant ruin just as surely as did the drought. sound policy must maintain farm prices in good crop years as well as in bad crop years. it must function when we have drought; it must also function when we have bumper crops. the maintenance of a fair equilibrium between farm prices and the prices of industrial products is an aim which we must keep ever before us, just as we must give constant thought to the sufficiency of the food supply of the nation even in bad years. our modern civilization can and should devise a more successful means by which the excess supplies of bumper years can be conserved for use in lean years. on my trip i have been deeply impressed with the general efficiency of those agencies of the federal, state and local governments which have moved in on the immediate task created by the drought. in none of us had preparation; we worked without blueprints and made the mistakes of inexperience. hindsight shows us this. but as time has gone on we have been making fewer and fewer mistakes. remember that the federal and state governments have done only broad planning. actual work on a given project originates in the local community. local needs are listed from local information. local projects are decided on only after obtaining the recommendations and help of those in the local community who are best able to give it. and it is worthy of note that on my entire trip, though i asked the question dozens of times, i heard no complaint against the character of a single work relief project. the elected heads of the states concerned, together with their state officials and their experts from agricultural colleges and state planning boards, have shown cooperation with and approval of the work which the federal government has headed. i am grateful also to the men and women in all these states who have accepted leadership in the work in their locality. in the drought area people are not afraid to use new methods to meet changes in nature, and to correct mistakes of the past. if overgrazing has injured range lands, they are willing to reduce the grazing. if certain wheat lands should be returned to pasture they are willing to cooperate. if trees should be planted as windbreaks or to stop erosion they will work with us. if terracing or summer fallowing or crop rotation is called for, they will carry them out. they stand ready to fit, and not to fight, the ways of nature. we are helping, and shall continue to help the farmer to do those things, through local soil conservation committees and other cooperative local, state and federal agencies of government. i have not the time tonight to deal with other and more comprehensive agricultural policies. with this fine help we are tiding over the present emergency. we are going to conserve soil, conserve water and conserve life. we are going to have long-time defenses against both low prices and drought. we are going to have a farm policy that will serve the national welfare. that is our hope for the future. there are two reasons why i want to end by talking about reemployment. tomorrow is labor day. the brave spirit with which so many millions of working people are winning their way out of depression deserves respect and admiration. it is like the courage of the farmers in the drought areas. that is my first reason. the second is that healthy employment conditions stand equally with healthy agricultural conditions as a buttress of national prosperity. dependable employment at fair wages is just as important to the people in the towns and cities as good farm income is to agriculture. our people must have the ability to buy the goods they manufacture and the crops they produce. thus city wages and farm buying power are the two strong legs that carry the nation forward. reemployment in industry is proceeding rapidly. government spending was in large part responsible for keeping industry going and putting it in a position to make this reemployment possible. government orders were the backlog of heavy industry; government wages turned over and over again to make consumer purchasing power and to sustain every merchant in the community. businessmen with their businesses, small and large, had to be saved. private enterprise is necessary to any nation which seeks to maintain the democratic form of government. in their case, just as certainly as in the case of drought-stricken farmers, government spending has saved. government having spent wisely to save it, private industry begins to take workers off the rolls of the government relief program. until this administration we had no free employment service, except in a few states and cities. because there was no unified employment service, the worker, forced to move as industry moved, often travelled over the country, wandering after jobs which seemed always to travel just a little faster than he did. he was often victimized by fraudulent practices of employment clearing houses, and the facts of employment opportunities were at the disposal neither of himself nor of the employer. in the united states employment service was created--a cooperative state and federal enterprise, through which the federal government matches dollar for dollar the funds provided by the states for registering the occupations and skills of workers and for actually finding jobs for these registered workers in private industry. the federal-state cooperation has been splendid. already employment services are operating in thirty-two states, and the areas not covered by them are served by the federal government. we have developed a nationwide service with seven hundred district offices and one thousand branch offices, thus providing facilities through which labor can learn of jobs available and employers can find workers. last spring i expressed the hope that employers would realize their deep responsibility to take men off the relief rolls and give them jobs in private enterprise. subsequently i was told by many employers that they were not satisfied with the information available concerning the skill and experience of the workers on the relief rolls. on august th i allocated a relatively small sum to the employment service for the purpose of getting better and more recent information in regard to those now actively at work on w.p.a. projects--information as to their skills and previous occupations--and to keep the records of such men and women up-to- date for maximum service in making them available to industry. tonight i am announcing the allocation of two and a half million dollars more to enable the employment service to make an even more intensive search then it has yet been equipped to make, to find opportunities in private employment for workers registered with it. tonight i urge the workers to cooperate with and take full advantage of this intensification of the work of the employment service. this does not mean that there will be any lessening of our efforts under our w.p.a. and p.w.a. and other work relief programs until all workers have decent jobs in private employment at decent wages. we do not surrender our responsibility to the unemployed. we have had ample proof that it is the will of the american people that those who represent them in national, state and local government should continue as long as necessary to discharge that responsibility. but it does mean that the government wants to use resource to get private work for those now employed on government work, and thus to curtail to a minimum the government expenditures for direct employment. tonight i ask employers, large and small, throughout the nation, to use the help of the state and federal employment service whenever in the general pick-up of business they require more workers. tomorrow is labor day. labor day in this country has never been a class holiday. it has always been a national holiday. it has never had more significance as a national holiday than it has now. in other countries the relationship of employer and employee has been more or less been accepted as a class relationship not readily to be broken through. in this country we insist, as an essential of the american way of life, that the employer-employee relationship should be one between free men and equals. we refuse to regard those who work with hand or brain as different from or inferior to those who live from their property. we insist that labor is entitled to as much respect as property. but our workers with hand and brain deserve more than respect for their labor. they deserve practical protection in the opportunity to use their labor at a return adequate to support them at a decent and constantly rising standard of living, and to accumulate a margin of security against the inevitable vicissitudes of life. the average man must have that twofold opportunity if we are to avoid the growth of a class-conscious society in this country. there are those who fail to read both the signs of the times and american history. they would try to refuse the worker any effective power to bargain collectively, to earn a decent livelihood and to acquire security. it is those short-sighted ones, not labor, who threaten this country with that class dissension which in other countries has led to dictatorship and the establishment of fear and hatred as the dominant emotions in human life. all american workers, brain workers and manual workers alike, and all the rest of us whose well-being depends on theirs, know that our needs are one in building an orderly economic democracy in which all can profit and in which all can be secure from the kind of faulty economic direction which brought us to the brink of common ruin seven years ago. there is no cleavage between white collar workers and manual workers, between artists and artisans, musicians and mechanics, lawyers and accountants and architects and miners. tomorrow, labor day, belongs to all of us. tomorrow, labor day, symbolizes the hope of all americans. anyone who calls it a class holiday challenges the whole concept of american democracy. the fourth of july commemorates our political freedom--a freedom which without economic freedom is meaningless indeed. labor day symbolizes our determination to achieve an economic freedom for the average man which will give his political freedom reality. march , . last thursday i described in detail certain economic problems which everyone admits now face the nation. for the many messages which have come to me after that speech, and which it is physically impossible to answer individually, i take this means of saying "thank you." tonight, sitting at my desk in the white house, i make my first radio report to the people in my second term of office. i am reminded of that evening in march, four years ago, when i made my first radio report to you. we were then in the midst of the great banking crisis. soon after, with the authority of the congress, we asked the nation to turn over all of its privately held gold, dollar for dollar, to the government of the united states. today's recovery proves how right that policy was. but when, almost two years later, it came before the supreme court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. the change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great nation back into hopeless chaos. in effect, four justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the constitution to establish an enduring nation. in you and i knew that we must never let our economic system get completely out of joint again--that we could not afford to take the risk of another great depression. we also became convinced that the only way to avoid a repetition of those dark days was to have a government with power to prevent and to cure the abuses and the inequalities which had thrown that system out of joint. we then began a program of remedying those abuses and inequalities--to give balance and stability to our economic system--to make it bomb-proof against the causes of . today we are only part-way through that program--and recovery is speeding up to a point where the dangers of are again becoming possible, not this week or month perhaps, but within a year or two. national laws are needed to complete that program. individual or local or state effort alone cannot protect us in any better than ten years ago. it will take time--and plenty of time--to work out our remedies administratively even after legislation is passed. to complete our program of protection in time, therefore, we cannot delay one moment in making certain that our national government has power to carry through. four years ago action did not come until the eleventh hour. it was almost too late. if we learned anything from the depression we will not allow ourselves to run around in new circles of futile discussion and debate, always postponing the day of decision. the american people have learned from the depression. for in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of them voted a mandate that the congress and the president begin the task of providing that protection--not after long years of debate, but now. the courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions. we are at a crisis in our ability to proceed with that protection. it is a quiet crisis. there are no lines of depositors outside closed banks. but to the far-sighted it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to america. i want to talk with you very simply about the need for present action in this crisis--the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed. last thursday i described the american form of government as a three horse team provided by the constitution to the american people so that their field might be plowed. the three horses are, of course, the three branches of government--the congress, the executive and the courts. two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. those who have intimated that the president of the united states is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the president, as chief executive, is himself one of the three horses. it is the american people themselves who are in the driver's seat. it is the american people themselves who want the furrow plowed. it is the american people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two. i hope that you have re-read the constitution of the united states in these past few weeks. like the bible, it ought to be read again and again. it is an easy document to understand when you remember that it was called into being because the articles of confederation under which the original thirteen states tried to operate after the revolution showed the need of a national government with power enough to handle national problems. in its preamble, the constitution states that it was intended to form a more perfect union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the congress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action. but the framers went further. having in mind that in succeeding generations many other problems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the congress the ample broad powers "to levy taxes. . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states." that, my friends, is what i honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote a federal constitution to create a national government with national power, intended as they said, "to form a more perfect union. . . for ourselves and our posterity." for nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the congress and the court. then congress passed a statute which, in , the court said violated an express provision of the constitution. the court claimed the power to declare it unconstitutional and did so declare it. but a little later the court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through mr. justice washington laid down this limitation upon it: "it is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt." but since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the congress and state legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation. in the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. the court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body. when the congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against unfair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these acts of the congress--and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws. that is not only my accusation. it is the accusation of most distinguished justices of the present supreme court. i have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting justices in many of these cases. but in the case holding the railroad retirement act unconstitutional, for instance, chief justice hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound principles," and placed "an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause." and three other justices agreed with him. in the case of holding the a.a.a. unconstitutional, justice stone said of the majority opinion that it was a "tortured construction of the constitution." and two other justices agreed with him. in the case holding the new york minimum wage law unconstitutional, justice stone said that the majority were actually reading into the constitution their own "personal economic predilections," and that if the legislative power is not left free to choose the methods of solving the problems of poverty, subsistence, and health of large numbers in the community, then "government is to be rendered impotent." and two other justices agreed with him. in the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the court that something in the constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people. in the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear that, as chief justice hughes has said, "we are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is." the court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third house of the congress--a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it--reading into the constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there. we have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the constitution from the court and the court from itself. we must find a way to take an appeal from the supreme court to the constitution itself. we want a supreme court which will do justice under the constitution--not over it. in our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. i want--as all americans want--an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the constitution. that means a supreme court that will enforce the constitution as written--that will refuse to amend the constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power-- amended by judicial say-so. it does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized. how then could we proceed to perform the mandate given us? it was said in last year's democratic platform, "if these problems cannot be effectively solved within the constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure the power to enact those laws, adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety, and safeguard economic security." in other words, we said we would seek an amendment only if every other possible means by legislation were to fail. when i commenced to review the situation with the problem squarely before me, i came by a process of elimination to the conclusion that, short of amendments, the only method which was clearly constitutional, and would at the same time carry out other much needed reforms, was to infuse new blood into all our courts. we must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice. but, at the same time, we must have judges who will bring to the courts a present-day sense of the constitution--judges who will retain in the courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed. in forty-five out of the forty-eight states of the union, judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. in many states judges must retire at the age of seventy. congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for federal judges on all courts who are willing to retire at seventy. in the case of supreme court justices, that pension is $ , a year. but all federal judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be. what is my proposal? it is simply this: whenever a judge or justice of any federal court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the president then in office, with the approval, as required by the constitution, of the senate of the united states. that plan has two chief purposes. by bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, i hope, first, to make the administration of all federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. this plan will save our national constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. the number of judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy. if, for instance, any one of the six justices of the supreme court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created. consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. and there may be only nine. there is nothing novel or radical about this idea. it seeks to maintain the federal bench in full vigor. it has been discussed and approved by many persons of high authority ever since a similar proposal passed the house of representatives in . why was the age fixed at seventy? because the laws of many states, the practice of the civil service, the regulations of the army and navy, and the rules of many of our universities and of almost every great private business enterprise, commonly fix the retirement age at seventy years or less. the statute would apply to all the courts in the federal system. there is general approval so far as the lower federal courts are concerned. the plan has met opposition only so far as the supreme court of the united states itself is concerned. if such a plan is good for the lower courts it certainly ought to be equally good for the highest court from which there is no appeal. those opposing this plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by crying that i am seeking to "pack" the supreme court and that a baneful precedent will be established. what do they mean by the words "packing the court"? let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all _honest_ misunderstanding of my purposes. if by that phrase "packing the court" it is charged that i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as i wished them to be decided, i make this answer: that no president fit for his office would appoint, and no senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the supreme court. but if by that phrase the charge is made that i would appoint and the senate would confirm justices worthy to sit beside present members of the court who understand those modern conditions, that i will appoint justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the congress on legislative policy, that i will appoint justices who will act as justices and not as legislators--if the appointment of such justices can be called "packing the courts," then i say that i and with me the vast majority of the american people favor doing just that thing--now. is it a dangerous precedent for the congress to change the number of the justices? the congress has always had, and will have, that power. the number of justices has been changed several times before, in the administration of john adams and thomas jefferson-- both signers of the declaration of independence--andrew jackson, abraham lincoln and ulysses s. grant. i suggest only the addition of justices to the bench in accordance with a clearly defined principle relating to a clearly defined age limit. fundamentally, if in the future, america cannot trust the congress it elects to refrain from abuse of our constitutional usages, democracy will have failed far beyond the importance to it of any king of precedent concerning the judiciary. we think it so much in the public interest to maintain a vigorous judiciary that we encourage the retirement of elderly judges by offering them a life pension at full salary. why then should we leave the fulfillment of this public policy to chance or make independent on upon the desire or prejudice of any individual justice? it is the clear intention of our public policy to provide for a constant flow of new and younger blood into the judiciary. normally every president appoints a large number of district and circuit court judges and a few members of the supreme court. until my first term practically every president of the united states has appointed at least one member of the supreme court. president taft appointed five members and named a chief justice; president wilson, three; president harding, four, including a chief justice; president coolidge, one; president hoover, three, including a chief justice. such a succession of appointments should have provided a court well-balanced as to age. but chance and the disinclination of individuals to leave the supreme bench have now given us a court in which five justices will be over seventy-five years of age before next june and one over seventy. thus a sound public policy has been defeated. i now propose that we establish by law an assurance against any such ill-balanced court in the future. i propose that hereafter, when a judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger judge shall be added to the court automatically. in this way i propose to enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our federal courts, including the highest, to be determined by chance or the personal indecision of individuals. if such a law as i propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most desirable precedent? like all lawyers, like all americans, i regret the necessity of this controversy. but the welfare of the united states, and indeed of the constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. our difficulty with the court today rises not from the court as an institution but from human beings within it. but we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present. this plan of mine is no attack on the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the constitution "a system of living law." the court itself can best undo what the court has done. i have thus explained to you the reasons that lie behind our efforts to secure results by legislation within the constitution. i hope that thereby the difficult process of constitutional amendment may be rendered unnecessary. but let us examine the process. there are many types of amendment proposed. each one is radically different from the other. there is no substantial groups within the congress or outside it who are agreed on any single amendment. it would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of the amendment. it would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in _both_ houses of the congress. then would come the long course of ratification by three-fourths of all the states. no amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a reasonable time. and thirteen states which contain only five percent of the voting population can block ratification even though the thirty- five states with ninety-five percent of the population are in favor of it. a very large percentage of newspaper publishers, chambers of commerce, bar association, manufacturers' associations, who are trying to give the impression that they really do want a constitutional amendment would be the first to exclaim as soon as an amendment was proposed, "oh! i was for an amendment all right, but this amendment you proposed is not the kind of amendment that i was thinking about. i am therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block the amendment, although i would be awfully glad to help get some other kind of amendment ratified." two groups oppose my plan on the ground that they favor a constitutional amendment. the first includes those who fundamentally object to social and economic legislation along modern lines. this is the same group who during the campaign last fall tried to block the mandate of the people. now they are making a last stand. and the strategy of that last stand is to suggest the time-consuming process of amendment in order to kill off by delay the legislation demanded by the mandate. to them i say: i do not think you will be able long to fool the american people as to your purposes. the other groups is composed of those who honestly believe the amendment process is the best and who would be willing to support a reasonable amendment if they could agree on one. to them i say: we cannot rely on an amendment as the immediate or only answer to our present difficulties. when the time comes for action, you will find that many of those who pretend to support you will sabotage any constructive amendment which is proposed. look at these strange bed-fellows of yours. when before have you found them really at your side in your fights for progress? and remember one thing more. even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of justices who would be sitting on the supreme court bench. an amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is what the justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is. this proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every american. my record as governor and president proves my devotion to those liberties. you who know me can have no fear that i would tolerate the destruction by any branch of government of any part of our heritage of freedom. the present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same opposition to frighten the workers of america in a pay-envelope propaganda against the social security law. the workers were not fooled by that propaganda then. the people of america will not be fooled by such propaganda now. i am in favor of action through legislation: first, because i believe that it can be passed at this session of the congress. second, because it will provide a reinvigorated, liberal-minded judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice from bottom to top. third, because it will provide a series of federal courts willing to enforce the constitution as written, and unwilling to assert legislative powers by writing into it their own political and economic policies. during the past half century the balance of power between the three great branches of the federal government, has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the constitution. it is my purpose to restore that balance. you who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, i seek to make american democracy succeed. you and i will do our part. october , . my friends: this afternoon i have issued a proclamation calling a special session of the congress to convene on monday, november , . i do this in order to give to the congress an opportunity to consider important legislation before the regular session in january, and to enable the congress to avoid a lengthy session next year, extending through the summer. i know that many enemies of democracy will say that it is bad for business, bad for the tranquility of the country, to have a special session--even one beginning only six weeks before the regular session. but i have never had sympathy with the point of view that a session of the congress is an unfortunate intrusion of what they call "politics" into our national affairs. those who do not like democracy want to keep legislators at home. but the congress is an essential instrument of democratic government; and democratic government can never be considered an intruder into the affairs of a democratic nation. i shall ask this special session to consider immediately certain important legislation which my recent trip through the nation convinces me the american people immediately need. this does not mean that other legislation, to which i am not referring tonight, is not important for our national well-being. but other legislation can be more readily discussed at the regular session. anyone charged with proposing or judging national policies should have first-hand knowledge of the nation as a whole. that is why again this year i have taken trips to all parts of the country. last spring i visited the southwest. this summer i made several trips in the east. now i am just back from a trip from a trip all the way across the continent, and later this autumn i hope to pay my annual visit to the southeast. for a president especially it is a duty to think in national terms. he must think not only of this year but of future years, when someone else will be president. he must look beyond the average of the prosperity and well-being of the country, for averages easily cover up danger spots of poverty and instability. he must not let the country be deceived by a merely temporary prosperity which depends on wasteful exploitation of resources which cannot last. he must think not only of keeping us out of war today, but also of keeping us out of war in generations to come. the kind of prosperity we want is the sound and permanent kind which is not built up temporarily at the expense of any section or any group. and the kind of peace we want is the sound and permanent kind, which is built on the cooperative search for peace by all the nations which want peace. the other day i was asked to state my outstanding impression gained on this recent trip. i said that it seemed to me to be the general understanding on the part of the average citizen of the broad objectives and policies which i have just outlined. five years of fierce discussion and debate--five years of information through the radio and the moving picture--have taken the whole nation to school in the nation's business. even those who have most attacked our objectives have, by their very criticism, encouraged the mass of our citizens to think about and understand the issues involved, and, understanding, to approve. out of that process, we have learned to think as a nation. and out of that process we have learned to feel ourselves a nation. as never before in our history, each section of america says to every other section, "thy people shall be my people." for most of the country this has been a good year--better in dollars and cents than for many years--far better in the soundness of its prosperity. and everywhere i went i found particular optimism about the good effect on business which is expected from the steady spending by farmers of the largest farm income in many years. but we have not yet done all that must be done to make this prosperity stable. the people of the united states were checked in their efforts to prevent future piling up of huge agricultural surpluses and the tumbling prices which inevitably follow them. they were checked in their efforts to secure reasonable minimum wages and maximum hours and the end of child labor. and because they were checked, many groups in many parts of the country still have less purchasing power and a lower standard of living than the nation as a whole can permanently allow. americans realize these facts. that is why they ask government not to stop governing simply because prosperity has come back a long way. they do not look on government as an interloper in their affairs. on the contrary, they regard it as the most effective form of organized self-help. sometimes i get bored sitting in washington hearing certain people talk and talk about all that government ought _not_ do--people who got all _they_ wanted from government back in the days when the financial institutions and the railroads were being bailed out by the government in . it is refreshing to go out through the country and feel the common wisdom that the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. they want the financial budget balanced. but they want the human budget balanced as well. they want to set up a national economy which balances itself with as little government subsidy as possible, for they realize that persistent subsidies ultimately bankrupt their government. they are less concerned that every detail be immediately right than they are that the direction be right. they know that just so long as we are traveling on the right road, it does not make much difference if occasionally we hit a "thank you marm." the overwhelming majority of our citizens who live by agriculture are thinking very clearly how they want government to help them in connection with the production of crops. they want government help in two ways: first, in the control of surpluses, and, second, in the proper use of land. the other day a reporter told me that he had never been able to understand why the government seeks to curtail crop production and, at the same time, to open up new irrigated acres. he was confusing two totally separate objectives. crop surplus control relates to the total amount of any major crop grown in the whole nation on all cultivated land--good or bad-- control by the cooperation of the crop growers and with the help of the government. land use, on the other hand, is a policy of providing each farmer with the best quality and type of land we have, or can make available, for his part in that total production. adding good new land for diversified crops is offset by abandoning poor land now uneconomically farmed. the total amount of production largely determines the price of the crop, and, therefore, the difference between comfort and misery for the farmer. if we americans were foolish enough to run every shoe factory twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, we would soon have more shoes than the nation could possibly buy--a surplus of shoes so great that it would have to be destroyed, or given away, or sold at prices far below the cost of production. that simple law of supply and demand equally affects the price of all our major crops. you and i have heard big manufacturers talk about control of production by the farmer as an indefensible "economy of scarcity." and yet these same manufacturers never hesitate to shut down their own huge plants, throw men out of work, and cut down the purchasing power of whole communities whenever they think that they must adjust their production to an oversupply of the goods they make. when it is their baby who has the measles, they call it not "an economy of scarcity" but "sound business judgment." of course, speaking seriously, what you and i want is such governmental rules of the game that labor and agriculture and industry will all produce a balanced abundance without waste. so we intend this winter to find a way to prevent four-and-a-half cent cotton, nine cent corn and thirty cent wheat--with all the disaster those prices mean for all of us--to prevent those prices from ever coming back again. to do that, the farmers themselves want to cooperate to build an all-weather farm program so that in the long run prices will be more stable. they believe this can be done, and the national budget kept out of the red. and when we have found that way to protect the farmers' prices from the effects of alternating crop surpluses and crop scarcities, we shall also have found the way to protect the nation's food supply from the effects of the same fluctuation. we ought always to have enough food at prices within the reach of the consuming public. for the consumers in the cities of america, we must find a way to help the farmers to store up in years of plenty enough to avoid hardship in the years of scarcity. our land use policy is a different thing. i have just visited much of the work that the national government is doing to stop soil erosion, to save our forests, to prevent floods, to produce electric power for more general use, and to give people a chance to move from poor land on to better land by irrigating thousands of acres that need only water to provide an opportunity to make a good living. i saw bare and burned hillsides where only a few years ago great forests were growing. they are now being planted to young trees, not only to stop erosion, but to provide a lumber supply for the future. i saw c.c.c. boys and w.p.a. workers building check-dams and small ponds and terraces to raise the water table and make it possible for farms and villages to remain in safety where they now are. i saw the harnessing of the turbulent missouri, muddy with the topsoil of many states. and i saw barges on new channels carrying produce and freight athwart the nation. let me give you two simple illustrations of why government projects of this type have a national importance for the whole country. in the boise valley in idaho i saw a district which had been recently irrigated to enormous fertility so that a family can now make a pretty good living from forty acres of its land. many of the families, who are making good in that valley today, moved there from a thousand miles away. they came from the dust strip that runs through the middle of the nation all the way from the canadian border to mexico, a strip which includes large portions of ten states. that valley in western idaho, therefore, assumes at once a national importance as a second chance for willing farmers. and, year by year, we propose to add more valleys to take care of thousands of other families who need the same kind of second chance in new green pastures. the other illustration was at the grand coulee dam in the state of washington. the engineer in charge told me that almost half of the whole cost of that dam to date had been spent for materials that were manufactured east of the mississippi river, giving employment and wages to thousands of industrial workers in the eastern third of the nation, two thousand miles away. all of this work needs, of course, a more businesslike system of planning and greater foresight than we use today. that is why i recommended to the last session of the congress the creation of seven planning regions, in which local people will originate and coordinate recommendations as to the kind of this work of this kind to be done in their particular regions. the congress will, of course, determine the projects to be selected within the budget limits. to carry out any twentieth century program, we must give the executive branch of the government twentieth century machinery to work with. i recognize that democratic processes are necessarily and rightly slower than dictatorial processes. but i refuse to believe that democratic processes need be dangerously slow. for many years we have all known that the executive and administrative departments of the government in washington are a higgledy-piggledy patchwork of duplicate responsibilities and overlapping powers. the reorganization of this vast government machinery which i proposed to the congress last winter does not conflict with the principle of the democratic process, as some people say. it only makes that process work more efficiently. on my recent trip many people have talked to me about the millions of men and women and children who still work at insufficient wages and overlong hours. american industry has searched the outside world to find new markets--but it can create on its very doorstep the biggest and most permanent market it has ever had. it needs the reduction of trade barriers to improve its foreign markets, but it should not overlook the chance to reduce the domestic trade barrier right here--right away--without waiting for any treaty. a few more dollars a week in wages, a better distribution of jobs with a shorter working day will almost overnight make millions of our lowest-paid workers actual buyers of billions of dollars of industrial and farm products. that increased volume of sales ought to lessen other cost of production so much that even a considerable increase in labor costs can be absorbed without imposing higher prices on the consumer. i am a firm believer in fully adequate pay for all labor. but right now i am most greatly concerned in increasing the pay of the lowest-paid labor--those who are our most numerous consuming group but who today do not make enough to maintain a decent standard of living or to buy the food, and the clothes and the other articles necessary to keep our factories and farms fully running. farsighted businessmen already understand and agree with this policy. they agree also that no one section of the country can permanently benefit itself, or the rest of the country, by maintaining standards of wages and hours far inferior to other sections of the country. most businessmen, big and little, know that their government neither wants to put them out of business nor to prevent them from earning a decent profit. in spite of the alarms of a few who seek to regain control of american life, most businessmen, big and little, know that their government is trying to make property more secure than ever before by giving every family a real chance to have a property stake in the nation. whatever danger there may be to the property and profits of the many, if there be any danger, comes not from government's attitude toward business but from restraints now imposed upon business by private monopolies and financial oligarchies. the average businessman knows that a high cost of living is a great deterrent to business and that business prosperity depends much upon a low price policy which encourages the widest possible consumption. as one of the country's leading economists recently said, "the continuance of business recovery in the united states depends far more upon business policies, business pricing policies, than it does on anything that may be done, or not done, in washington." our competitive system is, of course, not altogether competitive. anybody who buys any large quantity of manufactured goods knows this, whether it be the government or an individual buyer. we have anti-trust laws, to be sure, but they have not been adequate to check the growth of many monopolies. whether or not they might have been adequate originally, interpretation by the courts and the difficulties and delays of legal procedure have now definitely limited their effectiveness. we are already studying how to strengthen our anti-trust laws in order to end monopoly--not to hurt but to free legitimate business. i have touched briefly on these important subjects, which, taken together, make a program for the immediate future. to attain it, legislation is necessary. as we plan today for the creation of ever higher standards of living for the people of the united states, we are aware that our plans may be most seriously affected by events in the world outside our borders. by a series of trade agreements, we have been attempting to recreate the trade of the world which plays so important a part in our domestic prosperity; but we know that if the world outside our borders falls into the chaos of war, world trade will be completely disrupted. nor can we view with indifference the destruction of civilized values throughout the world. we seek peace, not only for our generation but also for the generation of our children. we seek for them the continuance of world civilization in order that their american civilization may continue to be invigorated by the achievements of civilized men and women in the rest of the world. i want our great democracy to be wise enough to realize that aloofness from war is not promoted by unawareness of war. in a world of mutual suspicions, peace must be affirmatively reached for. it cannot just be wished for. and it cannot just be waited for. we have now made known our willingness to attend a conference of the parties to the nine power treaty of --the treaty of washington--of which we are one of the original signatories. the purpose of this conference will be to seek by agreement a solution of the present situation in china. in efforts to find that solution, it is our purpose to cooperate with the other signatories to this treaty, including china and japan. such cooperation would be an example of one of the possible paths to follow in our search for means toward peace throughout the whole world. the development of civilization and of human welfare is based on the acceptance by individuals of certain fundamental decencies in their relations with each other. the development of peace in the world is dependent similarly on the acceptance by nations of certain fundamental decencies in their relations with each other. ultimately, i hope _each_ nation will accept the fact that violations of these rules of conduct are an injury to the well- being of _all_ nations. meanwhile, remember that from to , i personally was fairly close to world events, and in that period, while i learned much of what to do, i also learned much of what _not_ to do. the common sense, the intelligence of america agree with my statement that "america hates war. america hopes for peace. therefore, america actively engages in the search for peace." april , . my friends: five months have gone by since i last spoke to the people of the nation about the state of the nation. i had hoped to be able to defer this talk until next week because, as we all know, this is holy week. but what i want to say to you, the people of the country, is of such immediate need and relates so closely to the lives of human beings and the prevention of human suffering that i have felt that there should be no delay. in this decision i have been strengthened by the thought that by speaking tonight there may be greater peace of mind and that the hope of easter may be more real at firesides everywhere, and therefore that it is not inappropriate to encourage peace when so many of us are thinking of the prince of peace. five years ago we faced a very serious problem of economic and social recovery. for four and a half years that recovery proceeded apace. it is only in the past seven months that it has received a visible setback. and it is only within the past two months, as we have waited patiently to see whether the forces of business itself would counteract it, that it has become apparent that government itself can no longer safely fail to take aggressive government steps to meet it. this recession has not returned us the disasters and suffering of the beginning of . your money in the bank is safe; farmers are no longer in deep distress and have greater purchasing power; dangers of security speculation have been minimized; national income is almost percent higher than in ; and government has an established and accepted responsibility for relief. but i know that many of you have lost your jobs or have seen your friends or members of your families lose their jobs, and i do not propose that the government shall pretend not to see these things. i know that the effect of our present difficulties has been uneven; that they have affected some groups and some localities seriously, but that they have been scarcely felt in others. but i conceive the first duty of government is to protect the economic welfare of all the people in all sections and in all groups. i said in my message opening the last session of the congress that if private enterprise did not provide jobs this spring, government would take up the slack--that i would not let the people down. we have all learned the lesson that government cannot afford to wait until it has lost the power to act. therefore, my friends, i have sent a message of far-reaching importance to the congress. i want to read to you tonight certain passages from that message, and to talk with you about them. in that message i analyzed the causes of the collapse of in these words: "over-speculation in and overproduction of practically every article or instrument used by man. . . millions of people, to be sure, had been put to work, but the products of their hands had exceeded the purchasing power of their pocketbooks. . . . under the inexorable law of supply and demand, supplies so overran demand which would pay that production was compelled to stop. unemployment and closed factories resulted. hence the tragic years from to ." i pointed out to the congress that the national income--not the government's income but the total of the income of all the individual citizens and families of the united states--every farmer, every worker, every banker, every professional man and every person who lived on income derived from investments--that national income had amounted, in the year , to eighty-one billion dollars. by this had fallen to thirty-eight billion dollars. gradually, and up to a few months ago, it had risen to a total, an annual total; of sixty-eight billion dollars--a pretty good come-back from the low point. i then said this to the congress: "but the very vigor of the recovery in both durable goods and consumers' goods brought into the picture early in certain highly undesirable practices, which were in large part responsible for the economic decline which began in the later months of that year. again production outran the ability to buy. "there were many reasons for this overproduction. one of them was fear--fear of war abroad, fear of inflation, fear of nation-wide strikes. none of these fears have been borne out. ". . .production in many important lines of goods outran the ability of the public to purchase them. for example, through the winter and spring of cotton factories in hundreds of cases were running on a three-shift basis, piling up cotton goods in the factory, and in the hands of middle men and retailers. for example, also, automobile manufacturers not only turned out a normal increase of finished cars, but encouraged the normal increase to run into abnormal figures, using every known method to push their sales. this meant, of course, that the steel mills of the nation ran on a twenty-four hour basis, and the tire companies and cotton factories and glass factories and others speeded up to meet the same type of abnormally stimulated demand. the buying power of the nation lagged behind. "thus by the autumn of , last autumn, the nation again had stocks on hand which the consuming public could not buy because the purchasing power of the consuming public had not kept pace with the production. "during the same period. . . the prices of many vital products had risen faster than was warranted. . . . in the case of many commodities the price to the consumer was raised well above the inflationary boom prices of . in many lines of goods and materials, prices got so high that buyers and builders ceased to buy or to build. ". . . the economic process of getting out the raw materials, putting them through the manufacturing and finishing processes, selling them to the retailers, selling them to the consumer, and finally using them, got completely out of balance. ". . . the laying off of workers came upon us last autumn and has been continuing at such a pace ever since that all of us, government and banking and business and workers, and those faced with destitution, recognize the need for action." all of this i said to the congress today and i repeat it to you, the people of the country tonight. i went on to point out to the senate and the house of representatives that all the energies of government and business must be directed to increasing the national income, to putting more people into private jobs, to giving security and a feeling of security to all people in all walks of life. i am constantly thinking of all our people--unemployed and employed alike--of their human problems of food and clothing and homes and education and health and old age. you and i agree that security is our greatest need; the chance to work, the opportunity of making a reasonable profit in our business--whether it be a very small business or a larger one--the possibility of selling our farm products for enough money for our families to live on decently. i know these are the things that decide the well-being of all our people. therefore, i am determined to do all in my power to help you attain that security and because i know that the people themselves have a deep conviction that secure prosperity of that kind cannot be a lasting one except on a basis of business fair dealing and a basis where all from the top to the bottom share in the prosperity. i repeated to the congress today that neither it nor the chief executive can afford "to weaken or destroy great reforms which, during the past five years, have been effected on behalf of the american people. in our rehabilitation of the banking structure and of agriculture, in our provisions for adequate and cheaper credit for all types of business, in our acceptance of national responsibility for unemployment relief, in our strengthening of the credit of state and local government, in our encouragement of housing, and slum clearance and home ownership, in our supervision of stock exchanges and public utility holding companies and the issuance of new securities, in our provision for social security, the electorate of america wants no backward steps taken. "we have recognized the right of labor to free organization, to collective bargaining; and machinery for the handling of labor relations is now in existence. the principles are established even though we can all admit that, through the evolution of time, administration and practices can be improved. such improvement can come about most quickly and most peacefully through sincere efforts to understand and assist on the part of labor leaders and employers alike. "the never-ceasing evolution of human society will doubtless bring forth new problems which will require new adjustments. our immediate task is to consolidate and maintain the gains achieved. "in this situation there is no reason and no occasion for any american to allow his fears to be aroused or his energy and enterprise to be paralyzed by doubt or uncertainty." i came to the conclusion that the present-day problem calls for action both by the government and by the people, that we suffer primarily from a failure of consumer demand because of lack of buying power. therefore it is up to us to create an economic upturn. "how and where can and should the government help to start an upward spiral?" i went on in my message today to propose three groups of measures and i will summarize my recommendations. first, i asked for certain appropriations which are intended to keep the government expenditures for work relief and similar purposes during the coming fiscal year at the same rate of expenditure as at present. that includes additional money for the works progress administration; additional funds for the farm security administration; additional allotments for the national youth administration, and more money for the civilian conservation corps, in order that it can maintain the existing number of camps now in operation. these appropriations, made necessary by increased unemployment, will cost about a billion and a quarter dollars more than the estimates which i sent to the congress on the third of january . second, i told the congress that the administration proposes to make additional bank reserves available for the credit needs of the country. about one billion four hundred million dollars of gold now in the treasury will be used to pay these additional expenses of the government, and three-quarters of a billion dollars of additional credit will be made available to the banks by reducing the reserves now required by the federal reserve board. these two steps--taking care of relief needs and adding to bank credits--are in our best judgment insufficient by themselves to start the nation on a sustained upward movement. therefore, i came to the third kind of government action which i consider to be vital. i said to the congress: "you and i cannot afford to equip ourselves with two rounds of ammunition where three rounds are necessary. if we stop at relief and credit, we may find ourselves without ammunition before the enemy is routed. if we are fully equipped with the third round of ammunition, we stand to win the battle against adversity." this third proposal is to make definite additions to the purchasing power of the nation by providing new work over and above the continuing of the old work. first, to enable the united states housing authority to undertake the immediate construction of about three hundred million dollars of additional slum clearance projects. second, to renew a public works program by starting as quickly as possible about one billion dollars worth of needed permanent public improvements in our states, and their counties and cities. third, to add one hundred million dollars to the estimate for federal aid highways in excess of the amount i recommended in january. fourth, to add thirty-seven million dollars over and above the former estimate of sixty-three million for flood control and reclamation. fifth, to add twenty-five million dollars additional for federal buildings in various parts of the country. in recommending this program i am thinking not only of the immediate economic needs of the people of the nation, but also of their personal liberties--the most precious possession of all americans. i am thinking of our democracy and of the recent trend in other parts of the world away from the democratic ideal. democracy has disappeared in several other great nations-- disappeared not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership in government. finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. we in america know that our own democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. but in order to preserve them we need to act together, to meet the problems of the nation boldly, and to prove that the practical operation of democratic government is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people. not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men. the people of america are in agreement in defending their liberties at any cost, and the first line of that defense lies in the protection of economic security. your government, seeking to protect democracy, must prove that government is stronger than the forces of business depression. history proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments but out of weak and helpless governments. if by democratic methods people get a government strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeeds, but if they do not, they grow impatient. therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government. we are a rich nation; we can afford to pay for security and prosperity without having to sacrifice our liberties into the bargain. in the first century of our republic we were short of capital, short of workers and short of industrial production; but we were rich in free land, free timber and free mineral wealth. the federal government rightly assumed the duty of promoting business and relieving depression by giving subsidies of land and other resources. thus, from our earliest days we have had a tradition of substantial government help to our system of private enterprise. but today the government no longer has vast tracts of rich land to give away and we have discovered, too, that we must spend large sums of money to conserve our land from further erosion and our forests from further depletion. the situation is also very different from the old days, because now we have plenty of capital, banks and insurance companies loaded with idle money; plenty of industrial productive capacity and many millions of workers looking for jobs. it is following tradition as well as necessity, if government strives to put idle money and idle men to work, to increase our public wealth and to build up the health and strength of the people--and to help our system of private enterprise to function. it is going to cost something to get out of this recession this way but the profit of getting out of it will pay for the cost several times over. lost working time is lost money. every day that a workman is unemployed, or a machine is unused, or a business organization is marking time, it is a loss to the nation. because of idle men and idle machines this nation lost one hundred billion dollars between and the spring of , in less than four years. this year you, the people of this country, are making about twelve billion dollars less than last year. if you think back to the experiences of the early years of this administration you will remember the doubts and fears expressed about the rising expenses of government. but to the surprise of the doubters, as we proceeded to carry on the program which included public works and work relief, the country grew richer instead of poorer. it is worthwhile to remember that the annual national people's income was thirty billion dollars more last year in than it was in . it is true that the national debt increased sixteen billion dollars, but remember that in that increase must be included several billion dollars worth of assets which eventually will reduce that debt and that many billion dollars of permanent public improvements--schools, roads, bridges, tunnels, public buildings, parks and a host of other things--meet your eye in every one of the thirty-one hundred counties in the united states. no doubt you will be told that the government spending program of the past five years did not cause the increase in our national income. they will tell you that business revived because of private spending and investment. that is true in part, for the government spent only a small part of the total. but that government spending acted as a trigger to set off private activity. that is why the total addition to our national production and national income has been so much greater than the contribution of the government itself. in pursuance of that thought i said to the congress today: "i want to make it clear that we do not believe that we can get an adequate rise in national income merely by investing, and lending or spending public funds. it is essential in our economy that private funds must be put to work and all of us recognize that such funds are entitled to a fair profit." as national income rises, "let us not forget that government expenditures will go down and government tax receipts will go up." the government contribution of land that we once made to business was the land of all the people. and the government contribution of money which we now make to business ultimately comes out of the labor of all the people. it is, therefore, only sound morality, as well as a sound distribution of buying power, that the benefits of the prosperity coming from this use of the money of all the people ought to be distributed among all the people--at the bottom as well as at the top. consequently, i am again expressing my hope that the congress will enact at this session a wage and hour bill putting a floor under industrial wages and a limit on working hours--to ensure a better distribution of our prosperity, a better distribution of available work, and a sounder distribution of buying power. you may get all kinds of impressions in regard to the total cost of this new program, or in regard to the amount that will be added to the net national debt. it is a big program. last autumn in a sincere effort to bring government expenditures and government income into closer balance, the budget i worked out called for sharp decreases in government spending. in the light of present conditions those estimates were far too low. this new program adds two billion and sixty-two million dollars to direct treasury expenditures and another nine hundred and fifty million dollars to government loans--the latter sum, because they are loans, will come back to the treasury in the future. the net effect on the debt of the government is this--between now and july , --fifteen months away--the treasury will have to raise less than a billion and a half dollars of new money. such an addition to the net debt of the united states need not give concern to any citizen, for it will return to the people of the united states many times over in increased buying power and eventually in much greater government tax receipts because of the increase in the citizen income. what i said to the congress in the close of my message i repeat to you. "let us unanimously recognize the fact that the federal debt, whether it be twenty-five billions or forty billions, can only be paid if the nation obtains a vastly increased citizen income. i repeat that if this citizen income can be raised to eighty billion dollars a year the national government and the overwhelming majority of state and local governments will be definitely 'out of the red.' the higher the national income goes the faster will we be able to reduce the total of federal and state and local debts. viewed from every angle, today's purchasing power--the citizens' income of today--is not at this time sufficient to drive the economic system of america at higher speed. responsibility of government requires us at this time to supplement the normal processes and in so supplementing them to make sure that the addition is adequate. we must start again on a long steady upward incline in national income. ". . . and in that process, which i believe is ready to start, let us avoid the pitfalls of the past--the overproduction, the overspeculation, and indeed all the extremes which we did not succeed in avoiding in . in all of this, government cannot and should not act alone. business must help. and i am sure business will help. "we need more than the materials of recovery. we need a united national will. "we need to recognize nationally that the demands of no group, however just, can be satisfied unless that group is prepared to share in finding a way to produce the income from which they and all other groups can be paid. . . . you, as the congress, i, as the president, must by virtue of our offices, seek the national good by preserving the balance between all groups and all sections. "we have at our disposal the national resources, the money, the skill of hand and head to raise our economic level--our citizens' income. our capacity is limited only by our ability to work together. what is needed is the will. "the time has come to bring that will into action with every driving force at our command. and i am determined to do my share. ". . . certain positive requirements seem to me to accompany the will--if we have that will. "there is placed on all of us the duty of self-restraint. . . . that is the discipline of a democracy. every patriotic citizen must say to himself or herself, that immoderate statement, appeals to prejudice, the creation of unkindness, are offenses not against an individual or individuals, but offenses against the whole population of the united states. . . . "self-restraint implies restraint by articulate public opinion, trained to distinguish fact from falsehood, trained to believe that bitterness is never a useful instrument in public affairs. there can be no dictatorship by an individual or by a group in this nation, save through division fostered by hate. such division there must never be." and finally i should like to say a personal word to you. i never forget that i live in a house owned by all the american people and that i have been given their trust. i try always to remember that their deepest problems are human. i constantly talk with those who come to tell me their own points of view; with those who manage the great industries and financial institutions of the country; with those who represent the farmer and the worker; and often with average citizens without high position who come to this house. and constantly i seek to look beyond the doors of the white house, beyond the officialdom of the national capital, into the hopes and fears of men and women in their homes. i have travelled the country over many times. my friends, my enemies, my daily mail bring to me reports of what you are thinking and hoping. i want to be sure that neither battles nor burdens of office shall ever blind me to an intimate knowledge of the way the american people want to live and the simple purposes for which they put me here. in these great problems of government i try not to forget that what really counts at the bottom of it all is that the men and women willing to work can have a decent job to take care of themselves and their homes and their children adequately; that the farmer, the factory worker, the storekeeper, the gas station man, the manufacturer, the merchant--big and small--the banker who takes pride in the help that he can give to the building of his community--that all of these can be sure of a reasonable profit and safety for the savings they earn--not today nor tomorrow alone, but as far ahead as they can see. i can hear your unspoken wonder as to where we are headed in this troubled world. i cannot expect all of the people to understand all of the people's problems; but it is my job to try to those problems. i always try to remember that reconciling differences cannot satisfy everyone completely. because i do not expect too much, i am not disappointed. but i know that i must never give up--that i must never let the greater interest of all the people down, merely because that might be for the moment the easiest personal way out. i believe that we have been right in the course we have charted. to abandon our purpose of building a greater, a more stable and a more tolerant america would be to miss the tide and perhaps to miss the port. i propose to sail ahead. i feel sure that your hopes and your help are with me. for to reach a port, we must sail--sail, not lie at anchor, sail, not drift. june , . our government, happily, is a democracy. as part of the democratic process, your president is again taking an opportunity to report on the progress of national affairs, to report to the real rulers of this country--the voting public. the seventy-fifth congress, elected in november, , on a platform uncompromisingly liberal, has adjourned. barring unforeseen events, there will be no session until the new congress, to be elected in november, assembles next january. on the one hand, the seventy-fifth congress has left many things undone. for example, it refused to provide more businesslike machinery for running the executive branch of the government. the congress also failed to meet my suggestion that it take the far-reaching steps necessary to put the railroads of the country back on their feet. but, on the other hand, the congress, striving to carry out the platform on which most of its members were elected, achieved more for the future good of the country than any congress did between the end of the world war and the spring of . i mention tonight only the more important of these achievements. ( ) it improved still further our agricultural laws to give the farmer a fairer share of the national income, to preserve our soil, to provide an all-weather granary, to help the farm tenant towards independence, to find new uses for farm products, and to begin crop insurance. ( ) after many requests on my part the congress passed a fair labor standards act, commonly called the wages and hours bill. that act-- applying to products in interstate commerce--ends child labor, sets a floor below wages and a ceiling over hours of labor. except perhaps for the social security act, it is the most far- reaching, the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted here or in any other country. without question it starts us toward a better standard of living and increases purchasing power to buy the products of farm and factory. do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $ , a day, who has been turning his employees over to the government relief rolls in order to preserve his company's undistributed reserves, tell you--using his stockholders' money to pay the postage for his personal opinions--that a wage of $ a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all american industry. fortunately for business as a whole, and therefore for the nation, that type of executive is a rarity with whom most business executives most heartily disagree. ( ) the congress has provided a fact-finding commission to find a path through the jungle of contradictory theories about the wise business practices--to find the necessary facts for any intelligent legislation on monopoly, on price-fixing and on the relationship between big business and medium-sized business and little business. different from a great part of the world, we in america persist in our belief in individual enterprise and in the profit motive; but we realize we must continually seek improved practices to insure the continuance of reasonable profits, together with scientific progress, individual initiative, opportunities for the little fellow, fair prices, decent wages and continuing employment. ( ) the congress has coordinated the supervision of commercial aviation and air mail by establishing a new civil aeronautics authority; and it has placed all postmasters under the civil service for the first time in our national history. ( ) the congress set up the united states housing authority to help finance large-scale slum clearance and provide low rent housing for the low income groups in our cities. and by improving the federal housing act, the congress made it easier for private capital to build modest homes and low rental dwellings. ( ) the congress has properly reduced taxes on small corporate enterprises, and has made it easier for the reconstruction finance corporation to make credit available to all business. i think the bankers of the country can fairly be expected to participate in loans where the government, through the reconstruction finance corporation, offers to take a fair portion of the risk. ( ) the congress has provided additional funds for the works progress administration, the public works administration, the rural electrification administration, the civilian conservation corps and other agencies, in order to take care of what we hope is a temporary additional number of unemployed at this time and to encourage production of every kind by private enterprise. all these things together i call our program for the national defense of our economic system. it is a program of balanced action--of moving on all fronts at once in intelligent recognition that all of our economic problems, of every group, and of every section of the country are essentially one problem. ( ) finally, because of increasing armaments in other nations and an international situation which is definitely disturbing to all of us, the congress has authorized important additions to the national armed defense of our shores and our people. on another important subject the net result of a struggle in the congress has been an important victory for the people of the united states--what might well be called a lost battle which won a war. you will remember that on february , , i sent a message to the congress dealing with the real need of federal court reforms of several kinds. in one way or another, during the sessions of this congress, the ends--the real objectives--sought in that message, have been substantially attained. the attitude of the supreme court towards constitutional questions is entirely changed. its recent decisions are eloquent testimony of a willingness to collaborate with the two other branches of government to make democracy work. the government has been granted the right to protect its interests in litigation between private parties involving the constitutionality of federal, and to appeal directly to the supreme court in all cases involving the constitutionality of federal statutes; and no single judge is any longer empowered to suspend a federal statute on his sole judgment as to its constitutionality. justices of the supreme court may now retire at the age of seventy after ten years of service; a substantial number of additional judgeships have been created in order to expedite the trial of cases; and finally greater flexibility has been added to the federal judicial system by allowing judges to be assigned to congested districts. another indirect accomplishment of this congress has been its response to the devotion of the american people to a course of sane and consistent liberalism. the congress has understood that under modern conditions government has a continuing responsibility to meet continuing problems, and that government cannot take a holiday of a year, or a month, or even a day just because a few people are tired or frightened by the inescapable pace, fast pace, of this modern world in which we live. some of my opponents and some of my associates have considered that i have a mistakenly sentimental judgment as to the tenacity of purpose and the general level of intelligence of the american people. i am still convinced that the american people, since , continue to insist on two requisites of private enterprise, and the relationship of government to it. the first is a complete honesty at the top in looking after the use of other people's money, and in apportioning and paying individual and corporate taxes according to ability to pay. the second is sincere respect for the need of all people who are at the bottom, all people at the bottom who need to get work--and through work to get a really fair share of the good things of life, and a chance to save and rise. after the election of i was told, and the congress was told, by an increasing number of politically--and worldly--wise people that i should coast along, enjoy an easy presidency for four years, and not take the democratic platform too seriously. they told me that people were getting weary of reform through political effort and would no longer oppose that small minority which, in spite of its own disastrous leadership in , is always eager to resume its control over the government of the united states. never in our lifetime has such a concerted campaign of defeatism been thrown at the heads of the president and the senators and congressmen as in the case of this seventy-fifth congress. never before have we had so many copperheads--and you will remember that it was the copperheads who, in the days of the war between the states, tried their best to make president lincoln and his congress give up the fight, let the nation remain split in two and return to peace--peace at any price. this congress has ended on the side of the people. my faith in the american people--and their faith in themselves--have been justified. i congratulate the congress and the leadership thereof and i congratulate the american people on their own staying power. one word about our economic situation. it makes no difference to me whether you call it a recession or a depression. in the total national income of all the people in the country had reached the low point of thirty-eight billion dollars in that year. with each succeeding year it rose. last year, , it had risen to seventy billion dollars--despite definitely worse business and agricultural prices in the last four months of last year. this year, , while it is too early to do more than give an estimate, we hope that the national income will not fall below sixty billion dollars. we remember also that banking and business and farming are not falling apart like the one-hoss shay, as they did in the terrible winter of - . last year mistakes were made by the leaders of private enterprise, by the leaders of labor and by the leaders of government--all three. last year the leaders of private enterprise pleaded for a sudden curtailment of public spending, and said they would take up the slack. but they made the mistake of increasing their inventories too fast and setting many of their prices too high for their goods to sell. some labor leaders goaded by decades of oppression of labor made the mistake of going too far. they were not wise in using methods which frightened many well-wishing people. they asked employers not only to bargain with them but to put up with jurisdictional disputes at the same time. government too made mistakes--mistakes of optimism in assuming that industry and labor would themselves make no mistakes--and government made a mistake of timing in not passing a farm bill or a wage and hour bill last year. as a result of the lessons of all these mistakes we hope that in the future private enterprise--capital and labor alike--will operate more intelligently together, and operate in greater cooperation with their own government than they have in the past. such cooperation on the part of both of them will be very welcome to me. certainly at this stage there should be a united stand on the part of both of them to resist wage cuts which would further reduce purchasing power. today a great steel company announced a reduction in prices with a view to stimulating business recovery, and i was gratified to know that this reduction involved no wage cut. every encouragement ought to be given to industry which accepts the large volume and high wage policy. if this is done, it ought to result in conditions which will replace a great part of the government spending which the failure of cooperation has made necessary this year. from march , down, not a single week has passed without a cry from the opposition, a small opposition, a cry "to do something, to say something, to restore confidence." there is a very articulate group of people in this country, with plenty of ability to procure publicity for their views, who have consistently refused to cooperate with the mass of the people, whether things were going well or going badly, on the ground that they required more concessions to their point of view before they would admit having what they called "confidence." these people demanded "restoration of confidence" when the banks were closed--and demanded it again when the banks were reopened. they demanded "restoration of confidence" when hungry people were thronging the streets--and again when the hungry people were fed and put to work. they demanded "restoration of confidence" when droughts hit the country--and again now when our fields are laden with bounteous yields and excessive crops. they demanded "restoration of confidence" last year when the automobile industry was running three shifts and turning out more cars than the country could buy--and again this year when the industry is trying to get rid of an automobile surplus and has shut down its factories as a result. it is my belief that many of these people who have been crying aloud for "confidence" are beginning today to realize that that hand has been overplayed, and that they are now willing to talk cooperation instead. it is my belief that the mass of the american people do have confidence in themselves--have confidence in their ability, with the aid of government, to solve their own problems. it is because you are not satisfied, and i am not satisfied, with the progress that we have made in finally solving our business and agricultural and social problems that i believe the great majority of you want your own government to keep on trying to solve them. in simple frankness and in simple honesty, i need all the help i can get--and i see signs of getting more help in the future from many who have fought against progress with tooth and nail. and now following out this line of thought, i want to say a few words about the coming political primaries. fifty years ago party nominations were generally made in conventions--a system typified in the public imagination by a little group in a smoke-filled room who made out the party slates. the direct primary was invented to make the nominating process a more democratic one--to give the party voters themselves a chance to pick their party candidates. what i am going to say to you tonight does not relate to the primaries of any particular political party, but to matters of principle in all parties--democratic, republican, farmer-labor, progressive, socialist or any other. let that be clearly understood. it is my hope that everybody affiliated with any party will vote in the primaries, and that every such voter will consider the fundamental principles for which his or her party is on record. that makes for a healthy choice between the candidates of the opposing parties on election day in november. an election cannot give the country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as peas in the same pod. in the coming primaries in all parties, there will be many clashes between two schools of thought, generally classified as liberal and conservative. roughly speaking, the liberal school of thought recognizes that the new conditions throughout the world call for new remedies. those of us in america who hold to this school of thought, insist that these new remedies can be adopted and successfully maintained in this country under our present form of government if we use government as an instrument of cooperation to provide these remedies. we believe that we can solve our problems through continuing effort, through democratic processes instead of fascism or communism. we are opposed to the kind of moratorium on reform which, in effect, is reaction itself. be it clearly understood, however, that when i use the word "liberal," i mean the believer in progressive principles of democratic, representative government and not the wild man who, in effect, leans in the direction of communism, for that is just as dangerous as fascism itself. the opposing or conservative school of thought, as a general proposition, does not recognize the need for government itself to step in and take action to meet these new problems. it believes that individual initiative and private philanthropy will solve them--that we ought to repeal many of the things we have done and go back, for instance, to the old gold standard, or stop all this business of old age pensions and unemployment insurance, or repeal the securities and exchange act, or let monopolies thrive unchecked--return, in effect, to the kind of government that we had in the twenties. assuming the mental capacity of all the candidates, the important question which it seems to me the primary voter must ask is this: "to which of these general schools of thought does the candidate belong?" as president of the united states, i am not asking the voters of the country to vote for democrats next november as opposed to republicans or members of any other party. nor am i, as president, taking part in democratic primaries. as the head of the democratic party, however, charged with the responsibility of carrying out the definitely liberal declaration of principles set forth in the democratic platform, i feel that i have every right to speak in those few instances where there may be a clear-cut issue between candidates for a democratic nomination involving these principles, or involving a clear misuse of my own name. do not misunderstand me. i certainly would not indicate a preference in a state primary merely because a candidate, otherwise liberal in outlook, had conscientiously differed with me on any single issue. i should be far more concerned about the general attitude of a candidate towards present day problems and his own inward desire to get practical needs attended to in a practical way. we all know that progress may be blocked by outspoken reactionaries, and also by those who say "yes" to a progressive objective, but who always find some reason to oppose any special specific proposal to gain that objective. i call that type of candidate a "yes, but" fellow. and i am concerned about the attitude of a candidate or his sponsors with respect to the rights of american citizens to assemble peaceably and to express publicly their views and opinions on important social and economic issues. there can be no constitutional democracy in any community which denies to the individual his freedom to speak and worship as he wishes. the american people will not be deceived by anyone who attempts to suppress individual liberty under the pretense of patriotism. this being a free country with freedom of expression--especially with freedom of the press--there will be a lot of mean blows struck between now and election day. by "blows" i mean misrepresentation, personal attack and appeals to prejudice. it would be a lot better, of course, if campaigns everywhere could be waged with arguments instead of with blows. i hope the liberal candidates will confine themselves to argument and not resort to blows. in nine cases out of ten the speaker or the writer who, seeking to influence public opinion, descends from calm argument to unfair blows hurts himself more than his opponent. the chinese have a story on this--a story based on three or four thousand years of civilization: two chinese coolies were arguing heatedly in the midst of a crowd. a stranger expressed surprise that no blows were being struck. his chinese friend replied: "the man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." i know that neither in the summer primaries nor in the november elections will the american voters fail to spot the candidate whose ideas have given out. september , . my fellow americans and my friends: tonight my single duty is to speak to the whole of america. until four-thirty this morning i had hoped against hope that some miracle would prevent a devastating war in europe and bring to an end the invasion of poland by germany. for four long years a succession of actual wars and constant crises have shaken the entire world and have threatened in each case to bring on the gigantic conflict which is today unhappily a fact. it is right that i should recall to your minds the consistent and at time successful efforts of your government in these crises to throw the full weight of the united states into the cause of peace. in spite of spreading wars i think that we have every right and every reason to maintain as a national policy the fundamental moralities, the teachings of religion and the continuation of efforts to restore peace--for some day, though the time may be distant, we can be of even greater help to a crippled humanity. it is right, too, to point out that the unfortunate events of these recent years have, without question, been based on the use of force and the threat of force. and it seems to me clear, even at the outbreak of this great war, that the influence of america should be consistent in seeking for humanity a final peace which will eliminate, as far as it is possible to do so, the continued use of force between nations. it is, of course, impossible to predict the future. i have my constant stream of information from american representatives and other sources throughout the world. you, the people of this country, are receiving news through your radios and your newspapers at every hour of the day. you are, i believe, the most enlightened and the best informed people in all the world at this moment. you are subjected to no censorship of news, and i want to add that your government has no information which it withholds or which it has any thought of withholding from you. at the same time, as i told my press conference on friday, it is of the highest importance that the press and the radio use the utmost caution to discriminate between actual verified fact on the one hand, and mere rumor on the other. i can add to that by saying that i hope the people of this country will also discriminate most carefully between news and rumor. do not believe of necessity everything you hear or read. check up on it first. you must master at the outset a simple but unalterable fact in modern foreign relations between nations. when peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger. it is easy for you and for me to shrug our shoulders and to say that conflicts taking place thousands of miles from the continental united states, and, indeed, thousands of miles from the whole american hemisphere, do not seriously affect the americas--and that all the united states has to do is to ignore them and go about its own business. passionately though we may desire detachment, we are forced to realize that every word that comes through the air, every ship that sails the sea, every battle that is fought does affect the american future. let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of america sending its armies to european fields. at this moment there is being prepared a proclamation of american neutrality. this would have been done even if there had been no neutrality statute on the books, for this proclamation is in accordance with international law and in accordance with american policy. this will be followed by a proclamation required by the existing neutrality act. and i trust that in the days to come our neutrality can be made a true neutrality. it is of the utmost importance that the people of this country, with the best information in the world, think things through. the most dangerous enemies of american peace are those who, without well-rounded information on the whole broad subject of the past, the present and the future, undertake to speak with assumed authority, to talk in terms of glittering generalities, to give to the nation assurances or prophecies which are of little present or future value. i myself cannot and do not prophesy the course of events abroad-- and the reason is that because i have of necessity such a complete picture of what is going on in every part of the world, that i do not dare to do so. and the other reason is that i think it is honest for me to be honest with the people of the united states. i cannot prophesy the immediate economic effect of this new war on our nation, but i do say that no american has the moral right to profiteer at the expense either of his fellow citizens or of the men, the women and the children who are living and dying in the midst of war in europe. some things we do know. most of us in the united states believe in spiritual values. most of us, regardless of what church we belong to, believe in the spirit of the new testament--a great teaching which opposes itself to the use of force, of armed force, of marching armies and falling bombs. the overwhelming masses of our people seek peace--peace at home, and the kind of peace in other lands which will not jeopardize our peace at home. we have certain ideas and certain ideals of national safety and we must act to preserve that safety today and to preserve the safety of our children in future years. that safety is and will be bound up with the safety of the western hemisphere and of the seas adjacent thereto. we seek to keep war from our own firesides by keeping war from coming to the americas. for that we have historic precedent that goes back to the days of the administration of president george washington. it is serious enough and tragic enough to every american family in every state in the union to live in a world that is torn by wars on other continents. those wars today affect every american home. it is our national duty to use every effort to keep them out of the americas. and at this time let me make the simple plea that partisanship and selfishness be adjourned; and that national unity be the thought that underlies all others. this nation will remain a neutral nation, but i cannot ask that every american remain neutral in thought as well. even a neutral has a right to take account of facts. even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or his conscience. i have said not once but many times that i have seen war and that i hate war. i say that again and again. i hope the united states will keep out of this war. i believe that it will. and i give you assurance and reassurance that every effort of your government will be directed toward that end. as long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no blackout of peace in the united states. may , . my friends: at this moment of sadness throughout most of the world, i want to talk with you about a number of subjects that directly affect the future of the united states. we are shocked by the almost incredible eyewitness stories that come to us, stories of what is happening at this moment to the civilian populations of norway and holland and belgium and luxembourg and france. i think it is right on this sabbath evening that i should say a word in behalf of women and children and old men who need help-- immediate help in their present distress--help from us across the seas, help from us who are still free to give it. tonight over the once peaceful roads of belgium and france millions are now moving, running from their homes to escape bombs and shells and fire and machine gunning, without shelter, and almost wholly without food. they stumble on, knowing not where the end of the road will be. i speak to you of these people because each one of you that is listening to me tonight has a way of helping them. the american red cross, that represents each of us, is rushing food and clothing and medical supplies to these destitute civilian millions. please--i beg you--please give according to your means to your nearest red cross chapter, give as generously as you can. i ask this in the name of our common humanity. let us sit down together again, you and i, to consider our own pressing problems that confront us. there are many among us who in the past closed their eyes to events abroad--because they believed in utter good faith what some of their fellow americans told them--that what was taking place in europe was none of our business; that no matter what happened over there, the united states could always pursue its peaceful and unique course in the world. there are many among us who closed their eyes, from lack of interest or lack of knowledge; honestly and sincerely thinking that the many hundreds of miles of salt water made the american hemisphere so remote that the people of north and central and south america could go on living in the midst of their vast resources without reference to, or danger from, other continents of the world. there are some among us who were persuaded by minority groups that we could maintain our physical safety by retiring within our continental boundaries--the atlantic on the east, the pacific on the west, canada on the north and mexico on the south. i illustrated the futility--the impossibility--of that idea in my message to the congress last week. obviously, a defense policy based on that is merely to invite future attack. and, finally, there are a few among us who have deliberately and consciously closed their eyes because they were determined to be opposed to their government, its foreign policy and every other policy, to be partisan, and to believe that anything that the government did was wholly wrong. to those who have closed their eyes for any of these many reasons, to those who would not admit the possibility of the approaching storm--to all of them the past two weeks have meant the shattering of many illusions. they have lost the illusion that we are remote and isolated and, therefore, secure against the dangers from which no other land is free. in some quarters, with this rude awakening has come fear, fear bordering on panic. it is said that we are defenseless. it is whispered by some that, only by abandoning our freedom, our ideals, our way of life, can we build our defenses adequately, can we match the strength of the aggressors. i did not share those illusions. i do not share these fears. today we are now more realistic. but let us not be calamity-howlers and discount our strength. let us have done with both fears and illusions. on this sabbath evening, in our homes in the midst of our american families, let us calmly consider what we have done and what we must do. in the past two or three weeks all kinds of stories have been handed out to the american public about our lack of preparedness. it has even been charged that the money we have spent on our military and naval forces during the last few years has gone down the rat-hole. i think that it is a matter of fairness to the nation that you hear the facts. yes, we have spent large sums of money on the national defense. this money has been used to make our army and navy today the largest, the best equipped, and the best trained peace-time military establishment in the whole history of this country. let me tell you just a few of the many things accomplished during the past few years. i do not propose to go into every detail. it is a known fact, however, that in , when this administration came into office, the united states navy had fallen in standing among the navies of the world, in power of ships and in efficiency, to a relatively low ebb. the relative fighting power on the navy had been greatly diminished by failure to replace ships and equipment, which had become out-of-date. but between and this year, --seven fiscal years--your government will have spent one billion, four hundred eighty-seven million dollars more than it spent on the navy during the seven years that preceded . what did we get for this money? the fighting personnel of the navy rose from , to , . during this period ships for the fighting fleet have been laid down or commissioned, practically seven times the number in the preceding seven-year period. of these ships we have commissioned: cruisers; destroyers; submarines; aircraft carriers; gunboats; auxiliaries and many smaller craft. and among the many ships now being built and paid for as we build them are new battleships. ship construction, of course, costs millions of dollars--more in the united states than anywhere else in the world; but it is a fact that we cannot have adequate navy defense for all american waters without ships--ships that sail the surface of the ocean, ships that move under the surface and ships that move through the air. and, speaking of airplanes that work with the navy, in we had , useful aircraft and today we have , on hand and on order. nearly all of the old planes of have been replaced by new planes because they became obsolete or worn out. the navy is far stronger today than at any peace-time period in the whole long history of the nation. in hitting power and in efficiency, i would even make the assertion that it is stronger today than it was during the world war. the army of the united states: in it consisted of , enlisted men. now, in , that number has been practically doubled. the army of had been given few new implements of war since , and had been compelled to draw on old reserve stocks left over from the world war. the net result of all this was that our army by l had very greatly declined in its ratio of strength with the armies of europe and of the far east. that was the situation i found. but, since then, great changes have taken place. between and --these past seven fiscal years--your government will have spent $ , , , more than it spent on the army the previous seven years. what did we get for this money? the personnel of the army, as i have said, has been almost doubled. and by the end of this year every existing unit of the present regular army will be equipped with its complete requirements of modern weapons. existing units of the national guard will also be largely equipped with similar items. here are some striking examples taken from a large number: since we have actually purchased , airplanes, including the most modern type of long-range bombers and fast pursuit planes, though, of course, many of these which were delivered four, five, six or seven years ago have worn out through use and been scrapped. we must remember that these planes cost money--a lot of it. for example, one modern four-engine long-range bombing plane costs $ , ; one modern interceptor pursuit plane costs $ , ; one medium bomber costs $ , . in we had only anti-aircraft guns. we now have more than , modern anti-craft guns of all types on hand or on order. and you ought to know that a three-inch anti-aircraft gun costs $ , without any of the fire control equipment that goes with it. in there were only modern infantry mortars in the entire army. we now have on hand and on order more than , . in we had only modern tanks and armored cars; today we have on hand and on order , . each one of our heavier tanks costs $ , . there are many other items in which our progress since has been rapid. and the great proportion of this advance consists of really modern equipment. in , on the personnel side we had , army pilots. today the army alone has more than , of the best fighting flyers in the world, flyers who last year flew more than one million hours in combat training. that figure does not include the hundreds of splendid pilots in the national guard and in the organized reserves. within the past year the productive capacity of the aviation industry to produce military planes has been tremendously increased. in the past year the capacity more than doubled, but that capacity is still inadequate. however, the government, working with industry, is determined to increase that capacity to meet our needs. we intend to harness the efficient machinery of these manufacturers to the government's program of being able to get , planes a year. one additional word about aircraft, about which we read so much. recent wars, including the current war in europe, have demonstrated beyond doubt that fighting efficiency depends on unity of command, unity of control. in sea operations the airplane is just as much an integral part of the unity of operations as are the submarine, the destroyer and the battleship, and in land warfare the airplane is just as much a part of military operations as are the tank corps, the engineers, the artillery or the infantry itself. therefore, the air forces should continue to be part of the army and navy. in line with my request the congress, this week, is voting the largest appropriation ever asked by the army or the navy in peacetime, and the equipment and training provided for them will be in addition to the figures i have given you. the world situation may so change that it will be necessary to reappraise our program at any time. and in such case i am confident that the congress and the chief executive will work in harmony as a team as they are doing today. i will not hesitate at any moment to ask for additional funds when they are required. in this era of swift, mechanized warfare, we all have to remember that what is modern today and up-to-date, what is efficient and practical, becomes obsolete and outworn tomorrow. even while the production line turns out airplanes, new airplanes are being designed on the drafting table. even as a cruiser slides down the launching ways, plans for improvement, plans for increased efficiency in the next model, are taking shape in the blueprints of designers. every day's fighting in europe, on land, on sea, and in the air, discloses constant changes in methods of warfare. we are constantly improving and redesigning, testing new weapons, learning the lessons of the immediate war, and seeking to produce in accordance with the latest that the brains of science can conceive. we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the american manufacturers of war material of all kinds-- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. the government of the united states itself manufactures few of the implements of war. private industry will continue to be the source of most of this materiel, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times. i know that private business cannot be expected to make all of the capital investment required for expansions of plants and factories and personnel which this program calls for at once. it would be unfair to expect industrial corporations or their investors to do this, when there is a chance that a change in international affairs may stop or curtail future orders a year or two hence. therefore, the government of the united states stands ready to advance the necessary money to help provide for the enlargement of factories, the establishment of new plants, the employment of thousands of necessary workers, the development of new sources of supply for the hundreds of raw materials required, the development of quick mass transportation of supplies. and the details of all of this are now being worked out in washington, day and night. we are calling on men now engaged in private industry to help us in carrying out this program and you will hear more of this in detail in the next few days. this does not mean that the men we call upon will be engaged in the actual production of this materiel. that will still have to be carried on in the plants and factories throughout the land. private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable. the functions of the businessmen whose assistance we are calling upon will be to coordinate this program--to see to it that all of the plants continue to operate at maximum speed and efficiency. patriotic americans of proven merit and of unquestioned ability in their special fields are coming to washington to help the government with their training, their experience and their capability. it is our purpose not only to speed up production but to increase the total facilities of the nation in such a way that they can be further enlarged to meet emergencies of the future. but as this program proceeds there are several things we must continue to watch and safeguard, things which are just as important to the sound defense of a nation as physical armament itself. while our navy and our airplanes and our guns and our ships may be our first line of defense, it is still clear that way down at the bottom, underlying them all, giving them their strength, sustenance and power, are the spirit and morale of a free people. for that reason, we must make sure, in all that we do, that there be no breakdown or cancellation of any of the great social gains which we have made in these past years. we have carried on an offensive on a broad front against social and economic inequalities and abuses which had made our society weak. that offensive should not now be broken down by the pincers movement of those who would use the present needs of physical military defense to destroy it. there is nothing in our present emergency to justify making the workers of our nation toil for longer hours than now limited by statute. as more orders come in and as more work has to be done, tens of thousands of people, who are now unemployed, will, i believe, receive employment. there is nothing in our present emergency to justify a lowering of the standards of employment. minimum wages should not be reduced. it is my hope, indeed, that the new speed-up of production will cause many businesses which now pay below the minimum standards to bring their wages up. there is nothing in our present emergency to justify a breaking down of old age pensions or of unemployment insurance. i would rather see the systems extended to other groups who do not now enjoy them. there is nothing in our present emergency to justify a retreat from any of our social objectives--from conservation of natural resources, assistance to agriculture, housing, and help to the underprivileged. conversely, however, i am sure that responsible leaders will not permit some specialized group, which represents a minority of the total employees of a plant or an industry, to break up the continuity of employment of the majority of the employees. let us remember that the policy and the laws that provide for collective bargaining are still in force. i can assure you that labor will be adequately represented in washington in the carrying out of this program of defense. also, our present emergency and a common sense of decency make it imperative that no new group of war millionaires shall come into being in this nation as a result of the struggles abroad. the american people will not relish the idea of any american citizen growing rich and fat in an emergency of blood and slaughter and human suffering. and, last of all, this emergency demands that the consumers of america be protected so that our general cost of living can be maintained at a reasonable level. we ought to avoid the spiral processes of the world war, the rising spiral of costs of all kinds. the soundest policy is for every employer in the country to help give useful employment to the millions who are unemployed. by giving to those millions an increased purchasing power, the prosperity of the whole nation will rise to a much higher level. today's threat to our national security is not a matter of military weapons alone. we know of new methods of attack. the trojan horse. the fifth column that betrays a nation unprepared for treachery. spies, saboteurs and traitors are the actors in this new strategy. with all of these we must and will deal vigorously. but there is an added technique for weakening a nation at its very roots, for disrupting the entire pattern of life of a people. and it is important that we understand it. the method is simple. it is, first, a dissemination of discord. a group--not too large--a group that may be sectional or racial or political--is encouraged to exploit its prejudices through false slogans and emotional appeals. the aim of those who deliberately egg on these groups is to create confusion of counsel, public indecision, political paralysis and eventually, a state of panic. sound national policies come to be viewed with a new and unreasoning skepticism, not through the wholesome political debates of honest and free men, but through the clever schemes of foreign agents. as a result of these new techniques, armament programs may be dangerously delayed. singleness of national purpose may be undermined. men can lose confidence in each other, and therefore lose confidence in the efficacy of their own united action. faith and courage can yield to doubt and fear. the unity of the state can be so sapped that its strength is destroyed. all this is no idle dream. it has happened time after time, in nation after nation, during the last two years. fortunately, american men and women are not easy dupes. campaigns of group hatred or class struggle have never made much headway among us, and are not making headway now. but new forces are being unleashed, deliberately planned propaganda to divide and weaken us in the face of danger as other nations have been weakened before. these dividing forces are undiluted poison. they must not be allowed to spread in the new world as they have in the old. our morale and our mental defenses must be raised up as never before against those who would cast a smokescreen across our vision. the development of our defense program makes it essential that each and every one of us, men and women, feel that we have some contribution to make toward the security of our nation. at this time, when the world--and the world includes our own american hemisphere--when the world is threatened by forces of destruction, it is my resolve and yours to build up our armed defenses. we shall build them to whatever heights the future may require. we shall rebuild them swiftly, as the methods of warfare swiftly change. for more than three centuries we americans have been building on this continent a free society, a society in which the promise of the human spirit may find fulfillment. commingled here are the blood and genius of all the peoples of the world who have sought this promise. we have built well. we are continuing our efforts to bring the blessings of a free society, of a free and productive economic system, to every family in the land. this is the promise of america. it is this that we must continue to build--this that we must continue to defend. it is the task of our generation, yours and mine. but we build and defend not for our generation alone. we defend the foundations laid down by our fathers. we build a life for generations yet unborn. we defend and we build a way of life, not for america alone, but for all mankind. ours is a high duty, a noble task. day and night i pray for the restoration of peace in this mad world of ours. it is not necessary that i, the president, ask the american people to pray in behalf of such a cause--for i know you are praying with me. i am certain that out of the hearts of every man, woman and child in this land, in every waking minute, a supplication goes up to almighty god; that all of us beg that suffering and starving, that death and destruction may end--and that peace may return to the world. in common affection for all mankind, your prayers join with mine--that god will heal the wounds and the hearts of humanity. september , . my fellow americans: the navy department of the united states has reported to me that on the morning of september fourth the united states destroyer greer, proceeding in full daylight towards iceland, had reached a point southeast of greenland. she was carrying american mail to iceland. she was flying the american flag. her identity as an american ship was unmistakable. she was then and there attacked by a submarine. germany admits that it was a german submarine. the submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at the greer, followed later by another torpedo attack. in spite of what hitler's propaganda bureau has invented, and in spite of what any american obstructionist organization may prefer to believe, i tell you the blunt fact that the german submarine fired first upon this american destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her. our destroyer, at the time, was in waters which the government of the united states had declared to be waters of self-defense-- surrounding outposts of american protection in the atlantic. in the north of the atlantic, outposts have been established by us in iceland, in greenland, in labrador and in newfoundland. through these waters there pass many ships of many flags. they bear food and other supplies to civilians; and they bear material of war, for which the people of the united states are spending billions of dollars, and which, by congressional action, they have declared to be essential for the defense of our own land. the united states destroyer, when attacked, was proceeding on a legitimate mission. if the destroyer was visible to the submarine when the torpedo was fired, then the attack was a deliberate attempt by the nazis to sink a clearly identified american warship. on the other hand, if the submarine was beneath the surface of the sea and, with the aid of its listening devices, fired in the direction of the sound of the american destroyer without even taking the trouble to learn its identity--as the official german communique would indicate--then the attack was even more outrageous. for it indicates a policy of indiscriminate violence against any vessel sailing the seas-- belligerent or non-belligerent. this was piracy--piracy legally and morally. it was not the first nor the last act of piracy which the nazi government has committed against the american flag in this war. for attack has followed attack. a few months ago an american flag merchant ship, the robin moor, was sunk by a nazi submarine in the middle of the south atlantic, under circumstances violating long-established international law and violating every principle of humanity. the passengers and the crew were forced into open boats hundreds of miles from land, in direct violation of international agreements signed by nearly all nations including the government of germany. no apology, no allegation of mistake, no offer of reparations has come from the nazi government. in july, , nearly two months ago an american battleship in north american waters was followed by a submarine which for a long time sought to maneuver itself into a position of attack upon the battleship. the periscope of the submarine was clearly seen. no british or american submarines were within hundreds of miles of this spot at the time, so the nationality of the submarine is clear. five days ago a united states navy ship on patrol picked up three survivors of an american-owned ship operating under the flag of our sister republic of panama--the s. s. sessa. on august seventeenth, she had been first torpedoed without warning, and then shelled, near greenland, while carrying civilian supplies to iceland. it is feared that the other members of her crew have been drowned. in view of the established presence of german submarines in this vicinity, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the flag of the attacker. five days ago, another united states merchant ship, the steel seafarer, was sunk by a german aircraft in the red sea two hundred and twenty miles south of suez. she was bound for an egyptian port. so four of the vessels sunk or attacked flew the american flag and were clearly identifiable. two of these ships were warships of the american navy. in the fifth case, the vessel sunk clearly carried the flag of our sister republic of panama. in the face of all this, we americans are keeping our feet on the ground. our type of democratic civilization has outgrown the thought of feeling compelled to fight some other nation by reason of any single piratical attack on one of our ships. we are not becoming hysterical or losing our sense of proportion. therefore, what i am thinking and saying tonight does not relate to any isolated episode. instead, we americans are taking a long-range point of view in regard certain fundamentals and to a series of events on land and on sea which must be considered as a whole--as a part of a world pattern. it would be unworthy of a great nation to exaggerate an isolated incident, or to become inflamed by some one act of violence. but it would be inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents in the face of evidence which makes it clear that the incident is not isolated, but is part of a general plan. the important truth is that these acts of international lawlessness are a manifestation of a design which has been made clear to the american people for a long time. it is the nazi design to abolish the freedom of the seas, and to acquire absolute control and domination of these seas for themselves. for with control of the seas in their own hands, the way can obviously become clear for their next step--domination of the united states--domination of the western hemisphere by force of arms. under nazi control of the seas, no merchant ship of the united states or of any other american republic would be free to carry on any peaceful commerce, except by the condescending grace of this foreign and tyrannical power. the atlantic ocean which has been, and which should always be, a free and friendly highway for us would then become a deadly menace to the commerce of the united states, to the coasts of the united states, and even to the inland cities of the united states. the hitler government, in defiance of the laws of the sea, in defiance of the recognized rights of all other nations, has presumed to declare, on paper, that great areas of the seas--even including a vast expanse lying in the western hemisphere--are to be closed, and that no ships may enter them for any purpose, except at peril of being sunk. actually they are sinking ships at will and without warning in widely separated areas both within and far outside of these far-flung pretended zones. this nazi attempt to seize control of the oceans is but a counterpart of the nazi plots now being carried on throughout the western hemisphere--all designed toward the same end. for hitler's advance guards--not only his avowed agents but also his dupes among us--have sought to make ready for him footholds, and bridgeheads in the new world, to be used as soon as he has gained control of the oceans. his intrigues, his plots, his machinations, his sabotage in this new world are all known to the government of the united states. conspiracy has followed conspiracy. for example, last year a plot to seize the government of uruguay was smashed by the prompt action of that country, which was supported in full by her american neighbors. a like plot was then hatching in argentina, and that government has carefully and wisely blocked it at every point. more recently, an endeavor was made to subvert the government of bolivia. and within the past few weeks the discovery was made of secret air-landing fields in colombia, within easy range of the panama canal. i could multiply instance upon instance. to be ultimately successful in world mastery, hitler knows that he must get control of the seas. he must first destroy the bridge of ships which we are building across the atlantic and over which we shall continue to roll the implements of war to help destroy him, to destroy all his works in the end. he must wipe out our patrol on sea and in the air if he is to do it. he must silence the british navy. i think it must be explained over and over again to people who like to think of the united states navy as an invincible protection, that this can be true only if the british navy survives. and that, my friends, is simple arithmetic. for if the world outside of the americas falls under axis domination, the shipbuilding facilities which the axis powers would then possess in all of europe, in the british isles and in the far east would be much greater than all the shipbuilding facilities and potentialities of all of the americas--not only greater, but two or three times greater--enough to win. even if the united states threw all its resources into such a situation, seeking to double and even redouble the size of our navy, the axis powers, in control of the rest of the world, would have the manpower and the physical resources to outbuild us several times over. it is time for all americans, americans of all the americas to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a nazi-dominated world. generation after generation, america has battled for the general policy of the freedom of the seas. and that policy is a very simple one--but a basic, a fundamental one. it means that no nation has the right to make the broad oceans of the world at great distances from the actual theatre of land war, unsafe for the commerce of others. that has been our policy, proved time and time again, in all of our history. our policy has applied from the earliest days of the republic--and still applies--not merely to the atlantic but to the pacific and to all other oceans as well. unrestricted submarine warfare in constitutes a defiance--an act of aggression--against that historic american policy. it is now clear that hitler has begun his campaign to control the seas by ruthless force and by wiping out every vestige of international law, every vestige of humanity. his intention has been made clear. the american people can have no further illusions about it. no tender whisperings of appeasers that hitler is not interested in the western hemisphere, no soporific lullabies that a wide ocean protects us from him--can long have any effect on the hard-headed, far-sighted and realistic american people. because of these episodes, because of the movements and operations of german warships, and because of the clear, repeated proof that the present government of germany has no respect for treaties or for international law, that it has no decent attitude toward neutral nations or human life--we americans are now face to face not with abstract theories but with cruel, relentless facts. this attack on the greer was no localized military operation in the north atlantic. this was no mere episode in a struggle between two nations. this was one determined step towards creating a permanent world system based on force, on terror and on murder. and i am sure that even now the nazis are waiting to see whether the united states will by silence give them the green light to go ahead on this path of destruction. the nazi danger to our western world has long ceased to be a mere possibility. the danger is here now--not only from a military enemy but from an enemy of all law, all liberty, all morality, all religion. there has now come a time when you and i must see the cold inexorable necessity of saying to these inhuman, unrestrained seekers of world conquest and permanent world domination by the sword: "you seek to throw our children and our children's children into your form of terrorism and slavery. you have now attacked our own safety. you shall go no further." normal practices of diplomacy--note writing--are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens. one peaceful nation after another has met disaster because each refused to look the nazi danger squarely in the eye until it had actually had them by the throat. the united states will not make that fatal mistake. no act of violence, no act of intimidation will keep us from maintaining intact two bulwarks of american defense: first, our line of supply of material to the enemies of hitler; and second, the freedom of our shipping on the high seas. no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, we will keep open the line of legitimate commerce in these defensive water. we have sought no shooting war with hitler. we do not seek it now. but neither do we want peace so much, that we are willing to pay for it by permitting him to attack our naval and merchant ships while they are on legitimate business. i assume that the german leaders are not deeply concerned, tonight or any other time, by what we americans or the american government say or publish about them. we cannot bring about the downfall of nazism by the use of long-range invective. but when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. these nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the atlantic. they are a menace to the free pathways of the high seas. they are a challenge to our own sovereignty. they hammer at our most precious rights when they attack ships of the american flag-- symbols of our independence, our freedom, our very life. it is clear to all americans that the time has come when the americas themselves must now be defended. a continuation of attacks in our own waters or in waters that could be used for further and greater attacks on us, will inevitably weaken our american ability to repel hitlerism. do not let us be hair-splitters. let us not ask ourselves whether the americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack. the time for active defense is now. do not let us split hairs. let us not say: "we will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned". this is the time for prevention of attack. if submarines or raiders attack in distant waters, they can attack equally well within sight of our own shores. their very presence in any waters which america deems vital to its defense constitutes an attack. in the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, american naval vessels and american planes will no longer wait until axis submarines lurking under the water, or axis raiders on the surface of the sea, strike their deadly blow--first. upon our naval and air patrol--now operating in large number over a vast expanse of the atlantic ocean--falls the duty of maintaining the american policy of freedom of the seas--now. that means, very simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships--not only american ships but ships of any flag--engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. they will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders. this situation is not new. the second president of the united states, john adams, ordered the united states navy to clean out european privateers and european ships of war which were infesting the caribbean and south american waters, destroying american commerce. the third president of the united states, thomas jefferson, ordered the united states navy to end the attacks being made upon american and other ships by the corsairs of the nations of north africa. my obligation as president is historic; it is clear. it is inescapable. it is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas that are vital to american defense. the aggression is not ours. ours is solely defense. but let this warning be clear. from now on, if german or italian vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is necessary for american defense, they do so at their own peril. the orders which i have given as commander-in-chief of the united states army and navy are to carry out that policy--at once. the sole responsibility rests upon germany. there will be no shooting unless germany continues to seek it. that is my obvious duty in this crisis. that is the clear right of this sovereign nation. this is the only step possible, if we would keep tight the wall of defense which we are pledged to maintain around this western hemisphere. i have no illusions about the gravity of this step. i have not taken it hurriedly or lightly. it is the result of months and months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. in the protection of your nation and mine it cannot be avoided. the american people have faced other grave crises in their history--with american courage, and with american resolution. they will do no less today. they know the actualities of the attacks upon us. they know the necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. they know that the times call for clear heads and fearless hearts. and with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious of their duty, and conscious of the righteousness of what they do, they will--with divine help and guidance--stand their ground against this latest assault upon their democracy, their sovereignty, and their freedom. december , . my fellow americans: the sudden criminal attacks perpetrated by the japanese in the pacific provide the climax of a decade of international immorality. powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race. their challenge has now been flung at the united states of america. the japanese have treacherously violated the long-standing peace between us. many american soldiers and sailors have been killed by enemy action. american ships have been sunk; american airplanes have been destroyed. the congress and the people of the united states have accepted that challenge. together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom, in common decency, without fear of assault. i have prepared the full record of our past relations with japan, and it will be submitted to the congress. it begins with the visit of commodore perry to japan eighty-eight years ago. it ends with the visit of two japanese emissaries to the secretary of state last sunday, an hour after japanese forces had loosed their bombs and machine guns against our flag, our forces and our citizens. i can say with utmost confidence that no americans, today or a thousand years hence, need feel anything but pride in our patience and in our efforts through all the years toward achieving a peace in the pacific which would be fair and honorable to every nation, large or small. and no honest person, today or a thousand years hence, will be able to suppress a sense of indignation and horror at the treachery committed by the military dictators of japan, under the very shadow of the flag of peace borne by their special envoys in our midst. the course that japan has followed for the past ten years in asia has paralleled the course of hitler and mussolini in europe and in africa. today, it has become far more than a parallel. it is actual collaboration so well calculated that all the continents of the world, and all the oceans, are now considered by the axis strategists as one gigantic battlefield. in , ten years ago, japan invaded manchukuo--without warning. in , italy invaded ethiopia--without warning. in , hitler occupied austria--without warning. in , hitler invaded czechoslovakia--without warning. later in ' , hitler invaded poland--without warning. in , hitler invaded norway, denmark, the netherlands, belgium and luxembourg--without warning. in , italy attacked france and later greece--without warning. and this year, in , the axis powers attacked yugoslavia and greece and they dominated the balkans--without warning. in , also, hitler invaded russia--without warning. and now japan has attacked malaya and thailand--and the united states--without warning. it is all of one pattern. we are now in this war. we are all in it--all the way. every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our american history. we must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories--the changing fortunes of war. so far, the news has been all bad. we have suffered a serious setback in hawaii. our forces in the philippines, which include the brave people of that commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. the reports from guam and wake and midway islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized. the casualty lists of these first few days will undoubtedly be large. i deeply feel the anxiety of all of the families of the men in our armed forces and the relatives of people in cities which have been bombed. i can only give them my solemn promise that they will get news just as quickly as possible. this government will put its trust in the stamina of the american people, and will give the facts to the public just as soon as two conditions have been fulfilled: first, that the information has been definitely and officially confirmed; and, second, that the release of the information at the time it is received will not prove valuable to the enemy directly or indirectly. most earnestly i urge my countrymen to reject all rumors. these ugly little hints of complete disaster fly thick and fast in wartime. they have to be examined and appraised. as an example, i can tell you frankly that until further surveys are made, i have not sufficient information to state the exact damage which has been done to our naval vessels at pearl harbor. admittedly the damage is serious. but no one can say how serious, until we know how much of this damage can be repaired and how quickly the necessary repairs can be made. i cite as another example a statement made on sunday night that a japanese carrier had been located and sunk off the canal zone. and when you hear statements that are attributed to what they call "an authoritative source," you can be reasonably sure from now on that under these war circumstances the "authoritative source" is not any person in authority. many rumors and reports which we now hear originate with enemy sources. for instance, today the japanese are claiming that as a result of their one action against hawaii they hare gained naval supremacy in the pacific. this is an old trick of propaganda which has been used innumerable times by the nazis. the purposes of such fantastic claims are, of course, to spread fear and confusion among us, and to goad us into revealing military information which our enemies are desperately anxious to obtain. our government will not be caught in this obvious trap--and neither will the people of the united states. it must be remembered by each and every one of us that our free and rapid communication these days must be greatly restricted in wartime. it is not possible to receive full and speedy and accurate reports front distant areas of combat. this is particularly true where naval operations are concerned. for in these days of the marvels of the radio it is often impossible for the commanders of various units to report their activities by radio at all, for the very simple reason that this information would become available to the enemy and would disclose their position and their plan of defense or attack. of necessity there will be delays in officially confirming or denying reports of operations, but we will not hide facts from the country if we know the facts and if the enemy will not be aided by their disclosure. to all newspapers and radio stations--all those who reach the eyes and ears of the american people--i say this: you have a most grave responsibility to the nation now and for the duration of this war. if you feel that your government is not disclosing enough of the truth, you have every right to say so. but in the absence of all the facts, as revealed by official sources, you have no right in the ethics of patriotism to deal out unconfirmed reports in such a way as to make people believe that they are gospel truth. every citizen, in every walk of life, shares this same responsibility. the lives of our soldiers and sailors--the whole future of this nation--depend upon the manner in which each and every one of us fulfills his obligation to our country. now a word about the recent past--and the future. a year and a half has elapsed since the fall of france, when the whole world first realized the mechanized might which the axis nations had been building up for so many years. america has used that year and a half to great advantage. knowing that the attack might reach us in all too short a time, we immediately began greatly to increase our industrial strength and our capacity to meet the demands of modern warfare. precious months were gained by sending vast quantities of our war material to the nations of the world still able to resist axis aggression. our policy rested on the fundamental truth that the defense of any country resisting hitler or japan was in the long run the defense of our own country. that policy has been justified. it has given us time, invaluable time, to build our american assembly lines of production. assembly lines are now in operation. others are being rushed to completion. a steady stream of tanks and planes, of guns and ships and shells and equipment--that is what these eighteen months have given us. but it is all only a beginning of what still has to be done. we must be set to face a long war against crafty and powerful bandits. the attack at pearl harbor can be repeated at any one of many points, points in both oceans and along both our coast lines and against all the rest of the hemisphere. it will not only be a long war, it will be a hard war. that is the basis on which we now lay all our plans. that is the yardstick by which we measure what we shall need and demand; money, materials, doubled and quadrupled production--ever-increasing. the production must be not only for our own army and navy and air forces. it must reinforce the other armies and navies and air forces fighting the nazis and the war lords of japan throughout the americas and throughout the world. i have been working today on the subject of production. your government has decided on two broad policies. the first is to speed up all existing production by working on a seven day week basis in every war industry, including the production of essential raw materials. the second policy, now being put into form, is to rush additions to the capacity of production by building more new plants, by adding to old plants, and by using the many smaller plants for war needs. over the hard road of the past months, we have at times met obstacles and difficulties, divisions and disputes, indifference and callousness. that is now all past--and, i am sure, forgotten. the fact is that the country now has an organization in washington built around men and women who are recognized experts in their own fields. i think the country knows that the people who are actually responsible in each and every one of these many fields are pulling together with a teamwork that has never before been excelled. on the road ahead there lies hard work--grueling work--day and night, every hour and every minute. i was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us. but it is not correct to use that word. the united states does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life. it is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the army or the navy of the united states. rather it is a privilege. it is not a sacrifice for the industrialist or the wage earner, the farmer or the shopkeeper, the trainman or the doctor, to pay more taxes, to buy more bonds, to forego extra profits, to work longer or harder at the task for which he is best fitted. rather it is a privilege. it is not a sacrifice to do without many things to which we are accustomed if the national defense calls for doing without. a review this morning leads me to the conclusion that at present we shall not have to curtail the normal use of articles of food. there is enough food today for all of us and enough left over to send to those who are fighting on the same side with us. but there will be a clear and definite shortage of metals for many kinds of civilian use, for the very good reason that in our increased program we shall need for war purposes more than half of that portion of the principal metals which during the past year have gone into articles for civilian use. yes, we shall have to give up many things entirely. and i am sure that the people in every part of the nation are prepared in their individual living to win this war. i am sure that they will cheerfully help to pay a large part of its financial cost while it goes on. i am sure they will cheerfully give up those material things that they are asked to give up. and i am sure that they will retain all those great spiritual things without which we cannot win through. i repeat that the united states can accept no result save victory, final and complete. not only must the shame of japanese treachery be wiped out, but the sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken. in my message to the congress yesterday i said that we "will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us." in order to achieve that certainty, we must begin the great task that is before us by abandoning once and for all the illusion that we can ever again isolate ourselves from the rest of humanity. in these past few years--and, most violently, in the past three days--we have learned a terrible lesson. it is our obligation to our dead--it is our sacred obligation to their children and to our children--that we must never forget what we have learned. and what we have learned is this: there is no such thing as security for any nation--or any individual--in a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism. there is no such thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike without warning. we have learned that our ocean-girt hemisphere is not immune from severe attack--that we cannot measure our safety in terms of miles on any map any more. we may acknowledge that our enemies have performed a brilliant feat of deception, perfectly timed and executed with great skill. it was a thoroughly dishonorable deed, but we must face the fact that modern warfare as conducted in the nazi manner is a dirty business. we don't like it--we didn't want to get in it--but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got. i do not think any american has any doubt of our ability to administer proper punishment to the perpetrators of these crimes. your government knows that for weeks germany has been telling japan that if japan did not attack the united states, japan would not share in dividing the spoils with germany when peace came. she was promised by germany that if she came in she would receive the complete and perpetual control of the whole of the pacific area-- and that means not only the ear east, but also all of the islands in the pacific, and also a stranglehold on the west coast of north, central and south america. we know also that germany and japan are conducting their military and naval operations in accordance with a joint plan. that plan considers all peoples and nations which are not helping the axis powers as common enemies of each and every one of the axis powers. that is their simple and obvious grand strategy. and that is why the american people must realize that it can be matched only with similar grand strategy. we must realize for example that japanese successes against the united states in the pacific are helpful to german operations in libya; that any german success against the caucasus is inevitably an assistance to japan in her operations against the dutch east indies; that a german attack against algiers or morocco opens the way to a german attack against south america and the canal. on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerrilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, helps us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans helps us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands. remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact. the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers--we are builders. we are now in the midst of a war, not for conquest, not for vengeance, but for a world in which this nation, and all that this nation represents, will be safe for our children. we expect to eliminate the danger from japan, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and found that the rest of the world was dominated by hitler and mussolini. so we are going to win the war and we are going to win the peace that follows. and in the difficult hours of this day--through dark days that may be yet to come--we will know that the vast majority of the members of the human race are on our side. many of them are fighting with us. all of them are praying for us. but, in representing our cause, we represent theirs as well--our hope and their hope for liberty under god. february , . my fellow americans: washington's birthday is a most appropriate occasion for us to talk with each other about things as they are today and things as we know they shall be in the future. for eight years, general washington and his continental army were faced continually with formidable odds and recurring defeats. supplies and equipment were lacking. in a sense, every winter was a valley forge. throughout the thirteen states there existed fifth columnists--and selfish men, jealous men, fearful men, who proclaimed that washington's cause was hopeless, and that he should ask for a negotiated peace. washington's conduct in those hard times has provided the model for all americans ever since--a model of moral stamina. he held to his course, as it had been charted in the declaration of independence. he and the brave men who served with him knew that no man's life or fortune was secure without freedom and free institutions. the present great struggle has taught us increasingly that freedom of person and security of property anywhere in the world depend upon the security of the rights and obligations of liberty and justice everywhere in the world. this war is a new kind of war. it is different from all other wars of the past, not only in its methods and weapons but also in its geography. it is warfare in terms of every continent, every island, every sea, every air lane in the world. that is the reason why i have asked you to take out and spread before you a map of the whole earth, and to follow with me in the references which i shall make to the world-encircling battle lines of this war. many questions will, i fear, remain unanswered tonight; but i know you will realize that i cannot cover everything in any one short report to the people. the broad oceans which have been heralded in the past as our protection from attack have become endless battlefields on which we are constantly being challenged by our enemies. we must all understand and face the hard fact that our job now is to fight at distances which extend all the way around the globe. we fight at these vast distances because that is where our enemies are. until our flow of supplies gives us clear superiority we must keep on striking our enemies wherever and whenever we can meet them, even if, for a while, we have to yield ground. actually, though, we are taking a heavy toll of the enemy every day that goes by. we must fight at these vast distances to protect our supply lines and our lines of communication with our allies--protect these lines from the enemies who are bending every ounce of their strength, striving against time, to cut them. the object of the nazis and the japanese is to separate the united states, britain, china and russia, and to isolate them one from another, so that each will be surrounded and cut off from sources of supplies and reinforcements. it is the old familiar axis policy of "divide and conquer." there are those who still think, however, in terms of the days of sailing-ships. they advise us to pull our warships and our planes and our merchant ships into our own home waters and concentrate solely on last ditch defense. but let me illustrate what would happen if we followed such foolish advice. look at your map. look at the vast area of china, with its millions of fighting men. look at the vast area of russia, with its powerful armies and proven military might. look at the british isles, australia, new zealand, the dutch indies, india, the near east and the continent of africa, with their resources of raw materials, and of peoples determined to resist axis domination. look too at north america, central america and south america. it is obvious what would happen if all of these great reservoirs of power were cut off from each other either by enemy action or by self-imposed isolation: first, in such a case, we could no longer send aid of any kind to china--to the brave people who, for nearly five years, have withstood japanese assault, destroyed hundreds of thousands of japanese soldiers and vast quantities of japanese war munitions. it is essential that we help china in her magnificent defense and in her inevitable counteroffensive--for that is one important element in the ultimate defeat of japan. second, if we lost communication with the southwest pacific, all of that area, including australia and new zealand and the dutch indies, would fall under japanese domination. japan in such a case could release great numbers of ships and men to launch attacks on a large scale against the coasts of the western hemisphere--south america and central america, and north america--including alaska. at the same time, she could immediately extend her conquests in the other direction toward india, and through the indian ocean to africa, to the near east, and try to join forces with germany and italy. third, if we were to stop sending munitions to the british and the russians in the mediterranean, in the persian gulf and the red sea, we would be helping the nazis to overrun turkey, syria, iraq, persia, egypt and the suez canal, the whole coast of north africa itself, and with that inevitably the whole coast of west africa-- putting germany within easy striking distance of south america-- fifteen hundred miles away. fourth, if by such a fatuous policy we ceased to protect the north atlantic supply line to britain and to russia, we would help to cripple the splendid counter-offensive by russia against the nazis, and we would help to deprive britain of essential food supplies and munitions. those americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted the american eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. now, many of those same people, afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a turtle. but we prefer to retain the eagle as it is--flying high and striking hard. i know that i speak for the mass of the american people when i say that we reject the turtle policy and will continue increasingly the policy of carrying the war to the enemy in distant lands and distant waters--as far away as possible from our own home grounds. there are four main lines of communication now being travelled by our ships: the north atlantic, the south atlantic, the indian ocean and the south pacific. these routes are not one-way streets, for the ships that carry our troops and munitions outbound bring back essential raw materials which we require for our own use. the maintenance of these vital lines is a very tough job. it is a job which requires tremendous daring, tremendous resourcefulness, and, above all, tremendous production of planes and tanks and guns and also of the ships to carry them. and i speak again for the american people when i say that we can and will do that job. the defense of the world-wide lines of communication demands relatively safe use by us of the sea and of the air along the various routes; and this, in turn, depends upon control by the united nations of many strategic bases along those routes. control of the air involves the simultaneous use of two types of planes--first, the long-range heavy bomber; and, second, the light bombers, dive bombers, torpedo planes, and short-range pursuit planes, all of which are essential to the protection of the bases and of the bombers themselves. heavy bombers can fly under their own power from here to the southwest pacific, but the smaller planes cannot. therefore, these lighter planes have to be packed in crates and sent on board cargo ships. look at your map again; and you will see that the route is long--and at many places perilous--either across the south atlantic all the way around south africa and the cape of good hope, or from california to the east indies direct. a vessel can make a round trip by either route in about four months, or only three round trips in a whole year. in spite of the length, and in spite of the difficulties of this transportation, i can tell you that in two and a half months we already have a large number of bombers and pursuit planes, manned by american pilots and crews, which are now in daily contact with the enemy in the southwest pacific. and thousands of american troops are today in that area engaged in operations not only in the air but on the ground as well. in this battle area, japan has had an obvious initial advantage. for she could fly even her short-range planes to the points of attack by using many stepping stones open to her--bases in a multitude of pacific islands and also bases on the china coast, indo-china coast, and in thailand and malaya coasts. japanese troop transports could go south from japan and from china through the narrow china sea, which can be protected by japanese planes throughout its whole length. i ask you to look at your maps again, particularly at that portion of the pacific ocean lying west of hawaii. before this war even started, the philippine islands were already surrounded on three sides by japanese power. on the west, the china side, the japanese were in possession of the coast of china and the coast of indo-china which had been yielded to them by the vichy french. on the north are the islands of japan themselves, reaching down almost to northern luzon. on the east are the mandated islands--which japan had occupied exclusively, and had fortified in absolute violation of her written word. the islands that lie between hawaii and the philippines--these islands, hundreds of them, appear only as small dots on most maps. but they cover a large strategic area. guam lies in the middle of them--a lone outpost which we have never fortified. under the washington treaty of we had solemnly agreed not to add to the fortification of the philippines. we had no safe naval bases there, so we could not use the islands for extensive naval operations. immediately after this war started, the japanese forces moved down on either side of the philippines to numerous points south of them--thereby completely encircling the philippines from north, south, east and west. it is that complete encirclement, with control of the air by japanese land-based aircraft, which has prevented us from sending substantial reinforcements of men and material to the gallant defenders of the philippines. for forty years it has always been our strategy--a strategy born of necessity--that in the event of a full-scale attack on the islands by japan, we should fight a delaying action, attempting to retire slowly into bataan peninsula and corregidor. we knew that the war as a whole would have to be fought and won by a process of attrition against japan itself. we knew all along that, with our greater resources, we could ultimately out-build japan and ultimately overwhelm her on sea, and on land and in the air. we knew that, to obtain our objective, many varieties of operations would be necessary in areas other than the philippines. now nothing that has occurred in the past two months has caused us to revise this basic strategy of necessity--except that the defense put up by general macarthur has magnificently exceeded the previous estimates of endurance, and he and his men are gaining eternal glory therefore. macarthur's army of filipinos and americans, and the forces of the united nations in china, in burma and the netherlands east indies, are all together fulfilling the same essential task. they are making japan pay an increasingly terrible price for her ambitious attempts to seize control of the whole asiatic world. every japanese transport sunk off java is one less transport that they can use to carry reinforcements to their army opposing general macarthur in luzon. it has been said that japanese gains in the philippines were made possible only by the success of their surprise attack on pearl harbor. i tell you that this is not so. even if the attack had not been made your map will show that it would have been a hopeless operation for us to send the fleet to the philippines through thousands of miles of ocean, while all those island bases were under the sole control of the japanese. the consequences of the attack on pearl harbor--serious as they were--have been wildly exaggerated in other ways. and these exaggerations come originally from axis propagandists; but they have been repeated, i regret to say, by americans in and out of public life. you and i have the utmost contempt for americans who, since pearl harbor, have whispered or announced "off the record" that there was no longer any pacific fleet--that the fleet was all sunk or destroyed on december th--that more than a thousand of our planes were destroyed on the ground. they have suggested slyly that the government has withheld the truth about casualties--that eleven or twelve thousand men were killed at pearl harbor instead of the figures as officially announced. they have even served the enemy propagandists by spreading the incredible story that ship-loads of bodies of our honored american dead were about to arrive in new york harbor to be put into a common grave. almost every axis broadcast--berlin, rome, tokyo--directly quotes americans who, by speech or in the press, make damnable misstatements such as these. the american people realize that in many cases details of military operations cannot be disclosed until we are absolutely certain that the announcement will not give to the enemy military information which he does not already possess. your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. you must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us. in a democracy there is always a solemn pact of truth between government and the people, but there must also always be a full use of discretion, and that word "discretion" applies to the critics of government as well. this is war. the american people want to know, and will be told, the general trend of how the war is going. but they do not wish to help the enemy any more than our fighting forces do, and they will pay little attention to the rumor-mongers and the poison peddlers in our midst. to pass from the realm of rumor and poison to the field of facts: the number of our officers and men killed in the attack on pearl harbor on december seventh was , , and the number wounded was . of all of the combatant ships based on pearl harbor-- battleships, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines--only three are permanently put out of commission. very many of the ships of the pacific fleet were not even in pearl harbor. some of those that were there were hit very slightly, and others that were damaged have either rejoined the fleet by now or are still undergoing repairs. and when those repairs are completed, the ships will be more efficient fighting machines than they were before. the report that we lost more than a thousand planes at pearl harbor is as baseless as the other weird rumors. the japanese do not know just how many planes they destroyed that day, and i am not going to tell them. but i can say that to date--and including pearl harbor-- we have destroyed considerably more japanese planes than they have destroyed of ours. we have most certainly suffered losses--from hitler's u-boats in the atlantic as well as from the japanese in the pacific--and we shall suffer more of them before the turn of the tide. but, speaking for the united states of america, let me say once and for all to the people of the world: we americans have been compelled to yield ground, but we will regain it. we and the other united nations are committed to the destruction of the militarism of japan and germany. we are daily increasing our strength. soon, we and not our enemies, will have the offensive; we, not they, will win the final battles; and we, not they, will make the final peace. conquered nations in europe know what the yoke of the nazis is like. and the people of korea and of manchuria know in their flesh the harsh despotism of japan. all of the people of asia know that if there is to be an honorable and decent future for any of them or any of us, that future depends on victory by the united nations over the forces of axis enslavement. if a just and durable peace is to be attained, or even if all of us are merely to save our own skins, there is one thought for us here at home to keep uppermost--the fulfillment of our special task of production. germany, italy and japan are very close to their maximum output of planes, guns, tanks and ships. the united nations are not-- especially the united states of america. our first job then is to build up production--uninterrupted production--so that the united nations can maintain control of the seas and attain control of the air--not merely a slight superiority, but an overwhelming superiority. on january th of this year, i set certain definite goals of production for airplanes, tanks, guns and ships. the axis propagandists called them fantastic. tonight, nearly two months later, and after a careful survey of progress by donald nelson and others charged with responsibility for our production, i can tell you that those goals will be attained. in every part of the country, experts in production and the men and women at work in the plants are giving loyal service. with few exceptions, labor, capital and farming realize that this is no time either to make undue profits or to gain special advantages, one over the other. we are calling for new plants and additions--additions to old plants. we are calling for plant conversion to war needs. we are seeking more men and more women to run them. we are working longer hours. we are coming to realize that one extra plane or extra tank or extra gun or extra ship completed tomorrow may, in a few months, turn the tide on some distant battlefield; it may make the difference between life and death for some of our own fighting men. we know now that if we lose this war it will be generations or even centuries before our conception of democracy can live again. and we can lose this war only if use slow up our effort or if we waste our ammunition sniping at each other. here are three high purposes for every american: . we shall not stop work for a single day. if any dispute arises we shall keep on working while the dispute is solved by mediation, or conciliation or arbitration--until the war is won. . we shall not demand special gains or special privileges or special advantages for any one group or occupation. . we shall give up conveniences and modify the routine of our lives if our country asks us to do so. we will do it cheerfully, remembering that the common enemy seeks to destroy every home and every freedom in every part of our land. this generation of americans has come to realize, with a present and personal realization, that there is something larger and more important than the life of any individual or of any individual group--something for which a man will sacrifice, and gladly sacrifice, not only his pleasures, not only his goods, not only his associations with those he loves, but his life itself. in time of crisis when the future is in the balance, we come to understand, with full recognition and devotion, what this nation is and what we owe to it. the axis propagandists have tried in various evil ways to destroy our determination and our morale. failing in that, they are now trying to destroy our confidence in our own allies. they say that the british are finished--that the russians and the chinese are about to quit. patriotic and sensible americans will reject these absurdities. and instead of listening to any of this crude propaganda, they will recall some of the things that nazis and japanese have said and are still saying about us. ever since this nation became the arsenal of democracy--ever since enactment of lend-lease--there has been one persistent theme through all axis propaganda. this theme has been that americans are admittedly rich, that americans have considerable industrial power--but that americans are soft and decadent, that they cannot and will not unite and work and fight. from berlin, rome and tokyo we have been described as a nation of weaklings--"playboys"--who would hire british soldiers, or russian soldiers, or chinese soldiers to do our fighting for us. let them repeat that now! let them tell that to general macarthur and his men. let them tell that to the sailors who today are hitting hard in the far waters of the pacific. let them tell that to the boys in the flying fortresses. let them tell that to the marines! the united nations constitute an association of independent peoples of equal dignity and equal importance. the united nations are dedicated to a common cause. we share equally and with equal zeal the anguish and the awful sacrifices of war. in the partnership of our common enterprise, we must share in a unified plan in which all of us must play our several parts, each of us being equally indispensable and dependent one on the other. we have unified command and cooperation and comradeship. we americans will contribute unified production and unified acceptance of sacrifice and of effort. that means a national unity that can know no limitations of race or creed or selfish politics. the american people expect that much from themselves. and the american people will find ways and means of expressing their determination to their enemies, including the japanese admiral who has said that he will dictate the terms of peace here in the white house. we of the united nations are agreed on certain broad principles in the kind of peace we seek. the atlantic charter applies not only to the parts of the world that border the atlantic but to the whole world; disarmament of aggressors, self-determination of nations and peoples, and the four freedoms--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. the british and the russian people have known the full fury of nazi onslaught. there have been times when the fate of london and moscow was in serious doubt. but there was never the slightest question that either the british or the russians would yield. and today all the united nations salute the superb russian army as it celebrates the twenty-fourth anniversary of its first assembly. though their homeland was overrun, the dutch people are still fighting stubbornly and powerfully overseas. the great chinese people have suffered grievous losses; chungking has been almost wiped out of existence--yet it remains the capital of an unbeatable china. that is the conquering spirit which prevails throughout the united nations in this war. the task that we americans now face will test us to the uttermost. never before have we been called upon for such a prodigious effort. never before have we had so little time in which to do so much. "these are the times that try men's souls." tom paine wrote those words on a drumhead, by the light of a campfire. that was when washington's little army of ragged, rugged men was retreating across new jersey, having tasted nothing but defeat. and general washington ordered that these great words written by tom paine be read to the men of every regiment in the continental army, and this was the assurance given to the first american armed forces: "the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the sacrifice, the more glorious the triumph." so spoke americans in the year . so speak americans today! april , . my fellow americans: it is nearly five months since we were attacked at pearl harbor. for the two years prior to that attack this country had been gearing itself up to a high level of production of munitions. and yet our war efforts had done little to dislocate the normal lives of most of us. since then we have dispatched strong forces of our army and navy, several hundred thousand of them, to bases and battlefronts thousands of miles from home. we have stepped up our war production on a scale that is testing our industrial power, our engineering genius and our economic structure to the utmost. we have had no illusions about the fact that this is a tough job--and a long one. american warships are now in combat in the north and south atlantic, in the arctic, in the mediterranean, in the indian ocean, and in the north and south pacific. american troops have taken stations in south america, greenland, iceland, the british isles, the near east, the middle east and the far east, the continent of australia, and many islands of the pacific. american war planes, manned by americans, are flying in actual combat over all the continents and all the oceans. on the european front the most important development of the past year has been without question the crushing counteroffensive on the part of the great armies of russia against the powerful german army. these russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies--troops, planes, tanks and guns--than all the other united nations put together. in the mediterranean area, matters remain on the surface much as they were. but the situation there is receiving very careful attention. recently we received news of a change in government in what we used to know as the republic of france--a name dear to the hearts of all lovers of liberty--a name and an institution which we hope will soon be restored to full dignity. throughout the nazi occupation of france, we have hoped for the maintenance of a french government which would strive to regain independence, to reestablish the principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity," and to restore the historic culture of france. our policy has been consistent from the very beginning. however, we are now greatly concerned lest those who have recently come to power may seek to force the brave french people into submission to nazi despotism. the united nations will take measures, if necessary, to prevent the use of french territory in any part of the world for military purposes by the axis powers. the good people of france will readily understand that such action is essential for the united nations to prevent assistance to the armies or navies or air forces of germany, or italy or japan. the overwhelming majority of the french people understand that the fight of the united nations is fundamentally their fight, that our victory means the restoration of a free and independent france--and the saving of france from the slavery which would be imposed upon her by her external enemies and by her internal traitors. we know how the french people really feel. we know that a deep- seated determination to obstruct every step in the axis plan extends from occupied france through vichy france all the way to the people of their colonies in every ocean and on every continent. our planes are helping in the defense of french colonies today, and soon american flying fortresses will be fighting for the liberation of the darkened continent of europe itself. in all the occupied countries there are men and women, and even little children who have never stopped fighting, never stopped resisting, never stopped proving to the nazis that their so-called "new order" will never be enforced upon free peoples. in the german and italian peoples themselves there is a growing conviction that the cause of nazism and fascism is hopeless--that their political and military leaders have led them along the bitter road which leads not to world conquest but to final defeat. they cannot fail to contrast the present frantic speeches of these leaders with their arrogant boastings of a year ago, and two years ago. on the other side of the world, in the far east, we have passed through a phase of serious losses. we have inevitably lost control of a large portion of the philippine islands. but this whole nation pays tribute to the filipino and american officers and men who held out so long on bataan peninsula, to those grim and gallant fighters who still hold corregidor, where the flag flies, and to the forces that are still striking effectively at the enemy on mindanao and other islands. the malayan peninsula and singapore are in the hands of the enemy; the netherlands east indies are almost entirely occupied, though resistance there continues. many other islands are in the possession of the japanese. but there is good reason to believe that their southward advance has been checked. australia, new zealand, and much other territory will be bases for offensive action--and we are determined that the territory that has been lost will be regained. the japanese are pressing their northward advance against burma with considerable power, driving toward india and china. they have been opposed with great bravery by small british and chinese forces aided by american fliers. the news in burma tonight is not good. the japanese may cut the burma road; but i want to say to the gallant people of china that no matter what advances the japanese may make, ways will be found to deliver airplanes and munitions of war to the armies of generalissimo chiang kai-shek. we remember that the chinese people were the first to stand up and fight against the aggressors in this war; and in the future a still unconquerable china will play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity, not only in eastern asia but in the whole world. for every advance that the japanese have made since they started their frenzied career of conquest, they have had to pay a very heavy toll in warships, in transports, in planes, and in men. they are feeling the effects of those losses. it is even reported from japan that somebody has dropped bombs on tokyo, and on other principal centers of japanese war industries. if this be true, it is the first time in history that japan has suffered such indignities. although the treacherous attack on pearl harbor was the immediate cause of our entry into the war, that event found the american people spiritually prepared for war on a world-wide scale. we went into this war fighting. we know what we are fighting for. we realize that the war has become what hitler originally proclaimed it to be--a total war. not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our enemies in distant parts of the world. not all of us can have the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a shipyard, or on the farms or in oil fields or mines, producing the weapons or the raw materials that are needed by our armed forces. but there is one front and one battle where everyone in the united states--every man, woman, and child--is in action, and will be privileged to remain in action throughout this war. that front is right here at home, in our daily lives, and in our daily tasks. here at home everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men, but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure during the war and after the war. this will require, of course, the abandonment not only of luxuries but of many other creature comforts. every loyal american is aware of his individual responsibility. whenever i hear anyone saying "the american people are complacent-- they need to be aroused," i feel like asking him to come to washington to read the mail that floods into the white house and into all departments of this government. the one question that recurs through all these thousands of letters and messages is "what more can i do to help my country in winning this war"? to build the factories, to buy the materials, to pay the labor, to provide the transportation, to equip and feed and house the soldiers, sailors and marines, and to do all the thousands of things necessary in a war--all cost a lot of money, more money than has ever been spent by any nation at any time in the long history of the world. we are now spending, solely for war purposes, the sum of about one hundred million dollars every day in the week. but, before this year is over, that almost unbelievable rate of expenditure will be doubled. all of this money has to be spent--and spent quickly--if we are to produce within the time now available the enormous quantities of weapons of war which we need. but the spending of these tremendous sums presents grave danger of disaster to our national economy. when your government continues to spend these unprecedented sums for munitions month by month and year by year, that money goes into the pocketbooks and bank accounts of the people of the united states. at the same time raw materials and many manufactured goods are necessarily taken away from civilian use, and machinery and factories are being converted to war production. you do not have to be a professor of mathematics or economics to see that if people with plenty of cash start bidding against each other for scarce goods, the price of those goods goes up. yesterday i submitted to the congress of the united states a seven- point program of general principles which taken together could be called the national economic policy for attaining the great objective of keeping the cost of living down. i repeat them now to you in substance: first. we must, through heavier taxes, keep personal and corporate profits at a low reasonable rate. second. we must fix ceilings on prices and rents. third. we must stabilize wages. fourth. we must stabilize farm prices. fifth. we must put more billions into war bonds. sixth. we must ration all essential commodities which are scarce. seventh. we must discourage installment buying, and encourage paying off debts and mortgages. i do not think it is necessary to repeat what i said yesterday to the congress in discussing these general principles. the important thing to remember is that each one of these points is dependent on the others if the whole program is to work. some people are already taking the position that every one of the seven points is correct except the one point which steps on their own individual toes. a few seem very willing to approve self- denial--on the part of their neighbors. the only effective course of action is a simultaneous attack on all of the factors which increase the cost of living, in one comprehensive, all-embracing program covering prices, and profits, and wages, and taxes and debts. the blunt fact is that every single person in the united states is going to be affected by this program. some of you will be affected more directly by one or two of these restrictive measures, but all of you will be affected indirectly by all of them. are you a businessman, or do you own stock in a business corporation? well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation. your income will be subject to higher taxes. indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, i do not think that any american citizen should have a net income in excess of $ , per year after payment of taxes. are you a retailer or a wholesaler or a manufacturer or a farmer or a landlord? ceilings are being placed on the prices at which you can sell your goods or rent your property. do you work for wages? you will have to forego higher wages for your particular job for the duration of the war. all of us are used to spending money for things that we want, things, however, which are not absolutely essential. we will all have to forego that kind of spending. because we must put every dime and every dollar we can possibly spare out of our earnings into war bonds and stamps. because the demands of the war effort require the rationing of goods of which there is not enough to go around. because the stopping of purchases of non-essentials will release thousands of workers who are needed in the war effort. as i told the congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. when, at the end of this great struggle we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice." the price for civilization must be paid in hard work and sorrow and blood. the price is not too high. if you doubt it, ask those millions who live today under the tyranny of hitlerism. ask the workers of france and norway and the netherlands, whipped to labor by the lash, whether the stabilization of wages is too great a "sacrifice." ask the farmers of poland and denmark, of czechoslovakia and france, looted of their livestock, starving while their own crops are stolen from their land, ask them whether "parity" prices are too great a "sacrifice." ask the businessmen of europe, whose enterprises have been stolen from their owners, whether the limitation of profits and personal incomes is too great a "sacrifice." ask the women and children whom hitler is starving whether the rationing of tires and gasoline and sugar is too great a "sacrifice." we do not have to ask them. they have already given us their agonized answers. this great war effort must be carried through to its victorious conclusion by the indomitable will and determination of the people as one great whole. it must not be impeded by the faint of heart. it must not be impeded by those who put their own selfish interests above the interests of the nation. it must not be impeded by those who pervert honest criticism into falsification of fact. it must not be impeded by self-styled experts either in economics or military problems who know neither true figures nor geography itself. it must not be impeded by a few bogus patriots who use the sacred freedom of the press to echo the sentiments of the propagandists in tokyo and berlin. and, above all, it shall not be imperiled by the handful of noisy traitors--betrayers of america, betrayers of christianity itself-- would-be dictators who in their hearts and souls have yielded to hitlerism and would have this republic do likewise. i shall use all of the executive power that i have to carry out the policy laid down. if it becomes necessary to ask for any additional legislation in order to attain our objective of preventing a spiral in the cost of living, i shall do so. i know the american farmer, the american workman, and the american businessman. i know that they will gladly embrace this economy and equality of sacrifice, satisfied that it is necessary for the most vital and compelling motive in all their lives--winning through to victory. never in the memory of man has there been a war in which the courage, the endurance and the loyalty of civilians played so vital a part. many thousands of civilians all over the world have been and are being killed or maimed by enemy action. indeed, it was the fortitude of the common people of britain under fire which enabled that island to stand and prevented hitler from winning the war in . the ruins of london and coventry and other cities are today the proudest monuments to british heroism. our own american civilian population is now relatively safe from such disasters. and, to an ever-increasing extent, our soldiers, sailors and marines are fighting with great bravery and great skill on far distant fronts to make sure that we shall remain safe. i should like to tell you one or two stories about the men we have in our armed forces: there is, for example, dr. corydon m. wassell. he was a missionary, well known for his good works in china. he is a simple, modest, retiring man, nearly sixty years old, but he entered the service of his country and was commissioned a lieutenant commander in the navy. dr. wassell was assigned to duty in java caring for wounded officers and men of the cruisers houston and marblehead which had been in heavy action in the java seas. when the japanese advanced across the island, it was decided to evacuate as many as possible of the wounded to australia. but about twelve of the men were so badly wounded that they could not be moved. dr. wassell remained with these men, knowing that he would be captured by the enemy. but he decided to make a last desperate attempt to get the men out of java. he asked each of them if he wished to take the chance, and every one agreed. he first had to get the twelve men to the sea coast--fifty miles away. to do this, he had to improvise stretchers for the hazardous journey. the men were suffering severely, but dr. wassell kept them alive by his skill, and inspired them by his own courage. and as the official report said, dr. wassell was "almost like a christ-like shepherd devoted to his flock." on the sea coast, he embarked the men on a little dutch ship. they were bombed, they were machine-gunned by waves of japanese planes. dr. wassell took virtual command of the ship, and by great skill avoided destruction, hiding in little bays and little inlets. a few days later, dr. wassell and his small flock of wounded men reached australia safely. and today dr. wassell wears the navy cross. another story concerns a ship, a ship rather than an individual man. you may remember the tragic sinking of the submarine, the u.s.s. squalus off the new england coast in the summer of . some of the crew were lost, but others were saved by the speed and the efficiency of the surface rescue crews. the squalus itself was tediously raised from the bottom of the sea. she was repaired and put back into commission, and eventually she sailed again under a new name, the u.s.s. sailfish. today, she is a potent and effective unit of our submarine fleet in the southwest pacific. the sailfish has covered many thousands of miles in operations in those waters. she has sunk a japanese destroyer. she has torpedoed a japanese cruiser. she has made torpedo hits--two of them--on a japanese aircraft carrier. three of the enlisted men of our navy who went down with the squalus in and were rescued, are today serving on the same ship, the u.s.s. sailfish, in this war. it seems to me that it is heartening to know that the squalus, once given up as lost, rose from the depths to fight for our country in time of peril. one more story, that i heard only this morning: this is a story of one of our army flying fortresses operating in the western pacific. the pilot of this plane is a modest young man, proud of his crew for one of the toughest fights a bomber has yet experienced. the bomber departed from its base, as part or a flight of five bombers, to attack japanese transports that were landing troops against us in the philippines. when they had gone about halfway to their destination, one of the motors of this bomber went out of commission. the young pilot lost contact with the other bombers. the crew, however, got the motor working, got it going again and the plane proceeded on its mission alone. by the time it arrived at its target the other four flying fortresses had already passed over, had dropped their bombs, and had stirred up the hornets' nest of japanese "zero" planes. eighteen of these "zero" fighters attacked our one flying fortress. despite this mass attack, our plane proceeded on its mission, and dropped all of its bombs on six japanese transports which were lined up along the docks. as it turned back on its homeward journey a running fight between the bomber and the eighteen japanese pursuit planes continued for miles. four pursuit planes of the japs attacked simultaneously at each side. four were shot down with the side guns. during this fight, the bomber's radio operator was killed, the engineer's right hand was shot off, and one gunner was crippled, leaving only one man available to operate both side guns. although wounded in one hand, this gunner alternately manned both side guns, bringing down three more japanese "zero" planes. while this was going on, one engine on the american bomber was shot out, one gas tank was hit, the radio was shot off, and the oxygen system was entirely destroyed. out of eleven control cables all but four were shot away. the rear landing wheel was blown off entirely, and the two front wheels were both shot flat. the fight continued until the remaining japanese pursuit ships exhausted their ammunition and turned back. with two engines gone and the plane practically out of control, the american bomber returned to its base after dark and made an emergency landing. the mission had been accomplished. the name of that pilot is captain hewitt t. wheless, of the united states army. he comes from a place called menard, texas--with a population , . he has been awarded the distinguished service cross. and i hope that he is listening. these stories i have told you are not exceptional. they are typical examples of individual heroism and skill. as we here at home contemplate our own duties, our own responsibilities, let us think and think hard of the example which is being set for us by our fighting men. our soldiers and sailors are members of well disciplined units. but they are still and forever individuals--free individuals. they are farmers, and workers, businessmen, professional men, artists, clerks. they are the united states of america. that is why they fight. we too are the united states of america. that is why we must work and sacrifice. it is for them. it is for us. it is for victory. september , . my friends: i wish that all the americans people could read all the citations for various medals recommended for our soldiers and sailors and marines. i am picking out one of these citations which tells of the accomplishments of lieutenant john james powers, united states navy, during three days of the battles with japanese forces in the coral sea. during the first two days, lieutenant powers, flying a dive-bomber in the face of blasting enemy anti-aircraft fire, demolished one large enemy gunboat, put another gunboat out of commission, severely damaged an aircraft tender and a twenty-thousand-ton transport, and scored a direct hit on an aircraft carrier which burst into flames and sank soon after. the official citation then describes the morning of the third day of battle. as the pilots of his squadron left the ready room to man their planes, lieutenant powers said to them, "remember, the folks back home are counting on us. i am going to get a hit if i have to lay it on their flight deck. he led his section down to the target from an altitude of , feet, through a wall of bursting anti-aircraft shells and swarms of enemy planes. he dived almost to the very deck of the enemy carrier, and did not release his bomb until he was sure of a direct hit. he was last seen attempting recovery from his dive at the extremely low altitude of two hundred feet, amid a terrific barrage of shell and bomb fragments, and smoke and flame and debris from the stricken vessel. his own plane was destroyed by the explosion of his own bomb. but he had made good his promise to "lay it on their flight deck." i have received a recommendation from the secretary of the navy that lieutenant john james powers of new york city, missing in action, be awarded the medal of honor. i hereby and now make this award. you and i are "the folks back home" for whose protection lieutenant powers fought and repeatedly risked his life. he said that we counted on him and his men. we did not count in vain. but have not those men a right to be counting on us? how are we playing our part "back home" in winning this war? the answer is that we are not doing enough. today i sent a message to the congress, pointing out the overwhelming urgency of the serious domestic economic crisis with which we are threatened. some call it "inflation," which is a vague sort of term, and others call it a "rise in the cost of living," which is much more easily understood by most families. that phrase, "the cost of living," means essentially what a dollar can buy. from january , , to may of this year, nearly a year and a half, the cost of living went up about percent. and at that point last may we undertook to freeze the cost of living. but we could not do a complete job of it, because the congressional authority at the time exempted a large part of farm products used for food and for making clothing, although several weeks before, i had asked the congress for legislation to stabilize all farm prices. at that time i had told the congress that there were seven elements in our national economy, all of which had to be controlled; and that if any one essential element remained exempt, the cost of living could not be held down. on only two of these points--both of them vital however--did i call for congressional action. these two vital points were: first, taxation; and, second, the stabilization of all farm prices at parity. "parity" is a standard for the maintenance of good farm prices. it was established as our national policy way back in . it means that the farmer and the city worker are on the same relative ratio with each other in purchasing power as they were during a period some thirty years before--at a time then the farmer had a satisfactory purchasing power. one hundred percent of parity, therefore, has been accepted by farmers as the fair standard for the prices they receive. last january, however, the congress passed a law forbidding ceilings on farm prices below percent of parity on some commodities. and on other commodities the ceiling was even higher, so that the average possible ceiling is now about percent of parity for agricultural products as a whole. this act of favoritism for one particular group in the community increased the cost of food to everybody--not only to the workers in the city or in the munitions plants, and their families, but also to the families of the farmers themselves. since last may, ceilings have been set on nearly all commodities, rents services, except the exempted farm products. installment buying, for example, has been effectively controlled. wages in certain key industries have been stabilized on the basis of the present cost of living. but it is obvious to all of us that if the cost of food continues to go up, as it is doing at present, the wage earner, particularly in the lower brackets, will have a right to an increase in his wages. i think that would be essential justice and a practical necessity. our experience with the control of other prices during the past few months has brought out one important fact--the rising cost of living can be controlled, providing that all elements making up the cost of living are controlled at the same time. i think that also is an essential justice and a practical necessity. we know that parity prices for farm products not now controlled will not put up the cost of living more than a very small amount; but we also know that if we must go up to an average of percent of parity for food and other farm products--which is necessary at present under the emergency price control act before we can control all farm prices--the cost of living will get well out of hand. we are face to face with this danger today. let us meet it and remove it. i realize that it may seem out of proportion to you to be over- stressing these economic problems at a time like this, when we are all deeply concerned about the news from far distant fields of battle. but i give you the solemn assurance that failure to solve this problem here at home--and to solve it now--will make more difficult the winning of this war. if the vicious spiral of inflation ever gets under way, the whole economic system will stagger. prices and wages will go up so rapidly that the entire production program will be endangered. the cost of the war, paid by taxpayers, will jump beyond all present calculations. it will mean an uncontrollable rise in prices and in wages, which can result in raising the overall cost of living as high as another percent soon. that would mean that the purchasing power of every dollar that you have in your pay envelope, or in the bank, or included in your insurance policy or your pension, would be reduced to about eighty cents¹ worth. i need not tell you that this would have a demoralizing effect on our people, soldiers and civilians alike. overall stabilization of prices, and salaries, wages and profits is necessary to the continued increasing production of planes and tanks and ships and guns. in my message to congress today, i have said that this must be done quickly. if we wait for two or three or four or six months it may well be too late. i have told the congress that the administration cannot hold the actual cost of food and clothing down to the present level beyond october first. therefore, i have asked the congress to pass legislation under which the president would be specifically authorized to stabilize the cost of living, including the price of all farm commodities. the purpose should be to hold farm prices at parity, or at levels of a recent date, whichever is higher. the purpose should also be to keep wages at a point stabilized with today's cost of living. both must be regulated at the same time; and neither one of them can or should be regulated without the other. at the same time that farm prices are stabilized, i will stabilize wages. that is plain justice--and plain common sense. and so i have asked the congress to take this action by the first of october. we must now act with the dispatch which the stern necessities of war require. i have told the congress that inaction on their part by that date will leave me with an inescapable responsibility, a responsibility to the people of this country to see to it that the war effort is no longer imperiled by the threat of economic chaos. as i said in my message to the congress: in the event that the congress should fail to act, and act adequately, i shall accept the responsibility, and i will act. the president has the powers, under the constitution and under congressional acts, to take measures necessary to avert a disaster which would interfere with the winning of the war. i have given the most careful and thoughtful consideration to meeting this issue without further reference to the congress. i have determined, however, on this vital matter to consult with the congress. there may be those who will say that, if the situation is as grave as i have stated it to be, i should use my powers and act now. i can only say that i have approached this problem from every angle, and that i have decided that the course of conduct which i am following in this case is consistent with my sense of responsibility as president in time of war, and with my deep and unalterable devotion to the processes of democracy. the responsibilities of the president in wartime to protect the nation are very grave. this total war, with our fighting fronts all over the world, makes the use of the executive power far more essential than in any previous war. if we were invaded, the people of this country would expect the president to use any and all means to repel the invader. now the revolution and the war between the states were fought on our own soil, but today this war will be won or lost on other continents and in remote seas. i cannot tell what powers may have to be exercised in order to win this war. the american people can be sure that i will use my powers with a full sense of responsibility to the constitution and to my country. the american people can also be sure that i shall not hesitate to use every power vested in me to accomplish the defeat of our enemies in any part of the world where our own safety demands such defeat. and when the war is over, the powers under which i act will automatically revert to the people of the united states--to the people to whom those powers belong. i think i know the american farmers. i know they are as wholehearted in their patriotism as any other group. they have suffered from the constant fluctuations of farm prices-- occasionally too high, more often too low. nobody knows better than farmers the disastrous effects of wartime inflationary booms, and postwar deflationary panics. so i have also suggested today that the congress make our agricultural economy more stable. i have recommended that in addition to putting ceilings on all farm products now, we also place a definite floor under those prices for a period beginning now, continuing through the war, and for as long as necessary after the war. in this way we will be able to avoid the collapse of farm prices that happened after the last war. the farmers must be assured of a fair minimum price during the readjustment period which will follow the great, excessive world food demands which now prevail. we must have some floor under farm prices, as we must have under wages, if we are to avoid the dangers of a postwar inflation on the one hand, or the catastrophe of a crash in farm prices and wages on the other. today i have also advised the congress of the importance of speeding up the passage of the tax bill. the federal treasury is losing millions of dollars each and every day because the bill has not yet been passed. taxation is the only practical way of preventing the incomes and profits of individuals and corporations from getting too high. i have told the congress once more that all net individual incomes, after payment of all taxes, should be limited effectively by further taxation to a maximum net income of $ , a year. and it is equally important that corporate profits should not exceed a reasonable amount in any case. the nation must have more money to run the war. people must stop spending for luxuries. our country needs a far greater share of our incomes. for this is a global war, and it will cost this nation nearly one hundred billion dollars in . in that global war there are now four main areas of combat; and i should like to speak briefly of them, not in the order of their importance, for all of them are vital and all of them are interrelated. . the russian front. here the germans are still unable to gain the smashing victory which, almost a year ago, hitler announced he had already achieved. germany has been able to capture important russian territory. nevertheless, hitler has been unable to destroy a single russian army; and this, you may be sure, has been, and still is, his main objective. millions of german troops seem doomed to spend another cruel and bitter winter on the russian front. yes, the russians are killing more nazis, and destroying more airplanes and tanks than are being smashed on any other front. they are fighting not only bravely but brilliantly. in spite of any setbacks russia will hold out, and with the help of her allies will ultimately drive every nazi from her soil. . the pacific ocean area. this area must be grouped together as a whole--every part of it, land and sea. we have stopped one major japanese offensive; and we have inflicted heavy losses on their fleet. but they still possess great strength; they seek to keep the initiative; and they will undoubtedly strike hard again. we must not overrate the importance of our successes in the solomon islands, though we may be proud of the skill with which these local operations were conducted. at the same time, we need not underrate the significance of our victory at midway. there we stopped the major japanese offensive. . in the mediterranean and the middle east area the british, together with the south africans, australians, new zealanders, indian troops and others of the united nations, including ourselves, are fighting a desperate battle with the germans and italians. the axis powers are fighting to gain control of that area, dominate the mediterranean and the indian ocean, and gain contact with the japanese navy. the battle in the middle east is now joined. we are well aware of our danger, but we are hopeful of the outcome. . the european area. here the aim is an offensive against germany. there are at least a dozen different points at which attacks can be launched. you, of course, do not expect me to give details of future plans, but you can rest assured that preparations are being made here and in britain toward this purpose. the power of germany must be broken on the battlefields of europe. various people urge that we concentrate our forces on one or another of these four areas, although no one suggests that any one of the four areas should be abandoned. certainly, it could not be seriously urged that we abandon aid to russia, or that we surrender all of the pacific to japan, or the mediterranean and middle east to germany, or give up an offensive against germany. the american people may be sure that we shall neglect none of the four great theaters of war. certain vital military decisions have been made. in due time you will know what these decisions are--and so will our enemies. i can say now that all of these decisions are directed toward taking the offensive. today, exactly nine months after pearl harbor, we have sent overseas three times more men than we transported to france in the first nine months of the first world war. we have done this in spite of greater danger and fewer ships. and every week sees a gain in the actual number of american men and weapons in the fighting areas. these reinforcements in men and munitions are continuing, and will continue to go forward. this war will finally be won by the coordination of all the armies, navies and air forces of all of the united nations operating in unison against our enemies. this will require vast assemblies of weapons and men at all the vital points of attack. we and our allies have worked for years to achieve superiority in weapons. we have no doubts about the superiority of our men. we glory in the individual exploits of our soldiers, our sailors, our marines, our merchant seamen. lieutenant john james powers was one of these--and there are thousands of others in the forces of the united nations. several thousand americans have met death in battle. other thousands will lose their lives. but many millions stand ready to step into their places--to engage in a struggle to the very death. for they know that the enemy is determined to destroy us, our homes and our institutions--that in this war it is kill or be killed. battles are not won by soldiers or sailors who think first of their own personal safety. and wars are not won by people who are concerned primarily with their own comfort, their own convenience, their own pocketbooks. we americans of today bear the gravest of responsibilities. and all of the united nations share them. all of us here at home are being tested--for our fortitude, for our selfless devotion to our country and to our cause. this is the toughest war of all time. we need not leave it to historians of the future to answer the question whether we are tough enough to meet this unprecedented challenge. we can give that answer now. the answer is "yes." october , . my fellow americans: as you know, i have recently come back from a trip of inspection of camps and training stations and war factories. the main thing that i observed on this trip is not exactly news. it is the plain fact that the american people are united as never before in their determination to do a job and to do it well. this whole nation of , , free men, women and children is becoming one great fighting force. some of us are soldiers or sailors, some of us are civilians. some of us are fighting the war in airplanes five miles above the continent of europe or the islands of the pacific--and some of us are fighting it in mines deep down in the earth of pennsylvania or montana. a few of us are decorated with medals for heroic achievement, but all of us can have that deep and permanent inner satisfaction that comes from doing the best we know how--each of us playing an honorable part in the great struggle to save our democratic civilization. whatever our individual circumstances or opportunities--we are all in it, and our spirit is good, and we americans and our allies are going to win--and do not let anyone tell you anything different. that is the main thing that i saw on my trip around the country-- unbeatable spirit. if the leaders of germany and japan could have come along with me, and had seen what i saw, they would agree with my conclusions. unfortunately, they were unable to make the trip with me. and that is one reason why we are carrying our war effort overseas--to them. with every passing week the war increases in scope and intensity. that is true in europe, in africa, in asia, and on all the seas. the strength of the united nations is on the upgrade in this war. the axis leaders, on the other hand, know by now that they have already reached their full strength, and that their steadily mounting losses in men and material cannot be fully replaced. germany and japan are already realizing what the inevitable result will be when the total strength of the united nations hits them--at additional places on the earth's surface. one of the principal weapons of our enemies in the past has been their use of what is called "the war of nerves." they have spread falsehood and terror; they have started fifth columns everywhere; they have duped the innocent; they have fomented suspicion and hate between neighbors; they have aided and abetted those people in other nations--including our own--whose words and deeds are advertised from berlin and from tokyo as proof of our disunity. the greatest defense against all such propaganda, of course, is the common sense of the common people--and that defense is prevailing. the "war of nerves" against the united nations is now turning into a boomerang. for the first time, the nazi propaganda machine is on the defensive. they begin to apologize to their own people for the repulse of their vast forces at stalingrad, and for the enormous casualties they are suffering. they are compelled to beg their overworked people to rally their weakened production. they even publicly admit, for the first time, that germany can be fed only at the cost of stealing food from the rest of europe. they are proclaiming that a second front is impossible; but, at the same time, they are desperately rushing troops in all directions, and stringing barbed wire all the way from the coasts of finland and norway to the islands of the eastern mediterranean. meanwhile, they are driven to increase the fury of their atrocities. the united nations have decided to establish the identity of those nazi leaders who are responsible for the innumerable acts of savagery. as each of these criminal deeds is committed, it is being carefully investigated; and the evidence is being relentlessly piled up for the future purposes of justice. we have made it entirely clear that the united nations seek no mass reprisals against the populations of germany or italy or japan. but the ring leaders and their brutal henchmen must be named, and apprehended, and tried in accordance with the judicial processes of criminal law. there are now millions of americans in army camps, in naval stations, in factories and in shipyards. who are these millions upon whom the life of our country depends? what are they thinking? what are their doubts? what are their hopes? and how is the work progressing? the commander-in-chief cannot learn all of the answers to these questions in washington. and that is why i made the trip i did. it is very easy to say, as some have said, that when the president travels through the country he should go with a blare of trumpets, with crowds on the sidewalks, with batteries of reporters and photographers--talking and posing with all of the politicians of the land. but having had some experience in this war and in the last war, i can tell you very simply that the kind of trip i took permitted me to concentrate on the work i had to do without expending time, meeting all the demands of publicity. and--i might add--it was a particular pleasure to make a tour of the country without having to give a single thought to politics. i expect to make other trips for similar purposes, and i shall make them in the same way. in the last war, i had seen great factories; but until i saw some of the new present-day plants, i had not thoroughly visualized our american war effort. of course, i saw only a small portion of all our plants, but that portion was a good cross-section, and it was deeply impressive. the united states has been at war for only ten months, and is engaged in the enormous task of multiplying its armed forces many times. we are by no means at full production level yet. but i could not help asking myself on the trip, where would we be today if the government of the united states had not begun to build many of its factories for this huge increase more than two years ago, more than a year before war was forced upon us at pearl harbor? we have also had to face the problem of shipping. ships in every part of the world continue to be sunk by enemy action. but the total tonnage of ships coming out of american, canadian and british shipyards, day by day, has increased so fast that we are getting ahead of our enemies in the bitter battle of transportation. in expanding our shipping, we have had to enlist many thousands of men for our merchant marine. these men are serving magnificently. they are risking their lives every hour so that guns and tanks and planes and ammunition and food may be carried to the heroic defenders of stalingrad and to all the united nations' forces all over the world. a few days ago i awarded the first maritime distinguished service medal to a young man--edward f. cheney of yeadon, pennsylvania--who had shown great gallantry in rescuing his comrades from the oily waters of the sea after their ship had been torpedoed. there will be many more such acts of bravery. in one sense my recent trip was a hurried one, out through the middle west, to the northwest, down the length of the pacific coast and back through the southwest and the south. in another sense, however, it was a leisurely trip, because i had the opportunity to talk to the people who are actually doing the work--management and labor alike--on their own home grounds. and it gave me a fine chance to do some thinking about the major problems of our war effort on the basis of first things first. as i told the three press association representatives who accompanied me, i was impressed by the large proportion of women employed--doing skilled manual labor running machines. as time goes on, and many more of our men enter the armed forces, this proportion of women will increase. within less than a year from now, i think, there will probably be as many women as men working in our war production plants. i had some enlightening experiences relating to the old saying of us men that curiosity--inquisitiveness--is stronger among woman. i noticed, frequently, that when we drove unannounced down the middle aisle of a great plant full of workers and machines, the first people to look up from their work were the men--and not the women. it was chiefly the men who were arguing as to whether that fellow in the straw hat was really the president or not. so having seen the quality of the work and of the workers on our production lines--and coupling these firsthand observations with the reports of actual performance of our weapons on the fighting fronts--i can say to you that we are getting ahead of our enemies in the battle of production. and of great importance to our future production was the effective and rapid manner in which the congress met the serious problem of the rising cost of living. it was a splendid example of the operation of democratic processes in wartime. the machinery to carry out this act of the congress was put into effect within twelve hours after the bill was signed. the legislation will help the cost-of-living problems of every worker in every factory and on every farm in the land. in order to keep stepping up our production, we have had to add millions of workers to the total labor force of the nation. and as new factories came into operation, we must find additional millions of workers. this presents a formidable problem in the mobilization of manpower. it is not that we do not have enough people in this country to do the job. the problem is to have the right numbers of the right people in the right places at the right time. we are learning to ration materials, and we must now learn to ration manpower. the major objectives of a sound manpower policy are: first, to select and train men of the highest fighting efficiency needed for our armed forces in the achievement of victory over our enemies in combat. second, to man our war industries and farms with the workers needed to produce the arms and munitions and food required by ourselves and by our fighting allies to win this war. in order to do this, we shall be compelled to stop workers from moving from one war job to another as a matter of personal preference; to stop employers from stealing labor from each other; to use older men, and handicapped people, and more women, and even grown boys and girls, wherever possible and reasonable, to replace men of military age and fitness; to train new personnel for essential war work; and to stop the wastage of labor in all non- essential activities. there are many other things that we can do, and do immediately, to help meet this manpower problem. the school authorities in all the states should work out plans to enable our high school students to take some time from their school year, and to use their summer vacations, to help farmers raise and harvest their crops, or to work somewhere in the war industries. this does not mean closing schools and stopping education. it does mean giving older students a better opportunity to contribute their bit to the war effort. such work will do no harm to the students. people should do their work as near their homes as possible. we cannot afford to transport a single worker into an area where there is already a worker available to do the job. in some communities, employers dislike to employ women. in others they are reluctant to hire negroes. in still others, older men are not wanted. we can no longer afford to indulge such prejudices or practices. every citizen wants to know what essential war work he can do the best. he can get the answer by applying to the nearest united states employment service office. there are four thousand five hundred of these offices throughout the nation. they form the corner grocery stores of our manpower system. this network of employment offices is prepared to advise every citizen where his skills and labors are needed most, and to refer him to an employer who can utilize them to best advantage in the war effort. perhaps the most difficult phase of the manpower problem is the scarcity of farm labor in many places. i have seen evidences of the fact, however, that the people are trying to meet it as well as possible. in one community that i visited a perishable crop was harvested by turning out the whole of the high school for three or four days. and in another community of fruit growers the usual japanese labor was not available; but when the fruit ripened, the banker, the butcher, the lawyer, the garage man, the druggist, the local editor, and in fact every able-bodied man and woman in the town, left their occupations and went out, gathered the fruit, and sent it to market. every farmer in the land must realize fully that his production is part of war production, and that he is regarded by the nation as essential to victory. the american people expect him to keep his production up, and even to increase it. we will use every effort to help him to get labor; but, at the same time, he and the people of his community must use ingenuity and cooperative effort to produce crops, and livestock and dairy products. it may be that all of our volunteer effort--however well intentioned and well administered--will not suffice wholly to solve this problem. in that case, we shall have to adopt new legislation. and if this is necessary, i do not believe that the american people will shrink from it. in a sense, every american, because of the privilege of his citizenship, is a part of the selective service. the nation owes a debt of gratitude to the selective service boards. the successful operation of the selective service system and the way it has been accepted by the great mass of our citizens give us confidence that if necessary, the same principle could be used to solve any manpower problem. and i want to say also a word of praise and thanks to the more than ten million people, all over the country, who have volunteered for the work of civilian defense--and who are working hard at it. they are displaying unselfish devotion in the patient performance of their often tiresome and always anonymous tasks. in doing this important neighborly work they are helping to fortify our national unity and our real understanding of the fact that we are all involved in this war. naturally, on my trip i was most interested in watching the training of our fighting forces. all of our combat units that go overseas must consist of young, strong men who have had thorough training. an army division that has an average age of twenty-three or twenty-four is a better fighting unit than one which has an average age of thirty-three or thirty-four. the more of such troops we have in the field, the sooner the war will be won, and the smaller will be the cost in casualties. therefore, i believe that it will be necessary to lower the present minimum age limit for selective service from twenty years down to eighteen. we have learned how inevitable that is--and how important to the speeding up of victory. i can very thoroughly understand the feelings of all parents whose sons have entered our armed forces. i have an appreciation of that feeling and so has my wife. i want every father and every mother who has a son in the service to know--again, from what i have seen with my own eyes--that the men in the army, navy and marine corps are receiving today the best possible training, equipment and medical care. and we will never fail to provide for the spiritual needs of our officers and men under the chaplains of our armed services. good training will save many, many lives in battle. the highest rate of casualties is always suffered by units comprised of inadequately trained men. we can be sure that the combat units of our army and navy are well manned, well equipped, and well trained. their effectiveness in action will depend upon the quality of their leadership, and upon the wisdom of the strategic plans on which all military operations are based. i can say one thing about these plans of ours: they are not being decided by the typewriter strategists who expound their views on the radio or in the press. one of the greatest of american soldiers, robert e. lee, once remarked on the tragic fact that in the war of his day all of the best generals were apparently working on newspapers instead of in the army. and that seems to be true in all wars. the trouble with the typewriter strategists is that while they may be full of bright ideas, they are not in possession of much information about the facts or problems of military operations. we, therefore, will continue to leave the plans for this war to the military leaders. the military and naval plans of the united states are made by the joint staff of the army and navy which is constantly in session in washington. the chiefs of this staff are admiral leahy, general marshall, admiral king and general arnold. they meet and confer regularly with representatives of the british joint staff, and with representatives of russia, china, the netherlands, poland, norway, the british dominions and other nations working in the common cause. since this unity of operations was put into effect last january, there has been a very substantial agreement between these planners, all of whom are trained in the profession of arms--air, sea and land--from their early years. as commander-in-chief i have at all times also been in substantial agreement. as i have said before, many major decisions of strategy have been made. one of them--on which we have all agreed--relates to the necessity of diverting enemy forces from russia and china to other theaters of war by new offensives against germany and japan. an announcement of how these offensives are to be launched, and when, and where, cannot be broadcast over the radio at this time. we are celebrating today the exploit of a bold and adventurous italian--christopher columbus--who with the aid of spain opened up a new world where freedom and tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity provided an asylum for the oppressed of the old world. today, the sons of the new world are fighting in lands far distant from their own america. they are fighting to save for all mankind, including ourselves, the principles which have flourished in this new world of freedom. we are mindful of the countless millions of people whose future liberty and whose very lives depend upon permanent victory for the united nations. there are a few people in this country who, when the collapse of the axis begins, will tell our people that we are safe once more; that we can tell the rest of the world to "stew in its own juice"; that never again will we help to pull "the other fellow's chestnuts from the fire"; that the future of civilization can jolly well take care of itself insofar as we are concerned. but it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. it is useless to win a war unless it stays won. we, therefore, fight for the restoration and perpetuation of faith and hope and peace throughout the world. the objective of today is clear and realistic. it is to destroy completely the military power of germany, italy and japan to such good purpose that their threat against us and all the other united nations cannot be revived a generation hence. we are united in seeking the kind of victory that will guarantee that our grandchildren can grow and, under god, may live their lives, free from the constant threat of invasion, destruction, slavery and violent death. may , . my fellow americans: i am speaking tonight to the american people, and in particular to those of our citizens who are coal miners. tonight this country faces a serious crisis. we are engaged in a war on the successful outcome of which will depend the whole future of our country. this war has reached a new critical phase. after the years that we have spent in preparation, we have moved into active and continuing battle with our enemies. we are pouring into the world-wide conflict everything that we have--our young men, and the vast resources of our nation. i have just returned from a two weeks' tour of inspection on which i saw our men being trained and our war materials made. my trip took me through twenty states. i saw thousands of workers on the production line, making airplanes, and guns and ammunition. everywhere i found great eagerness to get on with the war. men and women are working long hours at difficult jobs and living under difficult conditions without complaint. along thousands of miles of track i saw countless acres of newly ploughed fields. the farmers of this country are planting the crops that are needed to feed our armed forces, our civilian population and our allies. those crops will be harvested. on my trip, i saw hundreds of thousands of soldiers. young men who were green recruits last autumn have matured into self-assured and hardened fighting men. they are in splendid physical condition. they are mastering the superior weapons that we are pouring out of our factories. the american people have accomplished a miracle. however, all of our massed effort is none too great to meet the demands of this war. we shall need everything that we have and everything that our allies have to defeat the nazis and the fascists in the coming battles on the continent of europe, and the japanese on the continent of asia and in the islands of the pacific. this tremendous forward movement of the united states and the united nations cannot be stopped by our enemies. and equally, it must not be hampered by any one individual or by the leaders of any one group here back home. i want to make it clear that every american coal miner who has stopped mining coal--no matter how sincere his motives, no matter how legitimate he may believe his grievances to be--every idle miner directly and individually is obstructing our war effort. we have not yet won this war. we will win this war only as we produce and deliver our total american effort on the high seas and on the battle fronts. and that requires unrelenting, uninterrupted effort here on the home front. a stopping of the coal supply, even for a short time, would involve a gamble with the lives of american soldiers and sailors and the future security of our whole people. it would involve an unwarranted, unnecessary and terribly dangerous gamble with our chances for victory. therefore, i say to all miners--and to all americans everywhere, at home and abroad--the production of coal will not be stopped. tonight, i am speaking to the essential patriotism of the miners, and to the patriotism of their wives and children. and i am going to state the true facts of this case as simply and as plainly as i know how. after the attack at pearl harbor, the three great labor organizations--the american federation of labor, the congress of industrial organizations, and the railroad brotherhoods--gave the positive assurance that there would be no strikes as long as the war lasted. and the president of the united mine workers of america was a party to that assurance. that pledge was applauded throughout the country. it was a forcible means of telling the world that we americans-- , , of us-- are united in our determination to fight this total war with our total will and our total power. at the request of employers and of organized labor--including the united mine workers--the war labor board was set up for settling any disputes which could not be adjusted through collective bargaining. the war labor board is a tribunal on which workers, employers and the general public are equally represented. in the present coal crisis, conciliation and mediation were tried unsuccessfully. in accordance with the law, the case was then certified to the war labor board, the agency created for this express purpose with the approval of organized labor. the members of the board followed the usual practice which has proved successful in other disputes. acting promptly, they undertook to get all the facts of this case from both the miners and the operators. the national officers of the united mine workers, however, declined to have anything to do with the fact-finding of the war labor board. the only excuse that they offer is that the war labor board is prejudiced. the war labor board has been and is ready to give this case a fair and impartial hearing. and i have given my assurance that if any adjustment of wages is made by the board, it will be made retroactive to april first. but the national officers of the united mine workers refused to participate in the hearing, when asked to do so last monday. on wednesday of this past week, while the board was proceeding with the case, stoppages began to occur in some mines. on thursday morning i telegraphed to the officers of the united mine workers asking that the miners continue mining coal on saturday morning. however, a general strike throughout the industry became effective on friday night. the responsibility for the crisis that we now face rests squarely on these national officers of the united mine workers, and not on the government of the united states. but the consequences of this arbitrary action threaten all of us everywhere. at ten o'clock yesterday morning the government took over the mines. i called upon the miners to return to work for their government. the government needs their services just as surely as it needs the services of our soldiers, and sailors, and marines-- and the services of the millions who are turning out the munitions of war. you miners have sons in the army and navy and marine corps. you have sons who at this very minute--this split second--may be fighting in new guinea, or in the aleutian islands, or guadalcanal, or tunisia, or china, or protecting troop ships and supplies against submarines on the high seas. we have already received telegrams from some of our fighting men overseas, and i only wish they could tell you what they think of the stoppage of work in the coal mines. some of your own sons have come back from the fighting fronts, wounded. a number of them, for example, are now here in an army hospital in washington. several of them have been decorated by their government. i could tell you of one from pennsylvania. he was a coal miner before his induction, and his father is a coal miner. he was seriously wounded by nazi machine gun bullets while he was on a bombing mission over europe in a flying fortress. another boy, from kentucky, the son of a coal miner, was wounded when our troops first landed in north africa six months ago. there is still another, from illinois. he was a coal miner--his father and two brothers are coal miners. he was seriously wounded in tunisia while attempting to rescue two comrades whose jeep had been blown up by a nazi mine. these men do not consider themselves heroes. they would probably be embarrassed if i mentioned their names over the air. they were wounded in the line of duty. they know how essential it is to the tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands--and ultimately millions of other young americans to get the best of arms and equipment into the hands of our fighting forces--and get them there quickly. the fathers and mothers of our fighting men, their brothers and sisters and friends--and that includes all of us--are also in the line of duty--the production line. any failure in production may well result in costly defeat on the field of battle. there can be no one among us--no one faction powerful enough to interrupt the forward march of our people to victory. you miners have ample reason to know that there are certain basic rights for which this country stands, and that those rights are worth fighting for and worth dying for. that is why you have sent your sons and brothers from every mining town in the nation to join in the great struggle overseas. that is why you have contributed so generously, so willingly, to the purchase of war bonds and to the many funds for the relief of war victims in foreign lands. that is why, since this war was started in , you have increased the annual production of coal by almost two hundred million tons a year. the toughness of your sons in our armed forces is not surprising. they come of fine, rugged stock. men who work in the mines are not unaccustomed to hardship. it has been the objective of this government to reduce that hardship, to obtain for miners and for all who do the nation's work a better standard of living. i know only too well that the cost of living is troubling the miners' families, and troubling the families of millions of other workers throughout the country as well. a year ago it became evident to all of us that something had to be done about living costs. your government determined not to let the cost of living continue to go up as it did in the first world war. your government has been determined to maintain stability of both prices and wages--so that a dollar would buy, so far as possible, the same amount of the necessities of life. and by necessities i mean just that--not the luxuries, not the fancy goods that we have learned to do without in wartime. so far, we have not been able to keep the prices of some necessities as low as we should have liked to keep them. that is true not only in coal towns but in many other places. wherever we find that prices of essentials have risen too high, they will be brought down. wherever we find that price ceilings are being violated, the violators will be punished. rents have been fixed in most parts of the country. in many cities they have been cut to below where they were before we entered the war. clothing prices have generally remained stable. these two items make up more than a third of the total budget of the worker's family. as for food, which today accounts for about another third of the family expenditure on the average, i want to repeat again: your government will continue to take all necessary measures to eliminate unjustified and avoidable price increases. and we are today taking measures to "roll back" the prices of meats. the war is going to go on. coal will be mined no matter what any individual thinks about it. the operation of our factories, our power plants, our railroads will not be stopped. our munitions must move to our troops. and so, under these circumstances, it is inconceivable that any patriotic miner can choose any course other than going back to work and mining coal. the nation cannot afford violence of any kind at the coal mines or in coal towns. i have placed authority for the resumption of coal mining in the hands of a civilian, the secretary of the interior. if it becomes necessary to protect any miner who seeks patriotically to go back and work, then that miner must have and his family must have--and will have--complete and adequate protection. if it becomes necessary to have troops at the mine mouths or in coal towns for the protection of working miners and their families, those troops will be doing police duty for the sake of the nation as a whole, and particularly for the sake of the fighting men in the army, the navy and the marines--your sons and mine--who are fighting our common enemies all over the world. i understand the devotion of the coal miners to their union. i know of the sacrifices they have made to build it up. i believe now, as i have all my life, in the right of workers to join unions and to protect their unions. i want to make it absolutely clear that this government is not going to do anything now to weaken those rights in the coal fields. every improvement in the conditions of the coal miners of this country has had my hearty support, and i do not mean to desert them now. but i also do not mean to desert my obligations and responsibilities as president of the united states and commander- in-chief of the army and navy. the first necessity is the resumption of coal mining. the terms of the old contract will be followed by the secretary of the interior. if an adjustment in wages results from a decision of the war labor board, or from any new agreement between the operators and miners, which is approved by the war labor board, that adjustment will be made retroactive to april first. in the message that i delivered to the congress four months ago, i expressed my conviction that the spirit of this nation is good. since then, i have seen our troops in the caribbean area, in bases on the coasts of our ally, brazil, and in north africa. recently i have again seen great numbers of our fellow countrymen--soldiers and civilians--from the atlantic seaboard to the mexican border and to the rocky mountains. tonight, in the fact of a crisis of serious proportions in the coal industry, i say again that the spirit or this nation is good. i know that the american people will not tolerate any threat offered to their government by anyone. i believe the coal miners will not continue the strike against their government. i believe that the coal miners as americans will not fail to heed the clear call to duty. like all other good americans, they will march shoulder to shoulder with their armed forces to victory. tomorrow the stars and stripes will fly over the coal mines, and i hope that every miner will be at work under that flag. july , . my fellow americans: over a year and a half ago i said this to the congress: "the militarists in berlin, and rome and tokyo started this war, but the massed angered forces of common humanity will finish it." today that prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled. the massed, angered forces of common humanity are on the march. they are going forward--on the russian front, in the vast pacific area, and into europe--converging upon their ultimate objectives: berlin and tokyo. i think the first crack in the axis has come. the criminal, corrupt fascist regime in italy is going to pieces. the pirate philosophy of the fascists and the nazis cannot stand adversity. the military superiority of the united nations--on sea and land, and in the air--has been applied in the right place and at the right time. hitler refused to send sufficient help to save mussolini. in fact, hitler's troops in sicily stole the italians' motor equipment, leaving italian soldiers so stranded that they had no choice but to surrender. once again the germans betrayed their italian allies, as they had done time and time again on the russian front and in the long retreat from egypt, through libya and tripoli, to the final surrender in tunisia. and so mussolini came to the reluctant conclusion that the "jig was up"; he could see the shadow of the long arm of justice. but he and his fascist gang will be brought to book, and punished for their crimes against humanity. no criminal will be allowed to escape by the expedient of "resignation." so our terms to italy are still the same as our terms to germany and japan--"unconditional surrender." we will have no truck with fascism in any way, in any shape or manner. we will permit no vestige of fascism to remain. eventually italy will reconstitute herself. it will be the people of italy who will do that, choosing their own government in accordance with the basic democratic principles of liberty and equality. in the meantime, the united nations will not follow the pattern set by mussolini and hitler and the japanese for the treatment of occupied countries--the pattern of pillage and starvation. we are already helping the italian people in sicily. with their cordial cooperation, we are establishing and maintaining security and order--we are dissolving the organizations which have kept them under fascist tyranny--we are providing them with the necessities of life until the time comes when they can fully provide for themselves. indeed, the people in sicily today are rejoicing in the fact that for the first time in years they are permitted to enjoy the fruits of their own labors--they can eat what they themselves grow, instead of having it stolen from them by the fascists and the nazis. in every country conquered by the nazis and the fascists, or the japanese militarists, the people have been reduced to the status of slaves or chattels. it is our determination to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. we have started to make good on that promise. i am sorry if i step on the toes of those americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy "crazy altruism "and "starry-eyed dreaming." meanwhile, the war in sicily and italy goes on. it must go on, and will go on, until the italian people realize the futility of continuing to fight in a lost cause--a cause to which the people of italy never gave their wholehearted approval and support. it is a little over a year since we planned the north african campaign. it is six months since we planned the sicilian campaign. i confess that i am of an impatient disposition, but i think that i understand and that most people understand the amount of time necessary to prepare for any major military or naval operation. we cannot just pick up the telephone and order a new campaign to start the next week. for example, behind the invasion forces in north africa, the invasion forces that went out of north africa, were thousands of ships and planes guarding the long, perilous sea lanes, carrying the men, carrying the equipment and the supplies to the point of attack. and behind all these were the railroad lines and the highways here back home that carried the men and the munitions to the ports of embarkation--there were the factories and the mines and the farms here back home that turned out the materials--there were the training camps here back home where the men learned how to perform the strange and difficult and dangerous tasks which were to meet them on the beaches and in the deserts and in the mountains. all this had to be repeated, first in north africa and then in the attack on sicily. here the factor--in sicily--the factor of air attack was added--for we could use north africa as the base for softening up the landing places and lines of defense in sicily, and the lines of supply in italy. it is interesting for us to realize that every flying fortress that bombed harbor installations at, for example, naples, from its base in north africa required , gallons of gasoline for each single mission, and that this is the equal of about "a" ration tickets--enough gas to drive your car five times across this continent. you will better understand your part in the war--and what gasoline rationing means--if you multiply this by the gasoline needs of thousands of planes and hundreds of thousands of jeeps, and trucks and tanks that are now serving overseas. i think that the personal convenience of the individual, or the individual family back home here in the united states will appear somewhat less important when i tell you that the initial assault force on sicily involved , ships which carried , men-- americans, british, canadians and french--together with , vehicles, tanks, and , guns. and this initial force was followed every day and every night by thousands of reinforcements. the meticulous care with which the operation in sicily was planned has paid dividends. our casualties in men, in ships and material have been low--in fact, far below our estimate. and all of us are proud of the superb skill and courage of the officers and men who have conducted and are conducting those operations. the toughest resistance developed on the front of the british eighth army, which included the canadians. but that is no new experience for that magnificent fighting force which has made the germans pay a heavy price for each hour of delay in the final victory. the american seventh army, after a stormy landing on the exposed beaches of southern sicily, swept with record speed across the island into the capital at palermo. for many of our troops this was their first battle experience, but they have carried themselves like veterans. and we must give credit for the coordination of the diverse forces in the field, and for the planning of the whole campaign, to the wise and skillful leadership of general eisenhower. admiral cunningham, general alexander and sir marshal tedder have been towers of strength in handling the complex details of naval and ground and air activities. you have heard some people say that the british and the americans can never get along well together--you have heard some people say that the army and the navy and the air forces can never get along well together--that real cooperation between them is impossible. tunisia and sicily have given the lie, once and for all, to these narrow-minded prejudices. the dauntless fighting spirit of the british people in this war has been expressed in the historic words and deeds of winston churchill--and the world knows how the american people feel about him. ahead of us are much bigger fights. we and our allies will go into them as we went into sicily--together. and we shall carry on together. today our production of ships is almost unbelievable. this year we are producing over nineteen million tons of merchant shipping and next year our production will be over twenty-one million tons. and in addition to our shipments across the atlantic, we must realize that in this war we are operating in the aleutians, in the distant parts of the southwest pacific, in india, and off the shores of south america. for several months we have been losing fewer ships by sinkings, and we have been destroying more and more u-boats. we hope this will continue. but we cannot be sure. we must not lower our guard for one single instant. one tangible result of our great increase in merchant shipping-- which i think will be good news to civilians at home--is that tonight we are able to terminate the rationing of coffee. we also expect that within a short time we shall get greatly increased allowances of sugar. those few americans who grouse and complain about the inconveniences of life here in the united states should learn some lessons from the civilian populations of our allies--britain, and china, and russia--and of all the lands occupied by our common enemy. the heaviest and most decisive fighting today is going on in russia. i am glad that the british and we have been able to contribute somewhat to the great striking power of the russian armies. in - the russians were able to retire without breaking, to move many of their war plants from western russia far into the interior, to stand together with complete unanimity in the defense of their homeland. the success of the russian armies has shown that it is dangerous to make prophecies about them--a fact which has been forcibly brought home to that mystic master of strategic intuition, herr hitler. the short-lived german offensive, launched early this month, was a desperate attempt to bolster the morale of the german people. the russians were not fooled by this. they went ahead with their own plans for attack--plans which coordinate with the whole united nations' offensive strategy. the world has never seen greater devotion, determination and self- sacrifice than have been displayed by the russian people and their armies, under the leadership of marshal joseph stalin. with a nation which in saving itself is thereby helping to save all the world from the nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbor and a sincere friend in the world of the future. in the pacific, we are pushing the japs around from the aleutians to new guinea. there too we have taken the initiative--and we are not going to let go of it. it becomes clearer and clearer that the attrition, the whittling down process against the japanese is working. the japs have lost more planes and more ships than they have been able to replace. the continuous and energetic prosecution of the war of attrition will drive the japs back from their over-extended line running from burma and siam and the straits settlement through the netherlands indies to eastern new guinea and the solomons. and we have good reason to believe that their shipping and their air power cannot support such outposts. our naval and land and air strength in the pacific is constantly growing. and if the japanese are basing their future plans for the pacific on a long period in which they will be permitted to consolidate and exploit their conquered resources, they had better start revising their plans now. i give that to them merely as a helpful suggestion. we are delivering planes and vital war supplies for the heroic armies of generalissimo chiang sai-shek, and we must do more at all costs. our air supply line from india to china across enemy territory continues despite attempted japanese interference. we have seized the initiative from the japanese in the air over burma and now we enjoy superiority. we are bombing japanese communications, supply dumps, and bases in china, in indo-china, in burma. but we are still far from our main objectives in the war against japan. let us remember, however, how far we were a year ago from any of our objectives in the european theatre. we are pushing forward to occupation of positions which in time will enable us to attack the japanese islands themselves from the north, from the south, from the east, and from the west. you have heard it said that while we are succeeding greatly on the fighting front, we are failing miserably on the home front. i think this is another of those immaturities--a false slogan easy to state but untrue in the essential facts. for the longer this war goes on the clearer it becomes that no one can draw a blue pencil down the middle of a page and call one side "the fighting front" and the other side "the home front." for the two of them are inexorably tied together. every combat division, every naval task force, every squadron of fighting planes is dependent for its equipment and ammunition and fuel and food, as indeed it is for its manpower, dependent on the american people in civilian clothes in the offices and in the factories and on the farms at home. the same kind of careful planning that gained victory in north africa and sicily is required, if we are to make victory an enduring reality and do our share in building the kind of peaceful world that will justify the sacrifices made in this war. the united nations are substantially agreed on the general objectives for the post-war world. they are also agreed that this is not the time to engage in an international discussion of _all_ the terms of peace and _all_ the details of the future. let us win the war first. we must not relax our pressure on the enemy by taking time out to define every boundary and settle every political controversy in every part of the world. the important thing--the all-important thing now is to get on with the war--and to win it. while concentrating on military victory, we are not neglecting the planning of the things to come, the freedoms which we know will make for more decency and greater justice throughout the world. among many other things we are, today, laying plans for the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in the armed services. they must not be demobilized into an environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a bread line, or on a corner selling apples. we must, this time, have plans ready-- instead of waiting to do a hasty, inefficient, and ill-considered job at the last moment. i have assured our men in the armed forces that the american people would not let them down when the war is won. i hope that the congress will help in carrying out this assurance, for obviously the executive branch of the government cannot do it alone. may the congress do its duty in this regard. the american people will insist on fulfilling this american obligation to the men and women in the armed forces who are winning this war for us. of course, the returning soldier and sailor and marine are a part of the problem of demobilizing the rest of the millions of americans who have been working and living in a war economy since . that larger objective of reconverting wartime america to a peacetime basis is one for which your government is laying plans to be submitted to the congress for action. but the members of the armed forces have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us, and they are entitled to definite action to help take care of their special problems. the least to which they are entitled, it seems to me, is something like this: first, mustering-out pay to every member of the armed forces and merchant marine when he or she is honorably discharged; mustering- out pay large enough in each case to cover a reasonable period of time between his discharge and the finding of a new job. second, in case no job is found after diligent search, then unemployment insurance if the individual registers with the united states employment service. third, an opportunity for members of the armed services to get further education or trade training at the cost of the government. fourth, allowance of credit to all members of the armed forces, under unemployment compensation and federal old-age and survivors' insurance, for their period of service. for these purposes they ought to be treated as if they had continued their employment in private industry. fifth, improved and liberalized provisions for hospitalization, for rehabilitation, for medical care of disabled members of the armed forces and the merchant marine. and finally, sufficient pensions for disabled members of the armed forces. your government is drawing up other serious, constructive plans for certain immediate forward moves. they concern food, manpower, and other domestic problems that tie in with our armed forces. within a few weeks i shall speak with you again in regard to definite actions to be taken by the executive branch of the government, and specific recommendations for new legislation by the congress. all our calculations for the future, however, must be based on clear understanding of the problems involved. and that can be gained only by straight thinking--not guesswork, not political manipulation. i confess that i myself am sometimes bewildered by conflicting statements that i see in the press. one day i read an "authoritative" statement that we shall win the war this year, --and the next day comes another statement equally "authoritative," that the war will still be going on in . of course, both extremes--of optimism and pessimism--are wrong. the length of the war will depend upon the uninterrupted continuance of all-out effort on the fighting fronts and here at home, and that effort is all one. the american soldier does not like the necessity of waging war. and yet--if he lays off for one single instant he may lose his own life and sacrifice the lives of his comrades. by the same token--a worker here at home may not like the driving, wartime conditions under which he has to work and live. and yet--if he gets complacent or indifferent and slacks on his job, he too may sacrifice the lives of american soldiers and contribute to the loss of an important battle. the next time anyone says to you that this war is "in the bag," or says "it's all over but the shouting," you should ask him these questions: "are you working full time on your job?" "are you growing all the food you can?" "are you buying your limit of war bonds?" "are you loyally and cheerfully cooperating with your government in preventing inflation and profiteering, and in making rationing work with fairness to all?" "because--if your answer is 'no'--then the war is going to last a lot longer than you think.² the plans we made for the knocking out of mussolini and his gang have largely succeeded. but we still have to knock out hitler and his gang, and tojo and his gang. no one of us pretends that this will be an easy matter. we still have to defeat hitler and tojo on their own home grounds. but this will require a far greater concentration of our national energy and our ingenuity and our skill. it is not too much to say that we must pour into this war the entire strength and intelligence and will power of the united states. we are a great nation--a rich nation--but we are not so great or so rich that we can afford to waste our substance or the lives or our men by relaxing along the way. we shall not settle for less than total victory. that is the determination of every american on the fighting fronts. that must be, and will be, the determination of every american here at home. september , . my fellow americans: once upon a time, a few years ago, there was a city in our middle west which was threatened by a destructive flood in the great river. the waters had risen to the top of the banks. every man, woman and child in that city was called upon to fill sand bags in order to defend their homes against the rising waters. for many days and nights, destruction and death stared them in the face. as a result of the grim, determined community effort, that city still stands. those people kept the levees above the peak of the flood. all of them joined together in the desperate job that had to be done--business men, workers, farmers, and doctors, and preachers--people of all races. to me, that town is a living symbol of what community cooperation can accomplish. today, in the same kind of community effort, only very much larger, the united nations and their peoples have kept the levees of civilization high enough to prevent the floods of aggression and barbarism and wholesale murder from engulfing us all. the flood has been raging for four years. at last we are beginning to gain on it; but the waters have not yet receded enough for us to relax our sweating work with the sand bags. in this war bond campaign we are filling bags and placing them against the flood--bags which are essential if we are to stand off the ugly torrent which is trying to sweep us all away. today, it is announced that an armistice with italy has been concluded. this was a great victory for the united nations--but it was also a great victory for the italian people. after years of war and suffering and degradation, the italian people are at last coming to the day of liberation from their real enemies, the nazis. but let us not delude ourselves that this armistice means the end of the war in the mediterranean. we still have to drive the germans out of italy as we have driven them out of tunisia and sicily; we must drive them out of france and all other captive countries; and we must strike them on their own soil from all directions. our ultimate objectives in this war continue to be berlin and tokyo. i ask you to bear these objectives constantly in mind--and do not forget that we still have a long way to go before we attain them. the great news that you have heard today from general eisenhower does not give you license to settle back in your rocking chairs and say, "well, that does it. we've got 'em on the run. now we can start the celebration." the time for celebration is not yet. and i have a suspicion that when this war does end, we shall not be in a very celebrating mood, a very celebrating frame of mind. i think that our main emotion will be one of grim determination that this shall not happen again. during the past weeks, mr. churchill and i have been in constant conference with the leaders of our combined fighting forces. we have been in constant communication with our fighting allies, russian and chinese, who are prosecuting the war with relentless determination and with conspicuous success on far distant fronts. and mr. churchill and i are here together in washington at this crucial moment. we have seen the satisfactory fulfillment of plans that were made in casablanca last january and here in washington last may. and lately we have made new, extensive plans for the future. but throughout these conferences we have never lost sight of the fact that this war will become bigger and tougher, rather than easier, during the long months that are to come. this war does not and must not stop for one single instant. your fighting men know that. those of them who are moving forward through jungles against lurking japs--those who are landing at this moment, in barges moving through the dawn up to strange enemy coasts--those who are diving their bombers down on the targets at roof-top level at this moment--every one of these men knows that this war is a full-time job and that it will continue to be that until total victory is won. and, by the same token, every responsible leader in all the united nations knows that the fighting goes on twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and that any day lost may have to be paid for in terms of months added to the duration of the war. every campaign, every single operation in all the campaigns that we plan and carry through must be figured in terms of staggering material costs. we cannot afford to be niggardly with any of our resources, for we shall need all of them to do the job that we have put our shoulder to. your fellow americans have given a magnificent account of themselves--on the battlefields and on the oceans and in the skies all over the world. now it is up to you to prove to them that you are contributing your share and more than your share. it is not sufficient to simply to put into war bonds money which we would normally save. we must put into war bonds money which we would not normally save. only then have we done everything that good conscience demands. so it is up to you--up to you, the americans in the american homes--the very homes which our sons and daughters are working and fighting and dying to preserve. i know i speak for every man and woman throughout the americas when i say that we americans will not be satisfied to send our troops into the fire of the enemy with equipment inferior in any way. nor will we be satisfied to send our troops with equipment only equal to that of the enemy. we are determined to provide our troops with overpowering superiority--superiority of quantity and quality in any and every category of arms and armaments that they may conceivably need. and where does this our dominating power come from? why, it can come only from you. the money you lend and the money you give in taxes buys that death-dealing, and at the same time life-saving power that we need for victory. this is an expensive war--expensive in money; you can help it--you can help to keep it at a minimum cost in lives. the american people will never stop to reckon the cost of redeeming civilization. they know there can never be any economic justification for failing to save freedom. we can be sure that our enemies will watch this drive with the keenest interest. they know that success in this undertaking will shorten the war. they know that the more money the american people lend to their government, the more powerful and relentless will be the american forces in the field. they know that only a united and determined america could possibly produce on a voluntary basis so huge a sum of money as fifteen billion dollars. the overwhelming success of the second war loan drive last april showed that the people of this democracy stood firm behind their troops. this third war loan, which we are starting tonight, will also succeed--because the american people will not permit it to fail. i cannot tell you how much to invest in war bonds during this third war loan drive. no one can tell you. it is for you to decide under the guidance of your own conscience. i will say this, however. because the nation's needs are greater than ever before, our sacrifices too must be greater than they have ever been before. nobody knows when total victory will come--but we do know that the harder we fight now, the more might and power we direct at the enemy now, the shorter the war will be and the smaller the sum total of sacrifice. success of the third war loan will be the symbol that america does not propose to rest on its arms--that we know the tough, bitter job ahead and will not stop until we have finished it. now it is your turn! every dollar that you invest in the third war loan is your personal message of defiance to our common enemies--to the ruthless savages of germany and japan--and it is your personal message of faith and good cheer to our allies and to all the men at the front. god bless them! december , . my friends: i have recently returned from extensive journeying in the region of the mediterranean and as far as the borders of russia. i have conferred with the leaders of britain and russia and china on military matters of the present--especially on plans for stepping- up our successful attack on our enemies as quickly as possible and from many different points of the compass. on this christmas eve there are over , , men in the armed forces of the united states alone. one year ago , , were serving overseas. today, this figure has been more than doubled to , , on duty overseas. by next july first that number overseas will rise to over , , men and women. that this is truly a world war was demonstrated to me when arrangements were being made with our overseas broadcasting agencies for the time to speak today to our soldiers, and sailors, and marines and merchant seamen in every part of the world. in fixing the time for this broadcast, we took into consideration that at this moment here in the united states, and in the caribbean and on the northeast coast of south america, it is afternoon. in alaska and in hawaii and the mid-pacific, it is still morning. in iceland, in great britain, in north africa, in italy and the middle east, it is now evening. in the southwest pacific, in australia, in china and burma and india, it is already christmas day. so we can correctly say that at this moment, in those far eastern parts where americans are fighting, today is tomorrow. but everywhere throughout the world--throughout this war that covers the world--there is a special spirit that has warmed our hearts since our earliest childhood--a spirit that brings us close to our homes, our families, our friends and neighbors--the christmas spirit of "peace on earth, good will toward men." it is an unquenchable spirit. during the past years of international gangsterism and brutal aggression in europe and in asia, our christmas celebrations have been darkened with apprehension for the future. we have said, "merry christmas--a happy new year," but we have known in our hearts that the clouds which have hung over our world have prevented us from saying it with full sincerity and conviction. and even this year, we still have much to face in the way of further suffering, and sacrifice, and personal tragedy. our men, who have been through the fierce battles in the solomons, and the gilberts, and tunisia and italy know, from their own experience and knowledge of modern war, that many bigger and costlier battles are still to be fought. but--on christmas eve this year--i can say to you that at last we may look forward into the future with real, substantial confidence that, however great the cost, "peace on earth, good will toward men" can be and will be realized and ensured. this year i _can_ say that. last year i could _not_ do more than express a hope. today i express a certainty--though the cost may be high and the time may be long. within the past year--within the past few weeks--history has been made, and it is far better history for the whole human race than any that we have known, or even dared to hope for, in these tragic times through which we pass. a great beginning was made in the moscow conference last october by mr. molotov, mr. eden and our own mr. hull. there and then the way was paved for the later meetings. at cairo and teheran we devoted ourselves not only to military matters; we devoted ourselves also to consideration of the future-- to plans for the kind of world which alone can justify all the sacrifices of this war. of course, as you all know, mr. churchill and i have happily met many times before, and we know and understand each other very well. indeed, mr. churchill has become known and beloved by many millions of americans, and the heartfelt prayers of all of us have been with this great citizen of the world in his recent serious illness. the cairo and teheran conferences, however, gave me my first opportunity to meet the generalissimo, chiang kai-shek, and marshal stalin--and to sit down at the table with these unconquerable men and talk with them face to face. we had planned to talk to each other across the table at cairo and teheran; but we soon found that we were all on the same side of the table. we came to the conferences with faith in each other. but we needed the personal contact. and now we have supplemented faith with definite knowledge. it was well worth traveling thousands of miles over land and sea to bring about this personal meeting, and to gain the heartening assurance that we are absolutely agreed with one another on all the major objectives--and on the military means of obtaining them. at cairo, prime minister churchill and i spent four days with the generalissimo, chiang kai-shek. it was the first time that we had an opportunity to go over the complex situation in the far east with him personally. we were able not only to settle upon definite military strategy, but also to discuss certain long-range principles which we believe can assure peace in the far east for many generations to come. those principles are as simple as they are fundamental. they involve the restoration of stolen property to its rightful owners, and the recognition of the rights of millions of people in the far east to build up their own forms of self-government without molestation. essential to all peace and security in the pacific and in the rest of the world is the permanent elimination of the empire of japan as a potential force of aggression. never again must our soldiers and sailors and marines--and other soldiers, sailors and marines--be compelled to fight from island to island as they are fighting so gallantly and so successfully today. increasingly powerful forces are now hammering at the japanese at many points over an enormous arc which curves down through the pacific from the aleutians to the jungles of burma. our own army and navy, our air forces, the australians and new zealanders, the dutch, and the british land, air and sea forces are all forming a band of steel which is slowly but surely closing in on japan. on the mainland of asia, under the generalissimo's leadership, the chinese ground and air forces augmented by american air forces are playing a vital part in starting the drive which will push the invaders into the sea. following out the military decisions at cairo, general marshall has just flown around the world and has had conferences with general macarthur and admiral nimitz--conferences which will spell plenty of bad news for the japs in the not too far distant future. i met in the generalissimo a man of great vision, great courage, and a remarkably keen understanding of the problems of today and tomorrow. we discussed all the manifold military plans for striking at japan with decisive force from many directions, and i believe i can say that he returned to chungking with the positive assurance of total victory over our common enemy. today we and the republic of china are closer together than ever before in deep friendship and in unity of purpose. after the cairo conference, mr. churchill and i went by airplane to teheran. there we met with marshal stalin. we talked with complete frankness on every conceivable subject connected with the winning of the war and the establishment of a durable peace after the war. within three days of intense and consistently amicable discussions, we agreed on every point concerned with the launching of a gigantic attack upon germany. the russian army will continue its stern offensives on germany's eastern front, the allied armies in italy and africa will bring relentless pressure on germany from the south, and now the encirclement will be complete as great american and british forces attack from other points of the compass. the commander selected to lead the combined attack from these other points is general dwight d. eisenhower. his performances in africa, in sicily and in italy have been brilliant. he knows by practical and successful experience the way to coordinate air, sea and land power. all of these will be under his control. lieutenant general carl d. spaatz will command the entire american strategic bombing force operating against germany. general eisenhower gives up his command in the mediterranean to a british officer whose name is being announced by mr. churchill. we now pledge that new commander that our powerful ground, sea and air forces in the vital mediterranean area will stand by his side until every objective in that bitter theatre is attained. both of these new commanders will have american and british subordinate commanders whose names will be announced to the world in a few days. during the last two days at teheran, marshal stalin, mr. churchill and i looked ahead--ahead to the days and months and years that will follow germany's defeat. we were united in determination that germany must be stripped of her military might and be given no opportunity within the foreseeable future to regain that might. the united nations have no intention to enslave the german people. we wish them to have a normal chance to develop, in peace, as useful and respectable members of the european family. but we most certainly emphasize that word "respectable"--for we intend to rid them once and for all of nazism and prussian militarism and the fantastic and disastrous notion that they constitute the "master race." we did discuss international relationships from the point of view of big, broad objectives, rather than details. but on the basis of what we did discuss, i can say even today that i do not think any insoluble differences will arise among russia, great britain and the united states. in these conferences we were concerned with basic principles-- principles which involve the security and the welfare and the standard of living or human beings in countries large and small. to use an american and somewhat ungrammatical colloquialism, i may say that i "got along fine" with marshal stalin. he is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with a stalwart good humor. i believe he is truly representative of the heart and soul of russia; and i believe that we are going to get along very well with him and the russian people--very well indeed. britain, russia, china and the united states and their allies represent more than three-quarters of the total population of the earth. as long as these four nations with great military power stick together in determination to keep the peace there will be no possibility of an aggressor nation arising to start another world war. but those four powers must be united with and cooperate with all the freedom-loving peoples of europe, and asia, and africa and the americas. the rights of every nation, large or small, must be respected and guarded as jealously as are the rights of every individual within our own republic. the doctrine that the strong shall dominate the weak is the doctrine of our enemies--and we reject it. but, at the same time, we are agreed that if force is necessary to keep international peace, international force will be applied--for as long as it may be necessary. it has been our steady policy--and it is certainly a common sense policy--that the right of each nation to freedom must be measured by the willingness of that nation to fight for freedom. and today we salute our unseen allies in occupied countries--the underground resistance groups and the armies of liberation. they will provide potent forces against our enemies, when the day of the counter- invasion comes. through the development of science the world has become so much smaller that we have had to discard the geographical yardsticks of the past. for instance, through our early history the atlantic and pacific oceans were believed to be walls of safety for the united states. time and distance made it physically possible, for example, for us and for the other american republics to obtain and maintain our independence against infinitely stronger powers. until recently very few people, even military experts, thought that the day would ever come when we might have to defend our pacific coast against japanese threats of invasion. at the outbreak of the first world war relatively few people thought that our ships and shipping would be menaced by german submarines on the high seas or that the german militarists would ever attempt to dominate any nation outside of central europe. after the armistice in , we thought and hoped that the militaristic philosophy of germany had been crushed; and being full of the milk of human kindness we spent the next twenty years disarming, while the germans whined so pathetically that the other nations permitted them--and even helped them--to rearm. for too many years we lived on pious hopes that aggressor and warlike nations would learn and understand and carry out the doctrine of purely voluntary peace. the well-intentioned but ill-fated experiments of former years did not work. it is my hope that we will not try them again. no--that is putting it too weakly--it is my intention to do all that i humanly can as president and commander-in-chief to see to it that these tragic mistakes shall not be made again. there have always been cheerful idiots in this country who believed that there would be no more war for us, if everybody in america would only return into their homes and lock their front doors behind them. assuming that their motives were of the highest, events have shown how unwilling they were to face the facts. the overwhelming majority of all the people in the world want peace. most of them are fighting for the attainment of peace--not just a truce, not just an armistice--but peace that is as strongly enforced and as durable as mortal man can make it. if we are willing to fight for peace now, is it not good logic that we should use force if necessary, in the future, to keep the peace? i believe, and i think i can say, that the other three great nations who are fighting so magnificently to gain peace are in complete agreement that we must be prepared to keep the peace by force. if the people of germany and japan are made to realize thoroughly that the world is not going to let them break out again, it is possible, and, i hope, probable, that they will abandon the philosophy of aggression--the belief that they can gain the whole world even at the risk of losing their own souls. i shall have more to say about the cairo and teheran conferences when i make my report to the congress in about two weeks' time. and, on that occasion, i shall also have a great deal to say about certain conditions here at home. but today i wish to say that in all my travels, at home and abroad, it is the sight of our soldiers and sailors and their magnificent achievements which have given me the greatest inspiration and the greatest encouragement for the future. to the members of our armed forces, to their wives, mothers and fathers, i want to affirm the great faith and confidence that we have in general marshall and in admiral king who direct all of our armed might throughout the world. upon them falls the great responsibility of planning the strategy of determining where and when we shall fight. both of these men have already gained high places in american history, places which will record in that history many evidences of their military genius that cannot be published today. some of our men overseas are now spending their third christmas far from home. to them and to all others overseas or soon to go overseas, i can give assurance that it is the purpose of their government to win this war and to bring them home at the earliest possible time. we here in the united states had better be sure that when our soldiers and sailors do come home they will find an america in which they are given full opportunities for education, and rehabilitation, social security, and employment and business enterprise under the free american system--and that they will find a government which, by their votes as american citizens, they have had a full share in electing. the american people have had every reason to know that this is a tough and destructive war. on my trip abroad, i talked with many military men who had faced our enemies in the field. these hard- headed realists testify to the strength and skill and resourcefulness of the enemy generals and men whom we must beat before final victory is won. the war is now reaching the stage where we shall all have to look forward to large casualty lists-- dead, wounded and missing. war entails just that. there is no easy road to victory. and the end is not yet in sight. i have been back only for a week. it is fair that i should tell you my impression. i think i see a tendency in some of our people here to assume a quick ending of the war--that we have already gained the victory. and, perhaps as a result of this false reasoning, i think i discern an effort to resume or even encourage an outbreak of partisan thinking and talking. i hope i am wrong. for, surely, our first and most foremost tasks are all concerned with winning the war and winning a just peace that will last for generations. the massive offensives which are in the making both in europe and the far east--will require every ounce of energy and fortitude that we and our allies can summon on the fighting fronts and in all the workshops at home. as i have said before, you cannot order up a great attack on a monday and demand that it be delivered on saturday. less than a month ago i flew in a big army transport plane over the little town of bethlehem, in palestine. tonight, on christmas eve, all men and women everywhere who love christmas are thinking of that ancient town and of the star of faith that shone there more than nineteen centuries ago. american boys are fighting today in snow-covered mountains, in malarial jungles, on blazing deserts; they are fighting on the far stretches of the sea and above the clouds, and fighting for the thing for which they struggle. i think it is best symbolized by the message that came out of bethlehem. on behalf of the american people--your own people--i send this christmas message to you, to you who are in our armed forces: in our hearts are prayers for you and for all your comrades in arms who fight to rid the world of evil. we ask god's blessing upon you--upon your fathers, mothers, wives and children--all your loved ones at home. we ask that the comfort of god's grace shall be granted to those who are sick and wounded, and to those who are prisoners of war in the hands of the enemy, waiting for the day when they will again be free. and we ask that god receive and cherish those who have given their lives, and that he keep them in honor and in the grateful memory of their countrymen forever. god bless all of you who fight our battles on this christmas eve. god bless us all. keep us strong in our faith that we fight for a better day for humankind--here and everywhere. june , . my friends: yesterday, on june fourth, , rome fell to american and allied troops. the first of the axis capitals is now in our hands. one up and two to go! it is perhaps significant that the first of these capitals to fall should have the longest history of all of them. the story of rome goes back to the time of the foundations of our civilization. we can still see there monuments of the time when rome and the romans controlled the whole of the then known world. that, too, is significant, for the united nations are determined that in the future no one city and no one race will be able to control the whole of the world. in addition to the monuments of the older times, we also see in rome the great symbol of christianity, which has reached into almost every part of the world. there are other shrines and other churches in many places, but the churches and shrines of rome are visible symbols of the faith and determination of the early saints and martyrs that christianity should live and become universal. and tonight it will be a source of deep satisfaction that the freedom of the pope and the vatican city is assured by the armies of the united nations. it is also significant that rome has been liberated by the armed forces of many nations. the american and british armies--who bore the chief burdens of battle--found at their sides our own north american neighbors, the gallant canadians. the fighting new zealanders from the far south pacific, the courageous french and the french moroccans, the south africans, the poles and the east indians--all of them fought with us on the bloody approaches to the city of rome. the italians, too, forswearing a partnership in the axis which they never desired, have sent their troops to join us in our battles against the german trespassers on their soil. the prospect of the liberation of rome meant enough to hitler and his generals to induce them to fight desperately at great cost of men and materials and with great sacrifice to their crumbling eastern line and to their western front. no thanks are due to them if rome was spared the devastation which the germans wreaked on naples and other italian cities. the allied general maneuvered so skillfully that the nazis could only have stayed long enough to damage rome at the risk of losing their armies. but rome is of course more than a military objective. ever since before the days of the caesars, rome has stood as a symbol of authority. rome was the republic. rome was the empire. rome was and is in a sense the catholic church, and rome was the capital of a united italy. later, unfortunately, a quarter of a century ago, rome became the seat of fascism--one of the three capitals of the axis. for this quarter century the italian people were enslaved. they were degraded by the rule of mussolini from rome. they will mark its liberation with deep emotion. in the north of italy, the people are still dominated and threatened by the nazi overlords and their fascist puppets. our victory comes at an excellent time, while our allied forces are poised for another strike at western europe--and while the armies of other nazi soldiers nervously await our assault. and in the meantime our gallant russian allies continue to make their power felt more and more. from a strictly military standpoint, we had long ago accomplished certain of the main objectives of our italian campaign--the control of the islands--the major islands--the control of the sea lanes of the mediterranean to shorten our combat and supply lines, and the capture of the airports, such as the great airports of foggia, south of rome, from which we have struck telling blows on the continent--the whole of the continent all the way up to the russian front. it would be unwise to inflate in our own minds the military importance of the capture of rome. we shall have to push through a long period of greater effort and fiercer fighting before we get into germany itself. the germans have retreated thousands of miles, all the way from the gates of cairo, through libya and tunisia and sicily and southern italy. they have suffered heavy losses, but not great enough yet to cause collapse. germany has not yet been driven to surrender. germany has not yet been driven to the point where she will be unable to recommence world conquest a generation hence. therefore, the victory still lies some distance ahead. that distance will be covered in due time--have no fear of that. but it will be tough and it will be costly, as i have told you many, many times. in italy the people had lived so long under the corrupt rule of mussolini that, in spite of the tinsel at the top--you have seen the pictures of him--their economic condition had grown steadily worse. our troops have found starvation, malnutrition, disease, a deteriorating education and lowered public health--all by-products of the fascist misrule. the task of the allies in occupation has been stupendous. we have had to start at the very bottom, assisting local governments to reform on democratic lines. we have had to give them bread to replace that which was stolen out of their mouths by the germans. we have had to make it possible for the italians to raise and use their own local crops. we have to help them cleanse their schools of fascist trappings. i think the american people as a whole approve the salvage of these human beings, who are only now learning to walk in a new atmosphere of freedom. some of us may let our thoughts run to the financial cost of it. essentially it is what we can call a form of relief. and at the same time, we hope that this relief will be an investment for the future--an investment that will pay dividends by eliminating fascism, by ending any italian desires to start another war of aggression in the future. and that means that they are dividends which justify such an investment, because they are additional supports for world peace. the italian people are capable of self-government. we do not lose sight of their virtues as a peace-loving nation. we remember the many centuries in which the italians were leaders in the arts and sciences, enriching the lives of all mankind. we remember the great sons of the italian people--galileo and marconi, michelangelo and dante--and incidentally that fearless discoverer who typifies the courage of italy--christopher columbus. italy cannot grow in stature by seeking to build up a great militaristic empire. italians have been overcrowded within their own territories, but they do not need to try to conquer the lands of other peoples in order to find the breath of life. other peoples may not want to be conquered. in the past, italians have come by the millions into the united states. they have been welcomed, they have prospered, they have become good citizens, community and governmental leaders. they are not italian-americans. they are americans--americans of italian descent. the italians have gone in great numbers to the other americas-- brazil and the argentine, for example--hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them. they have gone to many other nations in every continent of the world, giving of their industry and their talents, and achieving success and the comfort of good living, and good citizenship. italy should go on as a great mother nation, contributing to the culture and the progress and the good will of all mankind-- developing her special talents in the arts and crafts and sciences, and preserving her historic and cultural heritage for the benefit of all peoples. we want and expect the help of the future italy toward lasting peace. all the other nations opposed to fascism and nazism ought to help to give italy a chance. the germans, after years of domination in rome, left the people in the eternal city on the verge of starvation. we and the british will do and are doing everything we can to bring them relief. anticipating the fall of rome, we made preparations to ship food supplies to the city, but, of course, it should be borne in mind that the needs are so great, the transportation requirements of our armies so heavy, that improvement must be gradual. but we have already begun to save the lives of the men, women and children of rome. this, i think, is an example of the efficiency of your machinery of war. the magnificent ability and energy of the american people in growing the crops, building the merchant ships, in making and collecting the cargoes, in getting the supplies over thousands of miles of water, and thinking ahead to meet emergencies--all this spells, i think, an amazing efficiency on the part of our armed forces, all the various agencies working with them, and american industry and labor as a whole. no great effort like this can be a hundred percent perfect, but the batting average is very, very high. and so i extend the congratulations and thanks tonight of the american people to general alexander, who has been in command of the whole italian operation; to our general clark and general leese of the fifth and the eighth armies; to general wilson, the supreme allied commander of the mediterranean theater, to general devers, his american deputy; to general eaker; to admirals cunningham and hewitt; and to all their brave officers and men. may god bless them and watch over them and over all of our gallant, fighting men. june , . all our fighting men overseas today have their appointed stations on the far-flung battlefronts of the world. we at home have ours too. we need, we are proud of, our fighting men--most decidedly. but, during the anxious times ahead, let us not forget that they need us too. it goes almost without saying that we must continue to forge the weapons of victory--the hundreds of thousands of items, large and small, essential to the waging of war. this has been the major task from the very start, and it is still a major task. this is the very worst time for any war worker to think of leaving his machine or to look for a peacetime job. and it goes almost without saying, too, that we must continue to provide our government with the funds necessary for waging war not only by the payment of taxes--which, after all, is an obligation of american citizenship--but also by the purchase of war bonds--an act of free choice which every citizen has to make for himself under the guidance of his own conscience. whatever else any of us may be doing, the purchase of war bonds and stamps is something all of us can do and should do to help win the war. i am happy to report tonight that it is something which nearly everyone seems to be doing. although there are now approximately sixty-seven million persons who have or earn some form of income, eighty-one million persons or their children have already bought war bonds. they have bought more than six hundred million individual bonds. their purchases have totaled more than thirty-two billion dollars. these are the purchases of individual men, women, and children. anyone who would have said this was possible a few years ago would have been put down as a starry-eyed visionary. but of such visions is the stuff of america fashioned. of course, there are always pessimists with us everywhere, a few here and a few there. i am reminded of the fact that after the fall of france in i asked the congress for the money for the production by the united states of fifty thousand airplanes that year. well, i was called crazy--it was said that the figure was fantastic; that it could not be done. and yet today we are building airplanes at the rate of one hundred thousand a year. there is a direct connection between the bonds you have bought and the stream of men and equipment now rushing over the english channel for the liberation of europe. there is a direct connection between your bonds and every part of this global war today. tonight, therefore, on the opening of this fifth war loan drive, it is appropriate for us to take a broad look at this panorama of world war, for the success or the failure of the drive is going to have so much to do with the speed with which we can accomplish victory and the peace. while i know that the chief interest tonight is centered on the english channel and on the beaches and farms and the cities of normandy, we should not lose sight of the fact that our armed forces are engaged on other battlefronts all over the world, and that no one front can be considered alone without its proper relation to all. it is worth while, therefore, to make over-all comparisons with the past. let us compare today with just two years ago--june, . at that time germany was in control of practically all of europe, and was steadily driving the russians back toward the ural mountains. germany was practically in control of north africa and the mediterranean, and was beating at the gates of the suez canal and the route to india. italy was still an important military and supply factor--as subsequent, long campaigns have proved. japan was in control of the western aleutian islands; and in the south pacific was knocking at the gates of australia and new zealand--and also was threatening india. japan had seized control of most of the central pacific. american armed forces on land and sea and in the air were still very definitely on the defensive, and in the building-up stage. our allies were bearing the heat and the brunt of the attack. in washington heaved a sigh of relief that the first war bond issue had been cheerfully oversubscribed by the american people. way back in those days, two year ago, america was still hearing from many "amateur strategists" and political critics, some of whom were doing more good for hitler than for the united states--two years ago. but today we are on the offensive all over the world--bringing the attack to our enemies. in the pacific, by relentless submarine and naval attacks, and amphibious thrusts, and ever-mounting air attack, we have deprived the japs of the power to check the momentum of our ever-growing and ever-advancing military forces. we have reduced the japs' shipping by more than three million tons. we have overcome their original advantage in the air. we have cut off from a return to the homeland tens of thousands of beleaguered japanese troops who now face starvation or ultimate surrender. and we have cut down their naval strength, so that for many months they have avoided all risk of encounter with our naval forces. true, we still have a long way to go to tokyo. but, carrying out our original strategy of eliminating our european enemy first and then turning all our strength to the pacific, we can force the japanese to unconditional surrender or to national suicide much more rapidly than has been thought possible. turning now to our enemy who is first on the list for destruction-- germany has her back against the wall-- in fact three walls at once! in the south--we have broken the german hold on central italy. on june , the city of rome fell to the allied armies. and allowing the enemy no respite, the allies are now pressing hard on the heels of the germans as they retreat northwards in ever-growing confusion. on the east--our gallant soviet allies have driven the enemy back from the lands which were invaded three years ago. the great soviet armies are now initiating crushing blows. overhead--vast allied air fleets of bombers and fighters have been waging a bitter air war over germany and western europe. they have had two major objectives: to destroy german war industries which maintain the german armies and air forces; and to shoot the german luftwaffe out of the air. as a result, german production has been whittled down continuously, and the german fighter forces now have only a fraction of their former power. this great air campaign, strategic and tactical, is going to continue--with increasing power. and on the west--the hammer blow which struck the coast of france last tuesday morning, less than a week ago, was the culmination of many months of careful planning and strenuous preparation. millions of tons of weapons and supplies, and hundreds of thousands of men assembled in england, are now being poured into the great battle in europe. i think that from the standpoint of our enemy we have achieved the impossible. we have broken through their supposedly impregnable wall in northern france. but the assault has been costly in men and costly in materials. some of our landings were desperate adventures; but from advices received so far, the losses were lower than our commanders had estimated would occur. we have established a firm foothold. we are now prepared to meet the inevitable counterattacks of the germans-- with power and with confidence. and we all pray that we will have far more, soon, than a firm foothold. americans have all worked together to make this day possible. the liberation forces now streaming across the channel, and up the beaches and through the fields and the forests of france are using thousands and thousands of planes and ships and tanks and heavy guns. they are carrying with them many thousands of items needed for their dangerous, stupendous undertaking. there is a shortage of nothing--nothing! and this must continue. what has been done in the united states since those days of -- when france fell--in raising and equipping and transporting our fighting forces, and in producing weapons and supplies for war, has been nothing short of a miracle. it was largely due to american teamwork-- teamwork among capital and labor and agriculture, between the armed forces and the civilian economy--indeed among all of them. and every one--every man or woman or child--who bought a war bond helped--and helped mightily! there are still many people in the united states who have not bought war bonds, or who have not bought as many as they can afford. everyone knows for himself whether he falls into that category or not. in some cases his neighbors know too. to the consciences of those people, this appeal by the president of the united states is very much in order. for all of the things which we use in this war, everything we send to our fighting allies, costs money--a lot of money. one sure way every man, woman, and child can keep faith with those who have given, and are giving, their lives, is to provide the money which is needed to win the final victory. i urge all americans to buy war bonds without stint. swell the mighty chorus to bring us nearer to victory! transcriber's notes: this book uses small caps throughout. you may need to experiment with fonts and browsers to find a combination that displays small caps correctly. detailed corrections are listed at the foot of the document. how to master _the_ spoken word _designed as a self-instructor for all who would excel in the art of public speaking_ _by_ edwin gordon lawrence author of "the power of speech," "speech making," "the lawrence reader and speaker" (a. c. mcclurg & co. logo) _a. c. mcclurg & company chicago, nineteen thirteen_ copyright a. c. mcclurg & co. ---------- published march, w. f. hall printing company, chicago to william edwin hall as a mark of appreciation and affection i dedicate this book _"give me that man that is not passion's slave, and i will wear him in my heart's care, ay, in my heart of heart, as i do thee"_ preface this work aims to show how to breathe correctly, produce voice properly, put the meaning into words by aid of inflection, emphasis, and the tones of the voice; how to improve the memory, acquire fluency of speech, control an audience, construct speeches, and in every way become competent to think on one's feet and express thought vocally in an entertaining, convincing, and moving manner. it is intended as a text-book to aid in making students proficient in the art of vocal expression. it aims to cover the field exhaustively, dealing in a comprehensive manner with all subjects pertaining to the construction and the delivery of speeches. there are so many books treating of the subject of oratory that there would appear scant room for another, but as they all treat mainly of the way to speak, and only give general instructions as to how to speak, there is, in the author's opinion, a wide field for a book that explicitly shows not only what a person should employ in order to become a ready and effective speaker but also gives specific instructions as the employment of those means. this book is intended to take the place of the living teacher wherever the services of a thoroughly competent one cannot be secured, or where the student desires to work in the privacy of his own room, and the aim of the author is to make it more practical and of greater value than any of the so-called "personal correspondence courses" now being exploited, and for which exorbitant fees are charged. it may, however, be used to equal advantage by the teacher in the class room as a text-book. no vague instructions such as, "speak in a clear ringing voice," "use expressive language," "mean what you say," etc., will be given; but in their place will be found directions as to how to gain a good voice, how to acquire the power of explaining by the tones of the voice the meaning of the spoken words, how to secure a delivery that will carry conviction to the listener, and how to construct speeches. in short, this book aims not only to tell the essentials of oratory but also to show the way in which they may be acquired. it contains the complete course in oratorical training as given in the lawrence school of new york. finally, the book is presented as a _vade mecum_ that will pilot the would-be orator to success. edwin g. lawrence. foreword vital are the questions now confronting man the world over; but particularly are those questions important to americans, because the united states of america is looked upon as the pioneer country of the world in all matters pertaining to man's emancipation from the injustice of ages, and that young country is expected to blaze a trail through the unsolved realm of progress along which the older nations may travel till they reach the plain of universal justice and liberty. among the problems now confronting the people are those of finance, labor, religion, conservation of natural resources, and civic justice. the questions are here, but where are the orators capable of making those questions clear to the masses? where are the men to solve those problems? some there are who are nobly responding to the demands of the times, but they are too few successfully to grapple with the task. it is claimed that this is the age of the printing-press and that the necessity for orators no longer exists. this is surely not a valid claim. the newspaper is doing its work, and in many cases is doing it nobly, but it can never take the place of the human voice. an article may be printed in a paper having a circulation running into the hundreds of thousands, and yet the article will be read by only a small percentage of those into whose hands the paper falls; and out of this percentage a still smaller percentage will be influenced by the printed word. the speaker, on the other hand, addresses an audience of only a few thousand, but of that number, if the speaker is deserving of the name, he will influence a majority. suppose he convinces and persuades only one hundred, the one hundred are so thoroughly brought into accord with the speaker that they go out into the world and, by word of mouth, bring ten times their number to the same way of thinking. by this means all great movements have flourished. john the baptist, with the spoken word, prepared the way and made straight the path; jesus of nazareth taught by spoken symbols only; paul of tarsus carried christianity into greece and rome by means of speech; peter the hermit enthused the crusaders by his spoken utterances; martin luther brought about a reformation by his speech before the diet of worms; patrick henry aroused his countrymen by his eloquence; daniel o'connell accomplished catholic emancipation in great britain by means of presenting the cause of religious liberty to friend and foe in the shape of the spoken word; daniel webster expounded the constitution orally; william lloyd garrison, wendell phillips and abraham lincoln pleaded for the enslaved negro by word of mouth; and la follette, bryan, and roosevelt are expressing the thoughts of the people of today by means of man's greatest attribute--speech. therefore, if any would take part in the glorious work of advancing the progress of the world, let him fit himself to discuss by word of mouth the great problems now confronting humanity. the value of eloquence faith cometh by hearing. --st. paul, _romans x: _ it is not enough to speak, but to speak true. --shakespeare mend your speech a little lest it may mar your fortunes. --shakespeare the power of utterance should be included by all in their plans of self-culture. --william ellery channing he is an orator that can make me think as he thinks and feel as he feels. --daniel webster a vessel is known by its sound whether it be cracked or not; so men are proved by their speeches, whether they be wise or foolish. --demosthenes i advocate in its full intent and for every reason of humanity, of patriotism, of religion, a more thorough culture of oratory. --henry ward beecher eloquence has a client which, before all, it must save or make triumph. it matters little whether this client be a man, a people, or an idea. --victor cousin it is to this early speaking practice in the great art of all arts, oratory, that i am indebted for the primary and leading impulses that stimulated me forward. --henry clay ninety-nine men in every hundred in the crowded professions will probably never rise above mediocrity because the training of the voice is entirely neglected and considered of no importance. --william e. gladstone he who does not use a gift, loses it; the man who does not use his voice or limbs, loses power over them, and becomes disqualified for the state of life to which he is called. --cardinal newman i recognize but one mental acquisition as an essential part of the education of a lady or gentleman, namely, an accurate and refined use of the mother-tongue. --charles w. eliot extemporaneous speaking should be practiced and cultivated. it is the lawyer's avenue to the public. however able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. --abraham lincoln the cultivated voice is like an orchestra. it ranges high, intermediate or low, unconsciously to him who uses it, and men listen, unaware that they have been bewitched out of their weariness by the charms of a voice not artificial, but made by assiduous training to be his second nature. --henry ward beecher men forget what they read; some do not read at all. they do not, however, forget when they are told by a vigorous speaker who means what he says. --john oliver hobbes (mrs. craigie) for who can suppose amid the great multitude of students, the utmost abundance of masters, the most eminent geniuses among men, the infinite variety of causes, the most ample rewards offered to eloquence, there is any other reason to be found for the small number of orators than the incredible magnitude and difficulty of the art? --cicero contents chapter preface foreword the value of eloquence i the making of oratory ii how to construct and deliver orations iii construction iv composition v paraphrasing vi a series of practical hows vii the grecian orators viii the latin orators ix the modern orators x lesson talks afterword guide to the study of the book list of orations index how to master the spoken word chapter i the making of oratory the means employed by great orators the question is often asked, how can i become a public speaker? this might be aptly answered by putting another question, how did other men become public speakers? because by a careful study of the means they employed, others may become equally proficient. from the beginning of oratory down to the present day orators have made their effects in composition and delivery by the selfsame means, and if men of today will apply themselves to a mastery of those means with perseverance and intelligence equal to that of the men of the past, there is no reason why they should not meet with equal proficiency. let us go back to gorgias, the greek rhetorician and teacher of oratory, who was born about the year b.c., and study the manner of his workmanship. in his speech "the encomium on helen," he arranges his words in masterly style, making use of all the forms of construction that we possess at this time. he employs the series, the contrasts (single, double, and triple), the conditional, the negative, the positive, and, in fact, all the known forms of arranging words so as to make them best express the orator's meaning. here is an effective concluding series he uses: "a city is adorned by good citizenship, the body by beauty, the soul by wisdom, acts by virtue, and speech by truthfulness," and he follows this sentence with the following one: "but the opposites of these virtues are a disgrace." note how effective he makes the first thought by immediately contrasting it with one that rivets the attention to the graces of good citizenship, beauty, wisdom, virtue, and truthfulness, by stating that the reverse of these things are disgraces. then follows a series of contrasts: "man and woman, word and deed, city and government" which, he says, "we ought to praise," and then qualifies this positive with the conditional, "if praiseworthy," and then makes a strong contrast by stating, "and blame" which he qualifies by adding the conditional "if blameworthy." he then makes a statement very strong by employing a double contrast, "for it is equally wrong and stupid to censure what is commendable, and to commend what is censurable." after this clear reasoning comes another statement: "now i conceive it to be my duty in the interest of justice to confute the slanders of helen, the memory of whose misfortunes has been kept alive by the writings of the poets and the fame of her name." he ends his statement with this strong concluding series, "i propose, therefore, by argument to exonerate her from the charge of infamy, to convince her accusers of their error, and remove their ignorance by a revelation of the truth." now read the entire paragraph: a city is adorned by good citizenship, the body by beauty, the soul by wisdom, acts by virtue, and speech by truthfulness. but the opposites of these virtues are a disgrace. man and woman, word and deed, city and government we ought to praise if praiseworthy, and blame if blameworthy. for it is equally wrong and stupid to censure what is commendable, and to commend what is censurable. now i conceive it to be my duty in the interest of justice to confute the slanders of helen, the memory of whose misfortunes has been kept alive by the writings of the poets and the fame of her name. i propose, therefore, by argument to exonerate her from the charge of infamy, to convince her accusers of their error, and to remove their ignorance by a revelation of the truth. this is a masterly passage, clear in its statement, logical in its argument, and sound in its conclusion, making a splendid model for a student of oratory to follow. true, the mere faculty of arranging words will not constitute an orator, but it is one of the essentials that go to the making of one; and this power of arranging words, and the capacity for electing the appropriate theme, and judgment in adopting the proper delivery are the principal means that men have possessed in all times for the making of orators. it is essential that the arts of construction and composition should be diligently studied by speakers, for it is as impossible to have oratory without men who understand the rules of composition as it is to have orators without oratory. matter that is to be spoken must not merely be well written, it must be constructed according to the rules of oratory in order that it may sound well. literature is to be read, oratory is to be spoken; consequently words intended to be spoken must be arranged in such a manner as to make them more effective when uttered by the living voice than when they are set in dead type; and this can only be done by gaining a mastery of the rules of oratory and applying them correctly. we are now dealing with the creation of oratory; later, we will consider the making of orators. the example of gorgias' oratory cited here gives a clear illustration of the effective use of words, and in order to emphasize this important point of the value of words according to their location, other examples follow. william h. seward in his "plea for the union" uses this sentence: if the constellation is to be broken up, the stars, whether scattered widely apart or grouped in smaller clusters, will thenceforth shed forth feeble, glimmering, and lurid lights. he opens with a conditional phrase, "if the constellation is to be broken up" and then commences his statement with "the stars" which he interrupts to interject the parenthetical phrase "whether scattered widely apart or grouped in smaller clusters," goes back to his main thought with the words "will thenceforth shed forth feeble, glimmering, and lurid lights." "feeble, glimmering, and lurid" constitute a commencing series qualifying "lights," and thus is brought about an effective close to a well-knit sentence. another well-arranged sentence for cumulative force is the following from the same speech: after washington, and the inflexible adams, henry, and the fearless hamilton, jefferson, and the majestic clay, webster, and the acute calhoun, jackson, the modest taylor, and scott, who rises in greatness under the burden of years, and franklin, and fulton, and whitney, and morse, have all performed their parts, let the curtain fall. in long sentences, such as this, care should be exercised properly to group the members composing it, otherwise the force will be lost on account of a confusion of ideas. in this sentence there are three groups: washington, adams, henry, hamilton, and jefferson constituting the first; clay, webster, calhoun, jackson, taylor, and scott the second; franklin, fulton, whitney, and morse the third. these, with the phrase "have all performed their parts," constitute a commencing series, the sense being completed by "let the curtain fall." in his address, "the american scholar," delivered at cambridge, mass., august , , ralph waldo emerson employed these words: the theory of books is noble. the scholar of the first age received into him the world around; brooded thereon; gave it the new arrangement of his own mind and uttered it again. it came into him, life; it went out from him, truth. it came to him, short-lived actions; it went out from him, immortal thoughts. it came to him, business; it went from him, poetry. it was dead fact; now, it is quick thought. it can stand and it can go. it now endures, it now flies, it now inspires. precisely in proportion to the depth of mind from which it issued, so high does it soar, so long does it sing. this powerful passage is effective mainly because of the masterful arrangement of the words. emerson opens with the positive statement that "the theory of books is noble." he follows this with the concluding series, "the scholar of the first age received into him the world around; brooded thereon; gave it the new arrangement of his own mind and uttered it again." then comes the double contrast, "it came into him, life; it went out from him, truth." this is followed by a triple contrast, "it came to him, short-lived actions; it went out from him, immortal thoughts." then comes another double contrast, "it came to him, business; it went from him, poetry." then another triple contrast is used, "it was dead fact; now, it is quick thought." then comes the positive statement that "it can stand and it can go." a concluding series then follows, "it now endures, it now flies, it now inspires," and the paragraph ends with the conditional phrase and the concluding phrases, "precisely in proportion to the depth of mind from which it issued, so high does it soar, so long does it sing," the concluding clause containing the double contrast, "so high does it soar, so long does it sing." few paragraphs of like length contain so much thought as does this one of emerson's, and the immensity of thought could be placed in such a small space only because of the skilful disposition of the words, the meaning being made clear by the clever placing of one word against another word, one idea against another idea. the sentences are short, and while they may not be particularly beautiful, they are exceedingly strong. in lincoln's second inaugural address is this telling sentence: to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest [slavery] was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. the words "strengthen, perpetuate, and extend" are a commencing series because they act on the word "interest." slavery was the object for which the insurgents would separate the union, even by going to the extreme of making war; while the federal government claimed merely the right to prevent its spreading into the territories. what makes this sentence so clear and so forceful is the manner in which the contrast is brought out regarding the acts of the insurgents and the claims of the government. one of the most expressive and best constructed sentences in english literature is the following from lincoln's gettysburg address: the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. this is a triple opposition, "the world will little note nor long remember" being contrasted with "but it can never forget," "we" with "they," and "say" with "did." another beautiful specimen of construction is the last paragraph of lincoln's second inaugural address: with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right--let us strive on to finish the work we are in: to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. had lincoln merely said "with malice toward none" it would not have meant half so much as it does with the words "with charity for all" added. this example emphasizes the force of contrast, for by stating the positive "with charity for all" as well as the negative "with malice toward none," he makes his expressed thought clear, strong, and comprehensive, clinching the subject and leaving no possible loophole for a misunderstanding to creep in. "with firmness in the right" is fittingly qualified by "as god gives us to see the right," and the thought is splendidly closed with "let us strive on to finish the work we are in." then by means of a concluding series he states what this work is that we should strive to finish, and he concludes with the general summing up, "to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations." daniel webster, in his address on the occasion of the laying of the corner-stone of bunker hill monument, used this sentence: human beings are composed, not of reason only, but of imagination also, and sentiment; and that is neither wasted nor misapplied which is appropriated to the purpose of giving right direction to sentiment, and opening proper springs of feeling in the heart. the orator states that reason is a portion of the composition out of which human beings are made, but that it is not the only ingredient; that imagination is a part also, as is sentiment, and that nothing is either wasted or misapplied which is used in rightly directing feeling, and freeing the heart of all obstructions in order that its emotions may come forth. in doing this, webster uses the qualified negative "not of reason only," meaning, of course, that human beings are composed of reason, but stating that they are not composed "only" of reason, but of reason, imagination, and sentiment, and then, by means of two negatives, "neither" and "nor," he states that whatever is used for the object of rightly directing sentiment is not wasted and not misapplied. in the same address, he says: if, indeed, there be anything in local association fit to affect the mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agitate us here. we are among the sepulchers of our fathers. we are on ground distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. the first phrase is conditional, the balance of the sentence is negative. the orator ably opens with a condition because he is sure of all his listeners subscribing to it, and then he says that if there is anything of a local nature that is proper to act sufficiently on man's mind as to make an impression on it, then certainly we, standing over the graves of our fathers, and on the very ground that drank their blood, shed in the cause of liberty, should not be ashamed to give expression to the emotions these associations cause us to feel. in constructing these three sentences webster uses a conditional clause and a concluding one, and two positive sentences, the last one consisting of a concluding series. the last sentence is much stronger and better as a series of three members than it would be as a sentence containing but one. it is far better to weld together the three facts that the ground was distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood, than it would be to state merely that it was distinguished by their valor. here is another of webster's grand and expressive periods: on this question of principle, while actual suffering was yet far off, they raised their flag against a power, to which, for purposes of foreign conquest and subjugation, rome, in the height of her glory, is not to be compared--a power which has dotted over the surface of the whole globe with her possessions and military posts, whose morning drumbeat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of england. this is a long sentence but a strong one and it is constructed so as to bring to the mind of the listener the picture which the speaker possessed. notice that if the parenthetical phrases, which aid so much in picturing the scene, were omitted, the sentence would not be more than half its present size, but the vividness of the picture would disappear with the curtailing of the sentence. here is the main idea: "on this question of principle they raised their flag against a power to which rome is not to be compared--a power which has dotted over the surface of the whole globe with her possessions and military posts, whose morning drumbeat circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of england." this example is cited to show that what are called loose sentences are necessary to beauty of expression and vivid picturing. notice how the parenthetical clauses amplify and explain the thought--"while actual suffering was yet far off," "for purposes of foreign conquest and subjugation," "in the height of her glory," "following the sun, and keeping company with the hours." without these coloring clauses the sentence would be strong, but it would lose much of its beauty. let us examine here an extract from the oratory of the ancients. demosthenes, in his speech, "against the law of leptines," delivered in b.c., uses this language: if now you condemn the law, as we advise, the deserving will have their rights from you; and if there be any underserving party, as i grant there may be, such a one, besides being deprived of his honor, will suffer what penalty you think proper according to the amended statute, while the commonwealth will appear faithful, just, true to all men. should you decide in its favor, which i trust you will not, the good will be wronged on account of the bad, the underserving will be the cause of misfortune to others, and suffer no punishment themselves, while the commonwealth (contrary to what i said just now) will be universally esteemed faithless, envious, base. it is not meet, o athenians, that for so foul a reproach you should reject fair and honorable advantages. remember, each of you individually will share in the reputation of your common judgment. it is plain to the bystanders and to all men that in the court leptines is contending with us, but in the mind of each of you jurymen generosity is arrayed against envy, justice against iniquity, all that is virtuous against all that is base. the above is a literal translation of a portion of a speech that was delivered more than twenty-two centuries ago, and yet, in its construction, it does not differ in any material manner from a well constructed speech of today. notice the conditional, "if now you condemn the law," followed by the parenthetical, "as we advise," and the concluding, "the deserving will have their rights from you," and compare the passage with any modern expression of a like nature. they will be found to correspond in every manner so far as the construction is concerned. examine the extract in its entirety and you will see that a skilful use is made of negatives, positives, parentheses, conditionals, oppositions, series, and all the many forms of arranging words for an effective conveyance of thought which are possessed by speakers of the present time. in the manner of its construction, this extract from the speech of demosthenes does not differ from the speeches of seward, webster, emerson, and lincoln which are here quoted, as they all depend for their effectiveness on the proper use of the rules of apposition, opposition, series, inflection, and emphasis; and all students of oratory are urged to study closely the chapters of this book which are devoted to these subjects. coming down to our own day, we find in the utterances of roosevelt, taft, bryan, watterson, la follette, and many others the selfsame means of construction as were employed by gorgias, demosthenes, and cicero. theodore roosevelt, in his address delivered at chicago, april , , used this forceful language: as it is with the individual, so it is with the nation. it is a base untruth to say that happy is that nation that has no history. thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. col. roosevelt first compares the individual with the nation. he then employs an emphatic contradiction, following it with a short positive sentence. then comes an effective contrast, separated to allow the use of a parenthetical phrase which amplifies the statement, and the end is a picture drawn with a few words--"because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." william h. taft, speaking at the unveiling of lincoln's statue at frankfort, kentucky, on november , , summed up the character of abraham lincoln in these well-chosen words: with his love of truth, the supreme trait of his intellect, accompanied by a conscience that insisted on the right as he knew it, with a great heart full of tenderness, we have the combination that made lincoln one of the two greatest americans. president taft uses a commencing series and a parenthetical clause for conveying his thought. the series consists of three phrases: "with his love of truth," "accompanied by a conscience that insisted on the right as he knew it," and "with a great heart full of tenderness," the sense being completed by "we have the combination that made lincoln one of the two greatest americans." the phrase, "the supreme trait of his intellect," is parenthetical. col. henry watterson, on the same occasion, spoke thus: called like one of old, within a handful of years he rose at a supreme moment to supreme command, fulfilled the law of his being, and passed from the scene an exhalation of the dawn of freedom. we may still hear his cheery voice bidding us to be of good heart, sure that "right makes might," entreating us to pursue "with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right." here we have the thought expressed by means of a concluding series of four members, and two positive statements reÃ�«nforced by two quotations from lincoln's cooper union speech. word-pictures besides the use of inflection, emphasis, and the arrangement of words, orators use word-pictures for conveying their ideas; as, when i look around and see our prosperity in everything--agriculture, commerce, art, science, and every department of education, physical and mental, as well as moral advancement, and our colleges--i think, in the face of such an exhibition, if we can, without the loss of power, or any essential right or interest, remain in the union, it is our duty to ourselves and to posterity to--let us not too readily yield to this temptation--do so. our first parents, the great progenitors of the human race, were not without a like temptation when in the garden of eden. they were led to believe that their condition would be bettered, that their eyes would be opened, and that they would become as gods. they, in an evil hour, yielded. instead of becoming gods, they only saw their nakedness. --alexander h. stephens the illustration commences with "our first parents" and continues to the end. it is more effective in pointing out the danger besetting the south in listening to the temptation to sever the union than is all the rest of the paragraph. the prophecy as to the effect of listening to the voice of the tempter is forcefully summed up in the sentence: "instead of becoming gods, they only saw their nakedness." by means of directing the thought to the dire consequences attending the fall of adam and eve through listening to temptation, the orator magnifies the effects that would follow a dissolution of the union of the states. the object in employing word-pictures is to convey an idea by means of suggestion, and, when so used, they become powerful weapons in the hands of a speaker. here is another excellent illustration: books are for the scholar's idle times. when he can read god directly the hour is too precious to be wasted in other men's transcripts of their readings. but when the intervals of darkness come, as come they must--when the sun is hid and the stars withdraw their shining--we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray, to guide our steps to the east again, where the dawn is. we hear, that we may speak. the arabian proverb says, "a fig tree, looking on a fig tree, becomes fruitful." --ralph waldo emerson pictures are powerful means of conveying thoughts, and often more can be expressed by deftly painting a word-picture than could be imparted by a lengthy narration. here is a good example: let me picture to you the footsore confederate soldier, as, buttoning up in his faded jacket the parole which was to bear testimony to his children of his fidelity and faith, he turned his face southward from appomattox, in april, . think of him as ragged, half-starved, heavy-hearted, enfeebled by want and wounds, having fought to exhaustion; he surrenders his gun, wrings the hands of his comrades in silence, and lifting his tear-stained and pallid face for the last time to the graves that dot the old virginia hills, pulls his gray cap over his brow and begins the slow and painful journey. --henry w. grady this certainly brings the whole scene before us in a moment. we see the hills of virginia, dotted over with the graves of the dead soldiers; groups of grizzled veterans, the remnant of that wonderful fighting machine that had followed the ill-starred flag of the confederacy under its beloved leader; the typical southern soldier wringing the hands of his comrades, and sorrowfully, but manfully, turning his face towards home. the picture, as presented by henry w. grady, is more eloquent than the narration of the story would have been. henry watterson, a lover of oratory, and himself an orator of no mean ability, speaking at the unveiling of lincoln's statue at frankfort, kentucky, on november , , spoke thus of the great american: reviled as the man of galilee, slain even as the man of galilee, yet as gentle and unoffending, a man who died for men! roll the stone from the grave and what shall we see? just an american. the declaration of independence his confession of faith. the constitution of the united states his ark and covenant of liberty. the union his redoubt, the flag his shibboleth. here is presented a striking picture by means of the simile. with the charm and skill of a true orator, colonel watterson employs the lowly nazarene to symbolize the portraiture of one who, like himself, "went about doing good," and he does it so delicately as in no manner to jar or hurt the religious sensibilities of the most devout follower of the man of galilee. all the orator's references are biblical, and eminently fitting. the mention of the man of galilee, the manner of his death, the rolling of the stone away, the ark and the covenant, and the shibboleth,--all these keep the mind of the reader or the listener on the picture as presented by the orator, and cause the great emancipator to stand forth clothed in the splendor of his glorious attributes, which are colored and magnified through being likened reverently to the character of jesus. daniel webster delighted in the use of pictures. here is one from his address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone of the bunker hill monument, at charlestown, mass., june , : we do not read even of the discovery of this continent, without feeling something of a personal interest in the event; without being reminded how much it has affected our own fortunes and our own existence. it is more impossible for us, therefore, than for others, to contemplate with unaffected minds that interesting, i may say that most touching and pathetic scene, when the great discoverer of america stood on the deck of his shattered bark, the shades of night falling on the sea, yet no man sleeping; tossed on the billows of an unknown ocean, yet the stronger billows of alternate hope and despair tossing his own troubled thoughts: extending forward his harassed frame, straining westward his anxious and eager eyes, till heaven at last granted him a moment of rapture and ecstasy, in blessing his vision with the sight of the unknown world. here is another example taken from his speech in what is known as the white murder case: an aged man, without an enemy in the world, in his own house, and in his own bed, is made the victim of a butcherly murder, for mere pay. the deed was executed with a degree of self-possession and steadiness equal to the wickedness with which it was planned. the circumstances, now clearly in evidence, spread out the whole scene before us. deep sleep had fallen on the destined victim, and on all beneath his roof. a healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers held him in their soft but strong embrace. the assassin enters through the window, already prepared, into an unoccupied apartment. with noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half-lighted by the moon--he winds up in the ascent of stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. of this he moves the lock, by soft and continued pressure, till it turns on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before him. this is certainly vividly drawn, and it shows the effectiveness of stating important things by means of pictures. writers of good prose, as well as poets, use the figure of speech for creating mental images by means of the written word, and the speaker who employs the spoken word for producing like results will surely meet with like success. emerson, in writing on this subject, produces a striking picture. in his essay on "poetry and imagination," he says: the poet gives us the eminent experiences only--a god stepping from peak to peak, nor planting his foot but on a mountain. shakespeare creates a marvellous picture thus: look here, upon this picture, and on this, the counterfeit presentment of two brothers. see what a grace was seated on this brow; hyperion's curls, the front of jove himself, an eye like mars, to threaten and command; a station like the herald mercury new-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill; a combination and a form indeed, where every god did seem to set his seal to give the world assurance of a man.[ ] note the ascending force of this extract from hamlet. the drawing of the picture, delineating the brow, hair, eyes, etc., the description of the bearing, and the final summing up, a combination and a form indeed, where every god did seem to set his seal to give the world assurance of a man. it would seem to be impossible for mortal man to make a picture more vivid than is the one here presented in words by the magic art of shakespeare. the use of word-pictures _what benefit is to be derived from the use of word-pictures?_ an illustration, or picture, is quickly comprehended, and will abide with the hearer when plain facts and colorless words are forgotten. christ did the most of his teaching by means of similitudes: "the sower and the seed," "the laborers in the vineyard," "the ten virgins," are but instances of his employment of this means of conveying an insight into difficult problems. in fact, in the gospel according to st. matthew, xiii: , it is stated: all these things spake jesus unto the multitude in parables: and without a parable spoke he not unto them. henry ward beecher, in his sermon, "poverty and the gospel," used this figure of speech: on the niagara river logs come floating down and strike an island, and there they lodge and accumulate for a little while, and won't go over. but the rains come, the snow melts, the river rises, and the logs are lifted up and down, and they go swinging over the falls. there is a certain river of political life, and everything has to go into it first or last; and if, in the days to come, a man separates himself from his fellows without sympathy, if his wealth and power make poverty feel itself more poor and men's misery more miserable, and set against him the whole stream of popular feeling, that man is in danger. _from what source is the speaker to take his illustrations?_ from all sources: history, books, his own experience, and, best of all, nature. emerson states the matter in this comprehensive manner: i had rather have a good symbol of my thought, or a good analogy, than the suffrage of kant or plato. if you agree with me, or if locke or montesquieu agree, i may yet be wrong; but if the elm-tree thinks the same thing, if running water, if burning coal, if crystals, if alkalies, in their several fashions, say what i say, it must be true. _how is the speaker to make the picture so vivid that it will be immediately seen and comprehended by the listener?_ by seeing it himself. the speaker must see with his mind's eye the complete picture before he utters the first word descriptive of it. he must first see the picture in its entirety and be sure of his application of it before starting on the word-picturing, and as he develops the picture step by step, or phrase by phrase, he must keep in mind not only that portion of the picture he is then describing but must retain the picture in its entirety. this will cause his mentality to go into his voice, help him to hold on to his thought, and stamp the picture upon the minds and hearts of his listeners. the use of stories stories introduced into speeches, if really introduced and not dragged in, serve many useful purposes. they attract the attention of the audience and secure for the speaker an opportunity entertainingly to commence his remarks instead of abruptly jumping into them, like a speaker bounding upon the platform instead of walking gracefully upon it; they often express in a few words what otherwise would require a long explanation; and they also permit a speaker to retire in an effective manner from an awkward or embarrassing situation. this last point is illustrated in the following story told by rev. joseph parker and used by him as a wedge to get out of a meeting without offending the feelings of the other members. it created a good-natured laugh, and this made the opening that permitted the reverend gentleman gracefully to retire. "now, my dear children," said the good priest, "where shall we put st. patrick? shall we put him where the sapphire river rolls around the throne of the almighty? no; we will not put him there. shall we put him where the golden light plays around the golden city? no; we will not put him there. shall we put him in a boat sailing over the golden lake when the angels are calling? no; we will not put him there." for a fourth time he demanded in a loud voice: "where shall we put st. patrick?" then at that moment a peasant called out: "well then, shure, you can put him here, for i'm going." robert browning, in a most entertaining letter addressed to elizabeth barrett, under date of april , , discoursed on several subjects, among them being the proposition that repentance must precede forgiveness, and to illustrate his idea he narrated the following story, which might be used effectively in a speech: some soldiers were talking over a watch fire abroad. one said that once he was travelling in scotland and knocked at a cottage-door. an old woman with one child let him in, gave him a supper and a bed. next morning he asked her how they lived, and she said, the cow, the milk of which he was drinking, and the kale in the garden, such as he was eating--were all her "marlien" or sustenance--whereon, rising to go, he for the fun, "killed the cow and destroyed the kale"--"the old witch crying out she should certainly be starved"--then he went his way. "and she was starved, of course," said a young man; "do you rue it?"--the other laughed, "rue aught like that!"--the young man said, "i was the boy, and that was my mother--now then!"--(pierces him with his sword). "if you had rued it"--the youth said--"you should have answered it only to god!" john p. curran, at the trial of the drogheda defenders, april , , told this story, in order to make clear his views regarding the strength that exists in unity: upon this principle acted the dying man whose family had been disturbed by domestic contentions. upon his death-bed he calls his children around him; he orders a bundle of twigs to be brought; he has them untied; he gives to each of them a single twig; he orders them to be broken--and it is done with facility. he next orders the twigs to be united in a bundle, and orders each of them to try their strength upon it. they shrink from the task as impossible. thus my children, continued the old man, it is union alone that can render you secure against the attempts of your enemies, and preserve you in that state of happiness which i wish you to enjoy. in the celebrated case of _people vs. durant,_ tried in san francisco, cal., in the year , the district attorney, william s. barnes, as demonstrating the fallacy of direct evidence where the witness endeavors to "back up" that evidence with circumstances which existed only in the fancy of the witness, or were "manufactured out of whole cloth," used this effective illustration: there is a time-honored story which is commonly used as an illustration in the trial of cases. it is of a will case, that contest being over its probate. counsel asked the proponent who sealed the will and she said the testator did. she had provided the material for the sealing, but the deceased had placed the wax in the candle and had pressed the seal in her presence. counsel then turned to the court and said: "your worship, it is a wafer." this is the wafer in the case. summary do not the citations given in this chapter show conclusively that modern and ancient modes of constructing orations are identical, and that it would be well for all who would attain distinction as speakers to study the means employed by those who have gone before? the author replies in the affirmative, and he reiterates his advice to all students of oratory to study faithfully the productions of the great orators of all times. in doing this, the student should be careful not to be a mere copyist; he must not make an echo of himself, repeating the forms of others, but he should study the principles underlying the arts of construction and delivery as employed by the masters who preceded him, and then apply the principles in his own individual manner. a student who is taught parrot fashion--that is, by imitation--will never equal his teacher, because he will lack the one great thing of value in every art--individuality; but one who is taught by principle, as well as by example, may far excel his preceptor. issues and problems change, orators pass into the realm of shade; but the principles of oratory continue practically the same through all climes and ages. footnotes: [ ] hamlet, act iii, scene iv. chapter ii how to construct and deliver orations the application of the means the previous chapter was used to show what means orators employed in constructing their oratory, and this chapter will be devoted to showing students how to adopt and use those means. it would be of little use to tell students of oratory how others made their effects unless they are shown how they can produce equal results; therefore this chapter will be a chapter of _hows._ it will consider the proper arrangement of all the forms of creating and delivering the oratorical message, and deal at length with the conveying of the thought by means of the putting together of words and interpreting it through an understanding and an application of inflection and emphasis. it has been shown that oratory, through all its existence, has been created by means of the effective use of negative and positive words, phrases, and sentences; correct application of apposition and opposition; proper grouping of words and phrases in the form of series; the driving home and clinching of points; and many other ways of conveying thought by means of speech, and that these means have been passed from gorgias to isaeus, from isaeus to demosthenes, from demosthenes to cicero, and from these masters of old transmitted to webster, clay, lincoln, roosevelt, bryan, watterson, and the other able and careful public speakers of our day. not only will the arrangement of words be thoroughly considered, but their utterance will receive much attention, the aim of the author being to show how, by the inflection, emphasis, and tone of the living voice, thought can be interpreted, and an impression made by the speaker on the minds and actions of others by means of the spoken word. attention will also be given to getting the mentality into the voice, making the soul of the speaker shine through the medium that is to make the thought apparent to the listener. inflection _what is inflection?_ inflection is a bending of the voice. _how many inflections are there?_ two. the rising and the falling. _what does the rising inflection signify?_ the rising inflection, in the main, signifies uncertainty. whatever is uncertain, negative, qualified, conditional, incomplete, or continuous, requires the rising inflection; as, _uncertainty._ a government having at its command the armies, the fleets, and the revenues of great britain, might possibly hold ireland by the sword. . . . but, to govern great britain by the sword--so wild a thought has never, i will venture to say, occurred to any public man of any party. --macaulay in this example the first sentence is uncertain because ireland might possibly be held by the sword, but it is not certain that it could be. the second sentence is assertive, and requires the falling inflection. _negative._ _he_ have arbitrary power! my lords, the east india company have not arbitrary power to give him; the king has no arbitrary power to give him; your lordships have not; nor the commons; nor the whole legislature. we have no arbitrary power to give, because arbitrary power is a thing which neither any man can hold nor any man can give. --burke here is a splendid string of negatives, not demonstratively spoken, but given in the form of clear argumentation, and for that reason every member requires the rising inflection. the opening exclamation, "_he_ have arbitrary power," should be given the falling inflection because it is a positive denial of his right to possess it. were this extract spoken vehemently instead of argumentatively, it would take the falling inflection on all its members; but it is clearly intended to be negatively spoken, because the orator immediately follows it with positive statements, thus denoting a contrast. therefore the exclamation alone is given the falling inflection. _exception._ it should be remembered that only while the thought is negative should the words be given the rising inflection, and that whenever emphasis is placed on the negative word it removes the negative quality and makes the thought positive, thus necessitating the use of the falling inflection. consequently, whenever a negative is used in the sense of a contradiction it should be given the falling inflection, because it is just as positive to deny the assertion of a speaker as it is for the speaker to make the assertion; as, i am charged with being an emissary of france. an emissary of france! and for what end? it is alleged that i wish to sell the independence of my country! and for what end? was this the object of my ambition; and is this the mode by which a tribunal of justice reconciles contradictions? _no!_ i am _no_ emissary. --robert emmet the positive statement is, "i am charged with being an emissary of france"; and the contradiction, "_no!_ i am _no_ emissary." emphasis being placed on the negative word "no" necessitates the falling inflection being used in order to make the contradiction positive. _qualified negative._ a negative is qualified when it is restricted in any manner by the use of such words as "only," "alone," "merely," etc., such words receiving the inflection and being negatived; as, in reading great orations one not only learns something of the methods and style of the orator, but obtains an epitome of the history of the times. --william jennings bryan mr. bryan here states that by means of reading one learns something of the methods and style of the orator, and also gains an epitome of the history of the times; and that he does not only learn the former, but that he also gains the latter. in this sentence everything is positive except the negatived word "only," this being the only word in the sentence that is acted upon by the negative word "not," because the reader learns something of the methods and style of the orator, but not only this, because he obtains an epitome of the history of the times as well. "only," being the negatived word (the word upon which the negative acts), it should be given the rising inflection, while the balance of the sentence, being positive, should be given the falling inflection. _qualified._ i believe in the doctrine of peace; but, mr. president, men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace. --john m. thurston the phrase, "i believe in the doctrine of peace," is qualified by the concluding statement, "men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace"; and any expression that is qualified should be given the rising inflection. in this example senator thurston states that he believes in peace, _provided_ peace can be had with liberty; but that if the loss of liberty is the price exacted for peace, then he prefers war. in order to convey the meaning of this example, the first phrase should be given the rising inflection and the last phrase the falling; the qualified taking the rising, and the concluding the falling inflection. _conditional._ if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. --samuel adams here we have two conditional phrases and one concluding phrase. all expressions that are conditional in character require the rising inflection, and the clause that concludes the sentence takes the inflection that interprets the thought. therefore, if the concluding clause is positive, as in this example, it should be given the falling inflection; but if negative, it should be given the rising inflection. there is no exception to the conditional clause taking the rising inflection, because it is always uncertain in character, and whatever is uncertain should always be given the rising inflection, but the concluding clause, whenever it is negative, is given the rising inflection; as, so, on the other hand, if i take the life of another, without being aware of any intended violence on his part, it will constitute no excuse for me to prove that he intended an attack upon me. --sargent s. prentiss _continuity._ whenever the thought is continuous the rising inflection should be employed until a conclusion is reached; as, in speaking to you, men of the greatest city of the west, men of the state which gave to the country lincoln and grant, men who preÃ�«minently and distinctly embody all that is most american in the american character, i wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife. --roosevelt the thought here is continuous and incomplete until we come to the phrase "the doctrine of the strenuous life," and in order to obtain an unbroken flow of speech the rising inflection should be used until the close of the negative phrase "not the doctrine of ignoble ease," but from there to the end of the sentence the falling inflection should be used because of its positive character and the fact that the thought is practically complete with the utterance of the phrase "but the doctrine of the strenuous life," all that follows being merely an amplification. questions _how many kinds of questions are there?_ two. _what are they called?_ they are called direct and indirect. _what difference is there between these two kinds of questions?_ the direct question may be answered by either yes or no; the indirect question is answered by a statement or explanation. usually there is uncertainty as to the answer to the direct question, and therefore the question should generally be given the rising inflection, but as soon as uncertainty ceases to exist as to the answer to a question, it should be given the falling inflection. therefore, if the speaker knows that the answer is sure to be yes, or if he knows that the answer is sure to be no, the question should take the falling inflection, for then there would be no uncertainty as to the reply to the question. on the other hand, if, for any reason, the quality of uncertainty exists in the indirect question, it should be given the rising inflection. the general supposition regarding questions is that they usually require the rising inflection, but the reverse of this is the fact. a question should only be given the rising inflection when the speaker is not sure as to whether the answer will be yes or no, or when an indirect question is expressive of the uncertainty of the speaker; as, what did you say? direct questions, whenever the answer is anticipated, or the question repeated with marked emphasis, or spoken with earnestness in the shape of an appeal, should be given the falling inflection; as, immortal spirits of hampden, locke, and sidney, will it not add to your benevolent joys to behold your posterity rising to the dignity of men, and evincing to the world the reality and expediency of your systems, and in the actual enjoyment of that equal liberty, which you were happy, when on earth, in delineating and recommending to mankind? --samuel adams the falling inflection should be given this direct question because the anticipated answer is yes. the falling inflection should be given a direct question such as, has the gentlemen done? has he _completely_ done? the reason the falling inflection is here used is that the question is repeated with marked emphasis, and whenever a question is so repeated it should be given the falling inflection on the repetition. the falling inflection should also be given all direct questions that are earnest appeals; as, will you _please_ forgive me? _direct question._ undoubtedly the world is better; but would it have been better if everybody had then insisted that it was the best of all possible worlds, and that we must despond if sometimes a cloud gathers in the sky, or a benedict arnold appeared in the patriot army, or even a judas iscariot among the chosen twelve? --george w. curtis _indirect question._ when, o catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? how long is that madness of yours still to mock us? when is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? --cicero a direct question is sometimes used in the form of a statement; as, the constitutional question is: has congress the power, under our constitution, to hold in subjection unwilling vassal states? --george f. hoar this is a direct question, but because it is a statement put forth to be argued it should be given the falling inflection. if a request is made of a presiding officer for information regarding what question is then before the body, and the officer replies with a direct question, he should give it the falling inflection, because he does not speak it as a question but as a statement in reply to the member's question as to what is then before the meeting. _what does the falling inflection signify?_ the falling inflection, in the main, signifies certainty. the arrival at a result, commands (whether negatively or positively constructed), and all positive words, phrases, and sentences, require, as a rule, the falling inflection. _the arrival at a result._ we are all born in subjection, all born equally, high and low, governors and governed, in subjection to one great, immutable pre-existent law, prior to all our devices, and prior to all our contrivances, paramount to all our ideas, and all our sensations, antecedent to our very existence, by which we are knit and connected to the eternal frame of the universe, out of which we cannot stir. --burke the result here is not reached until we come to the final phrase "out of which we cannot stir," and although this is a negative phrase, so far as the construction goes, it requires the falling inflection because it closes the thought and is positive in its nature. _commands._ these things i command you, that ye love one another. --st. john, xv., this is a commandment given by jesus to his disciples, and both phrases require the falling inflection. it makes no difference whether the command is to do or not to do a certain thing, all commandments, of whatever nature, require falling inflection; as, thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. --exodus, xx., _also,_ honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy god giveth thee. --exodus, xx., _positive._ to the cant about the pharisaism of reform there is one short and final answer. the man who tells the truth _is_ a holier man than the liar. the man who does not steal _is_ a better man than the thief. --george w. curtis all positive words, phrases, and sentences require, as a rule, the falling inflection, the only exception being when the words or phrases are arranged in the form of a series. this point is fully brought out and developed in the treatment of series in another part of this chapter. _qualified positives._ the words "only," "alone," "merely," etc., when not qualified by the negative word "not," generally qualify some other word or phrase; as, every thing around was wrapped in darkness, and hushed in silence, broken only by what seemed, at that hour, the unearthly clank and rush of the train. --edward everett here "only" qualifies what the silence was broken by. the meaning being that it was broken by but one thing, and that was "the unearthly clank and rush of the train." "only," in this example, requires the falling inflection because it is positive. _apposition._ by means of the addition of words or phrases of like natures, we illustrate and explain; as, the hardest chemist, the severest analyzer, scornful of all but the driest fact, is forced to keep the poetic curve of nature, and his result is like a myth of theocritus.[ ] --emerson "the severest analyzer" is employed to explain what "the hardest chemist" is, therefore the two phrases are in apposition. this form of construction is often used in explaining who persons are; as, i, henry v, king of england, etc. all these terms are in apposition and should receive the same inflection, because identity of inflection conveys similarity of thought. here is another good example of apposition: identity of law, perfect order in physics, perfect parallelism between the laws of nature and the laws of thought exist. --emerson emphasis _what is emphasis?_ any impressive utterance that arrests the attention of the listener. _is it placed merely on single words?_ no. it may be placed on individual words, phrases, or sentences. _does it consist of force alone?_ no. emphasis consists of time, pitch, force, quality, and location. _time._ by time is meant the rapidity of utterance; as, with noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half lighted by the moon--he winds up the ascent of stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. --daniel webster the idea is here brought out by means of the slow, measured manner in which the murderer is described noiselessly passing through the lonely hall and winding up the stairway. if this passage were quickly and violently spoken, a mis-interpretation would be given it. time, in this instance, gives emphasis to the thought. the light of the newly kindled sun, indeed, was glorious. it struck upon all the planets, and waked into existence their myriad capacities of life and joy. as it rebounded from them, and showed their vast orbs all wheeling, circle beyond circle in their stupendous course, the sons of god shouted for joy. --horace mann this passage is also made emphatic by the time employed. it requires rapidity of utterance in order to express the ideas of the awakening of life and the joy of man. _pitch._ by pitch is meant the tone of voice employed--its height or depth; as, with simple resignation, he [garfield] bowed to the divine decree. --james g. blaine the words "with simple resignation" require simplicity of voice, but the phrase "he bowed to the divine decree" should be spoken in a low, impressive tone, the better to express the feeling of reverence. the idea is here conveyed as much by the pitch of the voice as by the words themselves. people of hungary! will you die under the exterminating sword of the savage russians? if not, defend yourselves! will you look on while the cossacks of the far north tread under foot the bodies of your fathers, mothers, wives, and children? if not, defend yourselves! will you see a part of your fellow citizens sent to the wilds of siberia, made to serve in the wars of tyrants, or bleed under the murderous knout? if not, defend yourselves! will you behold your villages in flames, and your harvests destroyed? will you die of hunger on the land which your sweat has made fertile? if not, defend yourselves! --louis kossuth this example must be spoken in an inspiring tone; the oft-repeated phrase, "if not, defend yourselves," should be given a gradual rise in pitch on each repetition until the final one is spoken almost in a shout. it is this gradual change in pitch that increases the emphasis on this important phrase each time it is spoken. _force._ by force is meant the loudness of voice; as, for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, i am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. --patrick henry by means of the force placed upon the words "whole," "worst," and "provide," the thought is driven home with earnestness, and as the words grow in importance the force of the voice should increase. it is mainly by means of this gradual increase in the force of the voice that an ascending series is marked; as, our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult, our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! --patrick henry the earnestness and force of the speaker's delivery should grow with each succeeding phrase, until it bursts out with its greatest power and expression on the final one. care should be exercised to go from one phrase to another by a gradual increase of force, culminating on the concluding phrase. all important or significant words require emphasis by means of force; as, it _must_ be confessed, it _will_ be confessed; there is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide _is_ confession. --daniel webster _quality._ by quality is meant the kind of voice--whether it is smooth or rough, rich or poor, large or small, expressive or non-expressive of the many emotions which the human voice is capable of producing. a tone may be raucous, because it is held in the throat; it may be nasal, through being held in the head; it may be breathy, through a waste of breath; or, on the other hand, it may possess those qualities of clearness, smoothness, and richness that come only from a properly developed and correctly used vocal mechanism. the quality of the voice may be pure, aspirated, or whispered; as, _pure quality._ this uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited. these thousands of human faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and from the impulses of a common gratitude turned reverently to heaven in this spacious temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the purpose of our assembling here made a deep impression on our hearts. --daniel webster this example should be spoken in a clear, ringing, buoyant voice; and, if so spoken, the quality would be pure. _aspirated quality._ gracious god! in the nineteenth century to talk of constructive treason! --william pinkney the words, "gracious god!" are expressive of repressed indignation and should be uttered in a tone that is only partly vocalized; and, when so spoken, the quality is aspirated. an aspirated tone is one that is surrounded with breath, only a portion of which is vocalized. _whispered quality._ the whisper is seldom used by the orator, but is often employed by the actor. whispered speech is speech that is produced by the articulation of breath without that breath being converted into voice. for instance, when hamlet sees the ghost of his father he articulates, but does not vocalize, the following: angels and ministers of grace defend us! --shakespeare hamlet is so awed by the presence of the spirit of his father as to be deprived of the use of his voice, although he retains the ability to speak, and when one produces speech without voice he is using the whispered quality. the whisper is articulated breath, but not vocalized breath. it is speech, but not voice. _location._ by location is meant the position that the word or phrase holds in the sentence. if the emphasis is properly built up, the speaker will move from the weaker to the stronger, from the lesser to the greater; as, here, then, are the three liberties: liberty of the producer, liberty of the distributer, liberty of the consumer. the first two need no discussion--they have been long, thoroughly, and brilliantly illustrated by the political economists of great britain, and by her eminent statesmen; but it seems to me that enough attention has not been directed to the third, and, with your patience, i will dwell on that for a moment before proceeding to other topics. --henry ward beecher mr. beecher states that his intention is to speak on the liberty of the consumer; therefore, in enumerating the three liberties, he places the one he intends to discuss in the vantage position--the last. when a word, phrase, or sentence is set against another word, phrase, or sentence, both members of the opposition require emphasis; as, law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity. --edmund burke the placing of "law" against "arbitrary power" requires that the opposing words should be made emphatic by means of emphasis as well as by inflection. all words or thoughts that are contrasted (single, double, or triple opposition) should be emphasized by the application of force, and the contrast brought out through the proper placing of the inflection. it is by means of inflection and emphasis that all contrasts in delivery are marked. the repetition of a word or phrase requires that the repetition should be made more emphatic than the first utterance by means of greater force; as, they have answered then, that although two hundred thousand of their countrymen have offered up their lives, there yet remain lives to offer; and that it is the determination of _all,_ yes, of all, to persevere until they shall have established their liberty, or until the power of their oppressors should have relieved them from the burden of existence. --daniel webster a series of emphatic words requires that there should be a general increase in force on all the members of the series; as, the universal cry is--_let us move against philip_--let us fight for our liberties--+let us conquer or die.+ --r. b. sheridan where a word is used to qualify another, the qualifying word should be emphasized; as, they planned no _sluggard_ people, passive while the world's work calls them. they established no _reactionary_ nation. they unfurled no _retreating_ flag. --albert j. beveridge the fathers planted a people, established a nation, and unfurled a flag; but they did not plant a _sluggard_ people, establish a _reactionary_ nation, nor unfurl a _retreating_ flag. it is by means of placing the emphasis on the qualifying words in this example that the meaning is instantly interpreted. some years ago a critic,[ ] in commenting on e. h. sothern's reading of the line from _the love chase,_ "the cause of causes, lady," justly criticised him for emphasizing the unimportant word _of,_ but the critic himself fell into as great an error as the actor when he cited the following as correct placing of emphasis: my _heart_ of hearts, the _man_ of men, _great_ among the greatest, _mightiest_ in the mightiest, and _cause_ of causes. the meaning in each instance is best brought out by placing the principal emphasis on _heart, man, great, mightiest,_ and _cause,_ and secondary emphasis on _hearts, men, greatest, mightiest,_ and _causes._ the ideas being that it is in the very center of the heart, that he towers above all others, that it is stronger than all others, and that it is the creator of creatures. therefore the phrases should read: my heart of _hearts,_ the man of _men,_ great among the _greatest,_ mightiest in the _mightiest,_ the cause of _causes._ the same critic, a little further on in the same book,[ ] takes julie marlowe to task for reading the following lines from _romeo and juliet_ thus: _deny_ thy father and _refuse_ thy name. he states it should be read: deny thy _father_ and refuse thy _name._ in the opinion of the author, both the actress and the critic are half right and half wrong, the scene requiring that emphasis should be placed on the four words; thus, _deny_ thy _father_ and _refuse_ thy _name._ this reading clearly denotes what juliet desires shall be done with both the father and the name; the other readings do not. daniel webster, in his reply to senator hayne, used this striking arrangement of words to express his idea of the unity of liberty and union: _liberty_ and _union, now_ and _forever, one_ and _inseparable._ in most readers the passage is marked, liberty _and_ union, thus making the important connective _and,_ which has practically nothing to do with conveying the thought, all-important, and sinking into insignificance the thought words of the orator. webster distinctly says that "liberty" and "union" are "one and inseparable," whereas by putting the emphasis on the word _and_ the speaker distinctly states that they are two. webster undoubtedly intended "liberty" and "union" to be synonymous--"liberty" meaning the same as "union," and "union" the same as "liberty"--what constituted the one being exactly the same as what constituted the other. therefore, like emphasis should be placed on both words. every sentence contains at least one thought; and in every group of words conveying a thought some particular word carries that thought to the mind. such words are the thought words. this can be best illustrated by examples. in her plea for mercy portia says: the quality of mercy is not _strain'd;_[ ] in this line, _strain'd_ is the word that conveys the idea. it is not _quality_ nor _mercy_ that portia desires to impress on the mind of shylock, but the fact that mercy is not _strain'd._ antonio had confessed the bond, portia had stated that nothing but the mercy of the jew could save him from paying the penalty, and in making this statement she had used the word _must._ shylock replied by saying: "on what _compulsion_ must i?" in other words, how are you going to compel me? and it is this thought of the jew's to which she replied. in the same speech portia says: . . . we do _pray_ for mercy, and that same prayer doth teach us all to _render_ the deeds of mercy. the thought words, as the author sees them, are here italicized, but his reading of the lines differs from any he has heard from the stage or seen marked by critics. the great tendency is to come down hard on the word _deeds,_ whereas it is one of the least important words in the entire sentence; it might be omitted without injury to the thought or the sense. mr. alfred ayres, from whose work, _acting and actors,_ the author has before quoted, advises the laying of the stress on the word _all_; but there is no better reason for emphasizing that word than there is for placing the stress upon _deeds._ the passage in the prayer to which portia refers is: "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," this being a clear statement of the supplicant's understanding of the necessity of his forgiving his debtors if he is to entertain the hope of having his debts forgiven by the heavenly father. the verse following the lord's prayer more clearly brings out this idea: "for if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you."[ ] the words "pray" and "render" are, therefore, the thought words--by means of their contrast they bring out the idea--and for this reason they require the emphasis. a paraphrase will demonstrate the correctness of this statement: we _ask_ for mercy, and that prayer tells us to _give_ mercy. the _receiving_ of mercy being contingent on the _granting_ of it. combined use of inflection and emphasis inflection and emphasis, as before stated, are two of the principal means at the disposal of a speaker for the interpretation of thought. by these two means of expression, and the use of the proper color-tone in the voice, the thought can be clearly conveyed. by inflection and emphasis, words, phrases, and sentences are contrasted, and by means of contrast the mind of the listener is directed to the point that the speaker wishes him to see; as, i propose, then, in what follows to make some remarks on communion with god, or prayer in a large sense of the word; not as regards its external consequences, but as it may be considered to affect our own minds and hearts. --cardinal newman the speaker states that he does not intend to discuss prayer so far as its external consequences are concerned; and if he stopped there, we should know what he intended not to discuss; but when he adds the positive, "but as it may be considered to affect our own minds and hearts," we know exactly what he intends to avoid and what he intends to take up, and this double knowledge is imparted to us by means of the contrast that the cardinal uses. it is very well to tell a person not to do a certain thing, but it is much stronger and more comprehensive if he is also told what to do. it is all well and good to be told what will not justify action on one's part, but it is far better to be told what will; as, it is the apprehension of impending harm, and not its actual existence, which constitutes the justification for defensive action. --sargent s. prentiss here we are told that both the existence and apprehension of bodily harm will justify defensive action, and the point is, therefore, placed beyond misunderstanding by means of contrast. _how many forms of contrast are there?_ there are three: the single, the double, and the triple. _what is the single contrast?_ the single contrast is where one word, phrase, or sentence is contrasted with another; as, helen was not a sinner, but a sufferer, and our feeling for her should not be one of hatred, but of compassion. --gorgias the sentence gives two examples of the single contrast, "sinner" being opposed to "sufferer" and "hatred" opposed to "compassion." _what is the double contrast?_ the double contrast is where two words or phrases are contrasted with a like number of words or phrases; as, in fact it is a universal law, not that the stronger should yield to the weaker, but the weaker to the stronger; that the stronger should lead, and the weaker follow. --gorgias in this example, "stronger," the first time it is used, is contrasted with "weaker" the second time it is used, and the first "weaker" with the second "stronger." in the second phrase, "stronger" is contrasted with "weaker," and "lead" with "follow." the double contrast requires, as a rule, that the first member should be given the falling inflection, the second the rising, the third the rising, and the fourth the falling, thus bringing the first and the third, the second and the fourth, in contrast; as, for it is equally wrong and stupid to censure what is commendable, and to commend what is censurable. --gorgias this is a good illustration of the double contrast. "censure" is contrasted with "commend," and "commendable" with "censurable." when the double contrast is contained in two phrases, the first phrase being positive and the other phrase negative, the first member should be given the rising inflection, the second the falling, the third the falling, and the fourth the rising. in this way the contrast will be clearly shown and the negative and positive qualities retained; as, lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.[ ] --the bible in this example, "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" is contrasted with "but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven," and as the former is negative, it requires the rising inflection, while the latter requires the falling inflection, because it is positive; "where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal" is contrasted with "where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal"; therefore the former, being positive, should be given the falling inflection, while the latter, being negative, should be given the rising inflection. in the triple oppositions the inflections alternate, the first member receiving the rising inflection, the second the falling, the third the rising, the fourth the falling, the fifth the rising, and the sixth the falling; as, she loved me for the dangers i had passed, and i loved her that she did pity them. --shakespeare "she" is contrasted with the second "i," "me" with her," and ""dangers" with "pity." _what is the triple contrast?_ the triple contrast is where three words or phrases are contrasted with three other words or phrases; as, both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. --lincoln the triple contrast is between "one" and "other," "make" and "accept," "survive" and "perish." this is a splendidly constructed sentence, and contains more information than many paragraphs made up of numerous sentences. it is because of the masterly arrangement of contrasts that so much is stated in so small a space. _how are the contrasts to be brought out?_ by means of inflection and emphasis. the single contrast requires that when both members are positive the first should be given the rising inflection and the second the falling; as, the human mind is the brightest display of the power and skill of the infinite mind with which we are acquainted. --john todd the contrast is between the words "human" and "infinite," and as both of them are positive, "human" is given the rising inflection and "infinite" the falling, thus marking, by means of the different inflections, the difference between the words. all words that are contrasted are given emphasis as well as inflection. whenever the words or phrases that are contrasted consist of negatives and positives, the former should be given the rising inflection and the latter the falling inflection, irrespective of their location; as, they fell and were buried; but they never can die. --george w. curtis in this example the positive statement that the heroes "fell and were buried" requires the falling inflection, while the negative one that "they never can die" should be given the rising inflection in order to mark the contrast. parenthesis _what is a parenthesis?_ a parenthesis is a secondary idea that is interjected into a main idea in order to amplify or explain it; as, he who has a memory that can seize with an iron grasp and retain what he reads--the ideas, simply, without the language, and judgment to compare and balance--will scarcely fail of being distinguished. --john todd the main idea is, "he who has a memory that can seize with an iron grasp and retain what he reads, will scarcely fail of being distinguished"; the secondary, or parenthetical, idea being, "the ideas, simply, without the language, and judgment to compare and balance." this is a long and important parenthesis. it contains two thoughts, "the ideas, simply, without the language," "and judgment to compare and balance," which materially amplify the main thought and at the same time qualify it. _what is the use of the parenthesis?_ it is of great use to the extempore speaker in that it permits him, after he has started his sentence, to explain or amplify his thought before coming to a conclusion; as, a whole family, just, gentle and pure, were thus, in their own house, in the night time, without any provocation, without one moment's warning, sent by the murderer to join the assembly of the just. --william h. seward seward starts with the idea of stating that a whole family were foully murdered, but after commencing to express his thought, he desires to qualify it, so he halts it to interject the fact that this whole family were "just, gentle, and pure." were it not for the use of the parenthesis, he would have been compelled to use another sentence. care should be exercised in using parentheses, as they tend to confuse the listener unless properly spoken. _how should a parenthesis be spoken?_ in order to show that the speaker has left the main idea and taken up a secondary one, he should change the pitch of the voice on leaving the main idea, or while speaking the parenthesis, and immediately resume the original pitch on resuming the main idea. the following is a striking example of the use of parenthesis. it is a long, loose sentence, but full of information that may be better expressed in this manner than by a number of short sentences: this great nation, filling all profitable latitudes, cradled between two oceans, with inexhaustible resources, with riches increasing in an unparalleled ratio, by agriculture, by manufactures, by commerce, with schools and churches, with books and newspaper thick as leaves in our forests, with institutions sprung from the people, and peculiarly adapted to their genius; a nation not sluggish, but active, used to excitement, practiced in political wisdom, and accustomed to self-government, and all its vast outlying parts held together by a federal government, mild in temper, gentle in administration, and beneficent in results, seemed to have been formed for peace. --henry ward beecher the main thought consists of the short sentence, "this great nation seemed to have been formed for peace," and all that explains its situation, its resources, and its government is parenthetical. this illustration is not cited as a good example for speakers to follow, but it is merely given to show one of the means employed by mr. beecher, an eloquent speaker, in expressing his ideas. the subject of the construction of sentences is dealt with at length in the chapter on composition. pause pauses should be regulated by the sense and not by grammatical punctuation. a pause is sometimes required where no mark of punctuation is placed and at times a mark of punctuation should be passed over quickly in order to not retard the conveyance of the speaker's thought. the pauses used by the speaker, but note employed by the grammarian, are called rhetorical pauses and are used for emphasis; as, go, forget that you have a wife and children, to ruin, and remember only--that you have france to save.[ ] the series _what is a series?_ a series is a group of three or more important positive words or phrases, of different meanings, yet so closely related as to be capable of being welded into one thought; as, let old issues, old questions, old differences, and old feuds be regarded as fossils of another epoch. --alexander h. stephens the group that constitutes the series is composed of "old issues," "old questions," "old differences," "old feuds," which, united should all "be regarded as fossils of another epoch." _what use is the series?_ the series allows a speaker to gather many forces, amalgamate them, thus uniting the feeble powers of the number into the powerful strength of the one, and to direct the united force to one point; as, we are among the sepulchres of our fathers. we are on ground distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. --daniel webster the orator tells the assembly that they are on ground distinguished by the valor of their fathers, but he does more: he tells them that the ground was also distinguished by their constancy and the shedding of their blood. the series enables the speaker to weld together "valor," "constancy," and "blood," thus combining the three virtues shown by the fathers, and this arrangement, the blending of the three reasons, gives the one strong reason, the patriotism of our fathers, for honoring the ground upon which the people were gathered. cicero thus clearly defines a series and tells what it accomplishes: "for there is such an admirable continuation and series of things that each seems connected with the other, and all appear linked together and unified." this is exactly what a series is: words or phrases that are closely connected with one another and are all linked together; as, we welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of christianity, and the light of everlasting truth! --daniel webster _how many kinds of series are there?_ two, the commencing and the concluding. _what is a commencing series?_ a commencing series is always an incomplete one, so far as the sense is concerned, as it requires something more than the series to complete the sense. it generally commences a sentence; as, it is only when public opinion, or the strong power of government, the formidable array of influence, the force of a nation, or the fury of a multitude is directed against you, that the advocate is of any use. --james. t. brady the series ends with "or the fury of a multitude," and the sense is made complete by "is directed against you, that the advocate is of any use." a series is often composed of qualifying words; as, what though it breaks like lightning from the cloud? the electric fire had been collecting in the firmament through many a silent, calm, and clear day. --orville dewey the words "silent, calm, and clear" qualify the word day and constitute a commencing series, because they require the word day to complete the thought. _what is a concluding series?_ a series is considered a concluding one when the series is complete with the close of the series. it generally concludes the sentence; as, the remarkable people of this world are useful in their way; but the common people, after all, represent the nation, the age, and the civilization. --henry ward beecher the series consists of "the nation," "the age," "the civilization"; a group of three important things which the common people represent. here is a good example of a concluding series of phrases: with such consecrated service, what could we not accomplish; what riches we should gather for her; what glory and prosperity we should render to the union; what blessings we should gather into the universal harvest of humanity. --henry w. grady a series constitutes sometimes a parenthesis; as, for no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness, by the red hand of murder, he was thus thrust from the full tide of this world's interests, from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories, into the visible presence of death--and he did not quail. --james. g. blaine this example opens with a commencing series which ends with "by the red hand of murder," the sense of which is completed by "he was thrust from the full tide of this world's interest into the visible presence of death," but the thought is interrupted by the orator to interject the parenthetical clause "from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories," and as what completes the sense, "the full tide of this world's interest," precedes the series, it is a concluding series. _is there any difference as to how the two series should be spoken?_ yes. the commencing series requires the falling infection on every member except the last, which should be given the rising inflection; as, from the very beginning i chose an honest and straightforward course in politics, to support the honor, the power, the glory of my fatherland. --demosthenes the series is embraced in the words "the honor, the power, the glory," and as the sense is incomplete with the close of the series, requiring "of my fatherland" to complete the sense, it is a commencing series. the proper delivery of this series requires that "honor" should be given the falling inflection, "power" the falling, and "glory" the rising. the concluding series requires the falling inflection on every member except the next to the last, which should be given the rising inflection; as, he thinks the whole world sees it in his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. --daniel webster this is an excellent example of a concluding series of phrases. the first phrase, ending with "face," requires the falling inflection; the second, ending with "eyes," requires the rising inflection; the third, ending with "thoughts," requires the falling inflection. series of contrasts _what is a series of contrasts?_ a series of contrasts is where there are at least three contrasts arranged in the form of the series; as, ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.[ ] --the bible the series consists of three phrases, and the series must be brought out by giving the first phrase the falling inflection, the second phrase the rising inflection, and the third phrase the falling inflection; and as there are three contrasts, "ask" being contrasted with "given," "seek" with "find," and "knock" with "opened," we must, in order to retain the concluding series, give "ask" the rising inflection, "given" the falling, "seek" the falling, "find" the rising, "knock" the rising, and "opened" the falling. if the contrasts form a commencing series, the inflections should be applied according to the rules regarding the series; as, sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, i give my hand and heart to this vote. --daniel webster "sink" should be given the rising inflection, "swim" the falling, "live" the rising, "die" the falling, "survive" the falling, and "perish" the rising, for by so doing the contrasts will be marked and the series retained. the series consists of "sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish," and as it requires "i give my hand and heart to this vote" to complete the sense, it is a commencing series. modulation _what is modulation?_ modulation, in a broad sense, is coloring the voice so as to make it explain by its tones the meaning of the spoken words. it consists principally of inflection and pitch, but the elements of emphasis also enter into it. by means of modulation action is given to the voice--it rises, it falls, it glides, it leaps, it bounds; all sounds are described--the moaning of the winds, the rush of waters, the tramp of marching armies; all emotions are expressed--the shout of joy, the cry of pain, the huzzah of victory. the inflection of the voice interprets its meaning--whether it is negative, positive, conditional, etc., the pitch of the voice expresses the emotion--whether it is joyous, sad, indifferent, etc. the speaking voice is divided into three registers, the medium, the upper and the lower. the tones of the middle register are the customary tones of the voice, and they are used for giving expression to anything that is ordinary. they are expressive of unemotional thoughts; as, some persons, for example, tell us that the acquisition of knowledge is all very well, but that it must be useful knowledge--meaning thereby that it must enable a man to get on in a profession, pass an examination, shine in conversation, or obtain a reputation for learning. --arthur james balfour this is a plain, simple statement, spoken without emotion of any kind, and therefore should be pitched in an ordinary key. the matter need not necessarily be unimportant to be spoken in the medium register, but it must be simple in its character and unimpassioned in its nature, and for these reasons it is spoken in the ordinary tones of the voice. the lower register is expressive of solemnity, sorrow, and all deep-seated emotions; as, if the spirits of the illustrious dead participate in the concerns and cares of those who were dear to them in this transitory life, oh, ever dear and venerated shade of my departed father, look down with scrutiny upon the conduct of your suffering son, and see if i have, even for a moment, deviated from those principles of morality and patriotism which it was your care to instil into my youthful mind, and for which i am now to offer up my life! --robert emmet the upper register is used for expressing the emotions of a light and joyous nature; as, advance, then ye future generations! we would hail you, as you rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and to take the blessings of existence where we are passing, and soon shall have passed, our own human duration. we bid you welcome to this pleasant land of the fathers. we bid you welcome to the healthful skies and the verdant fields of new england. we greet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed. we welcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. we welcome you to the treasures of science and the delights of learning. we welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, to the happiness of kindred and parents, and children. we welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of christianity, and the light of everlasting truth! --daniel webster some of the stronger emotions, such as anger, defiance, and grief, when not deeply felt, are expressed on the upper register; as, we do not come as aggressors. our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families and posterity. we have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. we beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. we defy them. --william jennings bryan the following vivid description of the delivery of the blind preacher, by the orator william wirt, is a splendid example of modulation in a comprehensive sense, because it depends on the distinctive colors that are placed in the voice, as well as on inflection and emphasis, for its effective presentation. it was some time before the tumult had subsided, so far as to permit him to proceed. indeed, judging by the usual, but fallacious, standard of my own weakness, i began to be very uneasy for the situation of the preacher. for i could not conceive how he would be able to let his audience down from the height to which he had wound them, without impairing the solemnity and dignity of the subject, or perhaps shocking them by the abruptness of the fall. but, no! the descent was as beautiful and sublime as the elevation had been rapid and enthusiastic. the first sentence, with which he broke the awful silence, was a quotation from rousseau: "socrates died like a philosopher, but jesus christ, like a god." i despair of giving you any idea of the effect produced by this short sentence, unless you could perfectly conceive the whole manner of the man, as well as the peculiar crisis in the discourse. never before did i completely understand what demosthenes meant by laying such stress on delivery. you are to bring before you the venerable figure of the preacher; his blindness, constantly recalling to your recollection old homer, ossian, and milton, and associating with his performance the melancholy grandeur of their geniuses; you are to imagine that you hear his slow, solemn, well-accented enunciation, and his voice of affecting, trembling melody; you are to remember the pitch of passion and enthusiasm to which the congregation were raised; and then the few minutes of portentous, death-like silence which reigned throughout the house; the preacher removing his white handkerchief from his aged face (even yet wet from the recent torrent of his tears), and, slowly stretching forth the palsied hand which holds it, begins the sentence, "socrates died like a philosopher," then, pausing, raising his other hand, pressing them both clasped together with warmth and energy to his breast, lifting his "sightless balls" to heaven, and pouring his whole soul into his trembling voice--"but jesus christ, like a god!" if he had been indeed and in truth an angel of light, the effect could scarcely have been more divine. in this chapter and the one preceding are given some of the mechanical means of constructing speeches and delivering them, and in thus telling the student of oratory the specific way of accomplishing results, this book differs from the many that treat, or profess to treat, of oratory. demosthenes says: "to censure is easy for any man; to show what measures the cause requires is the part of a counsellor." this is a nugget of wisdom, and in adopting it the author has used the injunction _do_ instead of issuing a number of _don'ts,_ as is the custom of many teachers. he tells primarily what to do and how to do it, and only in a secondary manner does he use the negative way of instruction. in this chapter, students are shown what means were employed by those who succeeded in mastering the art of vocal expression and how they may adopt them in aiming to accomplish the same results; and the author has no hesitancy in stating that if the student will properly qualify himself to become an orator by a diligent study of the method therein contained, he will rise to eminence in a field of labor that repays with honors and renown all who toil in it. this chapter treats of the mechanical means of producing oratory and making orators, but the psychological, or mental, means, which must be used in conjunction with the mechanical in order that there may be life in the production, will receive due attention in later chapters. unless the mentality enters into the work of the orator, it will be devoid of action, and consequently not oratory; for, in the words of demosthenes: "all speech without action appears vain and idle." footnotes: [ ] a grecian pastoral poet who lived in the third century. [ ] alfred ayres in "acting and actors," page . [ ] page . [ ] the merchant of venice, act. iv, scene i. [ ] st. matthew, vi: . [ ] matthew, vi: - . [ ] spoken to d'aguesseau by his wife when he went to confront his enraged king. quoted by wendell phillips in his address on "idols." [ ] st. matthew, vii: . chapter iii construction spoken matter is a speech only when it possesses three divisions: an opening, a body, and a conclusion. without possessing these three divisions it may be a talk, but it is not a speech. this can be best explained by the author quoting from one of his previous works:[ ] "every speech, no matter what its length or what its subject, should possess three parts: an opening or statement, a body or argument, a conclusion or appeal. the opening should contain a statement of the facts to be presented, or the points upon which the argument is to be made; the body should be given over to a presentation of the facts, a narration of the story, a description of the scene, or an argument of the cause; and the conclusion should be devoted to summing up of the facts, an application of the story or the scene, or a deduction from the argument on the points. "the opening may contain as many statements as the speaker desires, but he must make sure to argue upon and drive home in the body of the speech all that he mentions in the opening. every statement in the opening must be like a plank in a platform, and all such planks, or statements, must be fastened together properly in the argument, otherwise there will be gaps in the platform, or statement, through which the speaker's argument is liable to fall to failure." a rambling story is not a speech; a talk that has not a clear opening, a convincing argument, or a logical conclusion, is not a speech; a statement without a body is not a speech. all these things may be talks, but only a well-defined, clearly-mapped-out discourse can be dignified with the name of speech. in order that one may be a speech-maker and not a babbler, he must work in accordance with a well-defined plan. he should carefully gather the material that is to be used, arrange the parts of the speech in their proper places, and deliver the speech in the best possible manner. no matter how excellent the material may be, it will prove of little value to the speaker unless it is arranged consecutively; built, as it were, point on point, or fact on fact, and developed according to his prearranged plan. it should be so knitted together as to cohere and form a structure that, resting on a firm foundation, will be compact and complete. desultory talking is not speech making. the speaker should possess a definite object, and keep to that object until it has been clearly presented and convincingly demonstrated. order should reign everywhere--in the arrangement of the words, the presentation of the ideas, and the delivery of the matter. lack of attention to these details is the cause of many failing as public speakers who, had they given proper attention to the perfection of the means to be employed, might have become clear thinkers and masterly presenters of well-ordered thoughts. length has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether spoken matter is a speech or not. one might speak for an hour and not deliver a speech; and, on the other hand, a perfectly constructed speech might be produced in a minute or less. here is a matter that occupies less than two lines, or, to be exact, twenty-two words, and yet it possesses all the requirements of a speech: the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.[ ] we have the proposition that "the light of the body is the eye"; the argument, "if therefore thine eye be single"; and the conclusion, "thy whole body shall be full of light." specimen divisions of speeches of demosthenes are here employed to emphasize these points, and students are advised to study closely the means adopted by this master of oratory and rhetoric in arranging his speeches. two examples of each of the three divisions of a speech, and one example of a complete speech, are here presented in order that students may gain a practical and comprehensive idea regarding the construction of speeches. divisions of a speech opening _against the law of leptines_ ( b.c.). it was chiefly, men of the jury, because i deemed it good for athens that the law should be repealed, but partly on account of the son of chabrias, that i engaged to support these men to the utmost of my ability. it is plain enough, men of athens, that leptines, or whoever else defends the law, will have nothing to say for it on the merits, but will allege that certain unworthy persons obtaining immunity have evaded the public services, and will lay the greatest stress upon this point. i will pass by the injustice of such proceeding--for a complaint against some to take the honour from all--for it has in a manner been explained, and is doubtless acknowledged by you; but this i would gladly ask him: granting most fully that not some but all were unworthy, why did he consider that you and they were to be dealt with alike? by enacting that none should be exempted, he took the exemption from those that enjoyed it; by adding that it should be unlawful to grant it thereafter, he deprived you of the power of granting. he can not surely say that, as he deprived the holders of their privilege because he deemed them unworthy of it, in the same manner he thought the people unworthy to have the power of giving their own to whom they pleased. but possibly he may reply that he framed the law so because the people are easily misled. then what prevents your being deprived of everything, yea, of the government itself, according to such argument? for there is not a single department of your affairs in which this has not happened to you. many decrees have you at various times been entrapped into passing. you have been persuaded ere now to choose the worse allies instead of the better. in short, amid the variety of your measures there must, i conceive, happen something of this kind occasionally. shall we therefore make a law prohibiting the council and the people hereafter from passing bills and decrees? i scarcely think so. we ought not to be deprived of a right, in the exercise of which we have been deceived; rather should we be instructed how to avoid such error, and pass a law, not taking away our power, but giving the means of punishing those who deceive us. _on the navy boards_ ( b.c.). it appears to me, o athenians, that the men who praise your ancestors adopt a flattering language, not a course beneficial to the people whom they eulogize. for attempting to speak on subjects which no man can fully reach by words they carry away the reputation of clever speakers themselves, but cause the glory of those ancients to fall below its estimation in the minds of the hearers. for my part, i consider the highest praise of our ancestors to be the length of time which has elapsed during which no other men have been able to excel the pattern of their deeds. i will myself endeavour to show in what way, according to my judgment, your preparations may most conveniently be made. for thus it is. though all of us who intend to speak should prove ourselves capital orators, your affairs, i am certain, would prosper none the more; but if any person whomsoever came forward, and could show and convince you what kind and what amount of force will be serviceable to the state, and from what resources it should be provided, all our present apprehensions would be removed. this will i endeavour to do, as far as i am able, first briefly informing you what my opinion is concerning our relations with the king. body _the first philippic_ ( b.c.). first, i say, you must not despond, athenians, under your present circumstances, wretched as they are; for that which is worst in them as regards the past is best for the future. what do i mean? that your affairs are amiss, men of athens, because you do nothing which is needful; if, notwithstanding you performed your duties, it were the same, there would be no hope of amendment. consider, next, what you know by report, and men of experience remember, how vast a power the lacedaemonians had not long ago, yet how nobly and becomingly you consulted the dignity of athens, and undertook the war against them for the rights of greece. why do i mention this? to show and convince you, athenians, that nothing, if you take precaution, is to be feared; nothing, if you are negligent goes as you desire. take for examples the strength of the lacedaemonians then, which you overcame by attention to your duties, and the insolence of this man now, by which through neglect of our interest we are confounded. but if any among you, athenians, deem philip hard to be conquered, looking at the magnitude of his existing power, and the loss by us of all our strongholds, they reason rightly, but should reflect, that once we held pydna and potidaea and methone and all the region round about as our own, and many of the nations now leagued with him were independent and free, and preferred our friendship to his. had philip then taken it into his head that it was difficult to contend with athens, when she had so many fortresses to infest his country, and he was destitute of allies, nothing that he has accomplished would he have undertaken, and never would he have acquired so large a dominion. but he saw well, athenians, that all these places are the open prizes of war, that the possessions of the absent naturally belong to the present, those of the remiss to them that will venture and toil. acting on such principle, he has won everything and keeps it, either by way of conquest or by friendly attachment and alliance; for all men will side with and respect those whom they see prepared and willing to make proper exertion. if you, athenians, will adopt this principle now, though you did not before, and every man, where he can and ought to give his service to the state, be ready to give it without excuse, the wealthy to contribute, the able-bodied to enlist; in a word, plainly, if you will become your own masters, and cease each expecting to do nothing himself while his neighbour does everything for him, you shall then with heaven's permission recover your own, and get back what has been frittered away, and chastise philip. do not imagine that his empire is everlastingly secured to him as a god. there are who hate and envy him, athenians, even among those that seem most friendly; and all feelings that are in other men belong, we may assume, to his confederates. but now they are all cowed, having no refuge through your tardiness and indolence, which i say you must abandon forthwith. for you see, athenians, the case, to what pitch of arrogance the man has advanced who leaves you not even the choice of action or inaction, but threatens and uses (they say) outrageous language; and, unable to rest in possession of his conquests, continually widens their circle and, while we dally and delay, throws his net all around us. what, then, athenians, when will you act as becomes you? in what event? in that of necessity, i suppose. and how should we regard the events happening now? methinks to freemen the strongest necessity is the disgrace of their condition. or tell me, do you like walking about and asking one other, is there any news? why, could there be greater news than a man of macedonia subduing athenians, and directing the affairs of greece? is philip dead? no, but he is sick. and what matters it to you? should anything befall this man you will soon create another philip if you attend to business thus. for even he has been exalted not so much by his own strength but by our negligence. and, again, should anything happen to him; should fortune, which still takes better care of us than we of ourselves, be good enough to accomplish this, observe that, being on the spot, you would step in while things were in confusion and manage them as you pleased; but as you are, though occasion offered amphipolis, you would not be in a position to accept it, with neither forces nor counsels at hand. however, as to the importance of a general zeal in the discharge of duty, believing you are convinced and satisfied, i say no more. _on the liberty of the rhodians_ ( b.c.) one of the events for which i consider you should be thankful to the gods is that a people, who to gratify their own insolence went to war with you not long ago, now place their hopes of safety in you alone. well may we be rejoiced at the present crisis, for if your measures thereupon be wisely taken the result will be that the calumnies of those who traduce our country you will practically and with credit and honour refute. the chians, byzantines, and rhodians accused us of a design to oppress them, and therefore combined to make the last war against us. it will turn out that mausolus, who contrived and instigated these proceedings, pretending to be a friend of the rhodians, has deprived them of their liberty; the chians and byzantines, who called them allies, have not aided them in misfortune, while you, whom they dreaded, are the only people who have wrought their deliverance. and this being seen by all the world, you will cause the people in every state to regard your friendship as the token of their security; nor can there be a greater blessing for you than thus to obtain from all men a voluntary attachment and confidence. i marvel to see the same persons advising you to oppose the king on behalf of the egyptians, and afraid of him in the matter of the rhodian people. all men know that the latter are greeks, the former a portion of his subjects. and i think some of you remember that when you were debating about the king's business i first came forward and advised--nay, i was the only one, or one of two, that gave such counsel--that your prudent course in my opinion was not to allege your quarrel with the king as the excuse for your arming, but to arm against your existing enemies, and defend yourselves against him also if he attempted to injure you. nor did i offer this advice without obtaining your approval, for you agreed with me. well, then, my reasoning of today is consistent with the argument on that occasion; for, would the king take me to his counsels, i should advise him as i advise you, in defense of his own possessions to make war upon any greeks that opposed him, but not to think of claiming dominions to which he had no manner of title. if now it be your general determination, athenians, to surrender to the king all places that he gets possession of, whether by surprise or by deluding certain of the inhabitants, you have determined, in my judgment, unwisely; but if in the cause of justice you esteem it your duty either to make war, if needful, or to suffer any extremity, in the first place, there will be the less necessity for such trials, in proportion as you are resolved to meet them; and, secondly, you will manifest a spirit that becomes you. that i suggest nothing new in urging you to liberate the rhodians, that you will do nothing new in following my counsel, will appear if i remind you of certain measures that succeeded. once, o athenians, you sent timotheus out to assist ariobarzanes, annexing to the decree "that he was not to infringe your treaty with the king." timotheus, seeing ariobarzanes had openly revolted from the king, and that samos was garrisoned by cyprothemis, under the appointment of tigranes, the king's deputy, renounced the intention of assisting ariobarzanes, but invested the island with his forces and delivered it. and to this day there has been no war against you on that account. man will not fight for aggressive purposes so readily as for defensive. to resist spoliation they strive with all their might. not so to gratify ambition; this they will attempt if there be none to hinder them; but if prevented, they regard not their opponents as having done them an injury. my belief is that artemisia would not even oppose this enterprise now if our state were embarked in the measure. attend a moment and see whether my calculations be right or wrong. i consider, were my king succeeding in all his designs in egypt, artemisia would make a strenuous effort to get rhodes into his power, not from affection to the king, but from a desire, while he tarried in her neighborhood, to confer an important obligation upon him, so that he might give her the most friendly reception; but since he fares as they report, having miscarried in his attempts, she judges that this island--and so the fact is--would be of no further use to the king at present, but only a fortress to overawe her kingdom and prevent disturbances. therefore it seems to me she would rather you had the island, without her appearing to have surrendered it, than that he should obtain possession. i think, indeed, she will send no succours at all, but if she do they will be scanty and feeble. as to the king, what he will do i can not pretend to know; but this i will maintain, that it is expedient for athens to have it immediately understood whether he means to claim the rhodian city or not; for, if he should, you will have to deliberate not on the concerns of rhodes only, but on those of athens and all greece. even if the rhodians who are now in the government had held it by themselves i would not have advised you to espouse their cause; nor though they promised to do everything for you. but i see that in the beginning, in order to put down the democracy, they gained over a certain number of citizens, and afterward banished those very men when they had accomplished their purpose. i think, therefore, that people who have been false to two parties would be no steadier allies to you. and never would i have proffered this counsel had i thought it would benefit the rhodian people only; for i am not their state friend, nor is any of them connected with me by ties of private hospitality. and even if both these causes had existed i would not have spoken unless i had considered it for your advantage. indeed, as far as the rhodians are concerned, if the advocate for their deliverance may be allowed to say so, i am rejoiced at what has happened--that, after grudging to you the recovery of your rights, they have lost their own liberty; and, when they might have had an alliance on equal terms with greeks and their betters, they are under subjection to barbarians and slaves, whom they have admitted into their fortresses. i would almost say that, if you determine to assist them, these events have turned out for their good. for, during prosperity, i doubt whether they would have learned discretion, being rhodians; but since they are taught by experience that folly is mightily injurious to men, they may possibly perhaps become wiser for the future; and this i think would be no small advantage to them. i say, therefore, you should endeavour to rescue these people, and not harbour resentment, considering that you too have often been deceived by miscreants, but for no such deceit would you allow that you merited punishment yourselves. observe also, men of athens, that you have waged many wars both against democracies and against oligarchies--this, indeed, you know without my telling--but for what cause you have been at war with either perhaps not one of you considers. what are the causes? against democratical states your wars have been either for private grievances, when you could not make public satisfaction, or for territory, or boundaries, or a point of honour, or the leadership; against oligarchies for none of these matters, but for your constitution and freedom. therefore i would not hesitate to say i think it better that all the greeks should be your enemies with a popular government than your friends under oligarchal. for with freemen i consider you would have no difficulty in making peace when you chose, but with people under an oligarchy even friendship i hold to be insecure. it is impossible that the few can be attached to the many, the seekers of power to the lovers of constitutional equality. conclusion _against the law of leptines_ ( b.c.). one might pursue the argument and show that in no single respect is the law proper or expedient for you; but, that you may comprehend the whole question at once, and that i may have done speaking, do what i now advise. make your comparison; consider what will happen to you if you condemn the law, and what if you do not; then keep in mind what you think will be the consequence in either event, that you may choose the better course. if now you condemn the law, as we advise, the deserving will have their rights from you; and if there be any undeserving party, as i grant there may be, such a one, besides being deprived of his honour, will suffer what penalty you think proper according to the amended statute, while the commonwealth will appear faithful, just, true to all men. should you decide in its favour, which i trust you will not, the good will be wronged on account of the bad, the undeserving will be the cause of misfortune to others, and suffer no punishment themselves, while the commonwealth (contrary to what i said just now) will be universally esteemed faithless, envious, base. it is not meet, o athenians, that for so foul a reproach you should reject fair and honourable advantages. remember, each of you individually will share in the reputation of your common judgment. it is plain to the bystanders and to all men that in the court leptines is contending with us, but in the mind of each of you jurymen generosity is arrayed against envy, justice against iniquity, all that is virtuous against all that is base. if you follow the wiser counsels, and give judgment in my favour, you will yourselves have the credit of a proper decision, and will have voted what is best for the commonwealth; and should occasion ever arise, you will not lack men willing at their own risk to defend you. you must give your earnest attention to these things, and be careful that you are not forced into error. many a time, o athenians, instead of it being proved to you that measures were just, they have been extorted from you by the clamour and violence and impudence of the speakers. let not this happen now; it would not be well. what you have determined to be just, keep in mind and remember until you vote, that you may give your votes conscientiously against evil counsellors. i marvel when you punish with death those who debase the coin, if you will give ear to persons who render the whole commonwealth false and treacherous. you will not surely! o jupiter and the gods! i have nothing more to add, as you seem fully to understand what has been said. _on the navy boards_ ( b.c.). not to trouble you, men of athens, with over-many words, i will give you a summary of my advice and retire. i bid you prepare yourselves against existing enemies, and i declare that with this same force you should resist the king and all other people, if they attempt to injure you; but never inflict an injustice either in word or deed. let us look that our actions, and not our speeches on the platform, be worthy of our ancestors. if you pursue this course you will do service not only to yourselves but also to them who give the opposite counsel, since you will not be angry with them afterward for your errors committed now. a complete speech _the first olynthiac_ ( b.c.). i believe, men of athens, you would give much to know what is the true policy to be adopted in the present matter of inquiry. this being the case, you should be willing to hear with attention those who offer you their counsel. besides, that you will have the benefit of all preconsidered advice, i esteem it part of your good fortune that many fit suggestions will occur to some speakers at the moment, so that from them all you may easily choose what is profitable. the present juncture, athenians, all but proclaims aloud that you must yourselves take these affairs in hand if you care for their success. i know not how we seem disposed in the matter. my own opinion is, vote succour immediately, and make the speediest preparations for sending it off from athens, that you may not incur the same mishap as before; send also ambassadors to announce this, and watch the proceedings. for the danger is that this man, being unscrupulous and clever at turning events to account, making concessions when it suits him, threatening at other times (his threats may well be believed), slandering us and urging our absence against us, may convert and wrest to his use some of our main resources. though, strange to say, athenians, the very cause of philip's strength is a circumstance favorable to you. his having it in his sole power to publish or conceal his designs, his being at the same time general, sovereign, paymaster, and everywhere accompanying his army, is a great advantage for quick and timely operations in war; but for a peace with the olynthians, which he would gladly make, it has a contrary effect. for it is plain to the olynthians that now they are fighting not for glory or for a slice of territory, but to save their country from destruction and servitude. they know how he treated those amphipolitans who surrendered to him their city, and those pydneans who gave him admittance. and generally, i believe, a despotic power is mistrusted by free states, especially if their dominions are adjoining. all this being known to you, athenians, all else of importance considered, i say you must take heart and spirit, and apply yourselves more than ever to the war, contributing promptly, serving personally, leaving nothing undone. no plea or pretence is left you for declining your duty. what you were all so clamorous about, that the olynthians should be pressed into a war with philip, has of itself come to pass, and in a way most advantageous to you. for, had they undertaken the war at your instance, they might have been slippery allies, with minds but half resolved, perhaps; but since they hate him on a quarrel of their own, their enmity is like to endure on account of their fears and their wrongs. you must not then, athenians, forego this lucky opportunity, nor commit the error which you have often done heretofore. for example, when we returned from succouring the euboeans, and hierax and stratocles of amphipolis came to this platform, urging us to sail and receive possession of their city, if we had shown the same zeal for ourselves as for the safety of euboea you would have held amphipolis then and been rid of all the troubles that ensued. again, when news came that pydna, potidaea, methone, pagasae, and the other places (not to waste time in enumerating them) were besieged, had we to any one of these in the first instance carried prompt and reasonable succour, we should have found philip far more tractable and humble now. but, by always neglecting the present and imagining the future would shift for itself, we, o men of athens, have exalted philip, and made him greater than any king of macedon ever was. here, then, is come a crisis, that of olynthus, self-offered to the state, inferior to none of the former. and methinks, men of athens, any man fairly estimating what the gods have done for us, notwithstanding many untoward circumstances, might with reason be grateful to them. our numerous losses in way may justly be charged to our own negligence; but that they happened not long ago, and that an alliance to counterbalance them is open to our acceptance, i must regard as manifestations of divine favour. it is much the same as in money matters. if a man keep what he gets he is thankful to fortune; if he lose it by imprudence, he loses withal his memory of the obligations. so in political affairs, they who misuse their opportunities forget even the good which the gods send them, for every prior event is judged commonly by the last result. wherefore, athenians, we must be exceedingly careful of our future measures, that by amendment therein we may efface the shame of the past. should we abandon these men too, and philip reduce olynthus, let any one tell me what is to prevent him marching where he pleases? does any of you, athenians, compute or consider the means by which philip, originally weak, has become great? having first taken amphipolis, then pydna, potidaea next, methone afterward, he invaded thessaly. having ordered matters at pherae, pagasae, magnesia, everywhere exactly as he pleased, he departed for thrace, where, after displacing some kings and establishing others, he fell sick; again recovering, he lapsed not into indolence, but instantly attacked the olynthians. i omit his expeditions to illyria and paeonia, that against arymbas, and some others. why, it may be said, do you mention all this now? that you, athenians, may feel and understand both the folly of continually abandoning one thing after another, and the activity which forms part of philip's habit and existence, which makes it impossible for him to rest content with his achievements. if it be his principle ever to do more than he has done, and yours to apply yourselves vigorously to nothing, see what the end promises to be. heavens! which of you is so simple as not to know that the war yonder will soon be here if we are careless? and should this happen, i fear, o athenians, that as men who thoughtlessly borrow on large interest, after a brief accommodation, lose their estate, so will it be with us; found to have paid dear for our idleness and self-indulgence, we shall be reduced to many hard and unpleasant shifts, and struggle for the salvation of our country. to censure, i may be told, is easy for any man; to show what measures the case requires is the part of a counsellor. i am not ignorant, athenians, that frequently when any disappointment happens you are angry, not with the parties in fault, but with the last speakers on the subject; yet never, with a view to self-protection, would i suppress what i deem for your interest. i say, then, you must give a twofold assistance here: first, save the olynthians their towns, and send our troops for that purpose; secondly, annoy the enemy's country with ships and other troops; omit either of these courses, and i doubt the expedition will be fruitful. for, should he, suffering your incursion, reduce olynthus, he will easily march to the defense of his kingdom; or, should you only throw succour into olynthus, and he, seeing things out of danger at home, keep up a close and vigilant blockade, he must in time prevail over the besieged. your assistance, therefore, must be effective and twofold. such are the operations i advise. as to a supply of money: you have money, athenians; you have a larger military fund than any people, and you receive it just as you please. if you will assign this to your troops you need no further supply; otherwise you need a further, or rather you have none at all. how then? some man may exclaim; do you move that this be a military fund? verily, not i. my opinion, indeed, is that there should be soldiers raised, and a military fund, and one and the same regulation for receiving and performing what is due; only you just without trouble take your allowance for the festivals. it remains, then, i imagine, that all just contribute; if much be wanted, much; if little, little. money must be had; without it nothing proper can be done. other persons propose other ways and means. choose which you think expedient, and put hands to work while it is yet time. it may be well to consider and calculate how philip's affairs now stand. they are not, as they appear, or as an inattentive observer might pronounce, in very good trim, or in the most favourable position. he would never have begun this war had he imagined he must fight. he expected to carry everything on the first advance, and has been mistaken. this disappointment is one thing that troubles and dispirits him; another is the state of thessaly. that people were always, you know, treacherous to all men, and just as they ever have been they are to philip. they have resolved to demand the restitution of pagasae, and have prevented his fortifying magnesia; and i was told they would no longer allow him to take the revenue of their harbours and markets, which they say should be applied to the public business of thessaly, not received by philip. now, if he be deprived of this fund, his means will be much straitened for paying his mercenaries. and surely we must suppose that paeonians and illyrians, and all such people, would rather be free and independent than under subjection, for they are unused to obedience, and the man is a tyrant. so report says, and i can well believe it, for undeserved success leads weak-minded men into folly; and thus it appears often that to maintain prosperity is harder than to acquire it. therefore must you, athenians, looking on his difficulty as your opportunity, assist cheerfully in the war, sending embassies where required, taking arms yourselves, exciting all other people, for if philip got such an opportunity against us, and there was a war on our frontier, how eagerly think you he would attack you! then are you not ashamed that the very damage which you suffer, if he had the power, you dare not seize the moment to inflict on him? and let not this escape you, athenians, that you have now the choice whether you shall fight there, or he in your country. if olynthus hold out, you will fight there and distress his dominions, enjoying your own home in peace. if philip take that city, who shall then prevent his marching here? thebans? i wish it be not too harsh to say they will be ready to join in the invasion. phocians? who can not defend their own country without your assistance. or some other ally? but, good sir, he will not desire! strange, indeed, if, what he is thought foolhardy for prating now, this he would not accomplish if he might. as to the vast difference between a war here or there, i fancy there needs no argument. if you were obliged to be out yourselves for thirty days only, and take the necessaries for camp-service from the land (i mean without an enemy therein), your agricultural population would sustain, i believe, greater damage than what the whole expense of the late war amounted to. but if a war should come, what damage must be expected? there is the insult, too, and the disgrace of the thing, worse than any damage to right-thinking men. on all these accounts, then, we must unite to lend our succour, and drive off the war yonder; the rich, that, spending a little from the abundance which they happily possess, they may enjoy the residue in security; the young, that, gaining military experience in philip's territory, they may become redoubtable champions to preserve their own; the orators, that they may pass a good account of their statesmanship, for on the result of measures will depend your judgment of their conduct. may it for every cause by prosperous! footnotes: [ ] "speech-making," page . by edwin gordon lawrence (the a. s. barnes company). [ ] st. matthew, vi: . chapter iv composition words make sentences, sentences form paragraphs, and paragraphs are developed into speeches. words should be vital and instantly spring into position so that the thought may be quickly conveyed. they should be appropriate in that they may become the time, place, and circumstance in which they are used. they should not be employed for their own sake, but merely for the reason that they fit in properly with their fellows and adequately convey the speaker's meaning. words are important on account of their expressive power, and this is greatly influenced by their location; as, many times the attempt was made to stretch the royal authority far enough to justify military trials; but it never had more than temporary success. --jeremiah s. black in this sentence the word "temporary" is important for the reason that it qualifies the word "success," and the ability properly to place words in a sentence so as to make them most effective in the performance of their duty is as important to the speaker as is the advantageous marshaling of an army to its general. a sentence should contain one complete thought, and but one, and this thought should be presented from only one point of view. by remembering this, speakers will avoid confusing their listeners, as a sentence containing one thought presented from one point is most likely to be clear. the mind of the speaker grasps instantly such sentences, sees all around them, as it were, and as quickly presents them in the mind of the listener. students of speech-making are strongly advised to observe this rule of unity in constructing their sentences. other essential qualities to the formation of good sentences are force and ease. force is best represented in short sentences, and ease in long ones, although a sentence may, at times, lack ease because it is too long. a sentence that is so involved that its meaning is not instantly clear will lack in ease as well as in clearness, and is sure to be deficient in force. when a speaker wishes to employ force he should move from a weaker word to a stronger; as, byron, milton, and shakespeare are representative english poets. when he wishes a sentence that is made up of a negative and a positive to be forceful he should place the negative first; as, a man is fed, not that he may be fed, but that he may work. --ralph waldo emerson when the object of the speaker is to be argumentative instead of assertive he should place the positive first; as, territory, like other property, can only be acquired for constitutional purposes, and cannot be acquired and governed for unconstitutional purposes. --george f. hoar sentences should be feeders, thus suggesting other sentences. they should connect one with the other at both ends like links forming a chain. the essential qualities of sentences are correctness, force, ease, unity, and clearness. as there should be perfect ease in going from word to word in a sentence, so there should be like ease in going from sentence to sentence in a paragraph. in fact, a paragraph is much like a large sentence, the only real difference is that it is made of sentences whereas a sentence is composed of words. a paragraph, like a sentence, should be a unit, and one paragraph should grow out of another exactly as sentences should do, and thus will the many paragraphs form the speech in the same manner as do the words form the sentences and the sentences form the paragraphs. the four forms of english composition are exposition, argumentation, narration, and description. exposition teaches; argumentation convinces and persuades; narration tells; description shows. in oratory we have five classes: philosophic, demonstrative, forensic, deliberative, and social, and the four forms of composition may be employed in any of the five classes of oratory. speakers, as a rule, use the narrative for the statement; exposition, argumentation, or description, for the body; and sometimes one form and sometimes another for the conclusion. a speaker might adopt the narrative form for stating his points, the argumentative for making them clear, and the descriptive for driving them home. exposition exposition means the interpreting of a passage or a work, explaining and expounding its meaning, analyzing its parts, and laying bare to the reader or listener all that might be obscure. a splendid example of exposition is the following extract from _the american scholar,_ by ralph waldo emerson: if it were only for a vocabulary, the scholar would be covetous of action. life is our dictionary. years are well spent in country labors; in town--in the insight into trades and manufactures; in frank intercourse with many men and women; in science; in art; to the one end of mastering in all their facts a language by which to illustrate and embody our perceptions. i learn immediately from any speaker how much he has already lived through the poverty or the splendor of his speech. life lies behind us as the quarry from whence we get tiles and cope-stones for the masonry of today. this is the way to learn grammar. colleges and books only copy the language which the field and the work-yard made. but the final value of action, like that of books, and better than books, is, that it is a resource. that great principle of undulation in nature, that shows itself in the inspiring and expiring of the breath; in desire and satiety; in the ebb and flow of the sea; in day and night; in heat and cold; and as yet more deeply ingrained in every atom and every fluid, is known to us under the name of polarity--these "fits of easy transmission and reflection," as newton called them, are the law of nature because they are the law of spirit. the mind now thinks; now acts; and each fit reproduces the other. when the artist has exhausted his materials, when the fancy no longer paints, when thoughts are no longer apprehended, and books are a weariness--he has always the resource _to live._ character is higher than intellect. thinking is the function. living is the functionary. the stream retreats to its source. a great soul will be strong to live, as well as strong to think. does he lack organ or medium to impart his truths? he can still fall back on this elemental force of living them. this is a total act. thinking is a partial act. let the grandeur of justice shine in his affairs. let the beauty of affection cheer his lowly roof. those "far from fame," who dwell and act with him, will feel the force of his constitution in the doings and passages of the day better than it can be measured by any public and designed display. time shall teach him that the scholar loses no hour which the man lives. herein he unfolds the sacred germ of his instinct, screened from influence. what is lost in seemliness is gained in strength. not out of those, on whom systems of education have exhausted their culture, comes the helpful giant to destroy the old or to build the new, but out of unhandseled savage nature, out of terrible druids and berserkirs, come at last alfred and shakespeare. i hear therefore with joy whatever is beginning to be said of the dignity and necessity of labor to every citizen. there is virtue yet in the hoe and the spade, for learned as well as for unlearned hands. and labor is everywhere welcome; always we are invited to work; only be this limitation observed, that a man shall not for the sake of wider activity sacrifice any opinion to the popular judgments and modes of action. argumentation argumentation means the stating of points or facts, the logical presentation of them, and the drawing of conclusions from a consideration of the premises. its objects are to convince and persuade the reader or listener. argumentation that stops with conviction is incomplete--it must persuade as well as convince in order to be effective. a speaker accomplishes practically nothing if he convinces an audience but does not persuade it to do the thing he desires. arguments may be direct or indirect. they are direct when aimed at a stated conclusion, and they are indirect when they are employed to disprove what is opposed to the speaker's contention. the most effective form of argument is where the two forms, direct and indirect, are employed, thus not only demolishing one contention but clearly establishing the other. it is comparable to the contrast in oratory where the statement is made that a certain thing is not only not of a certain class but specifically belongs to another one. this is "clinching" the argument, and it leaves not a loophole for the escape of the opponent. here is an excellent piece of argumentative oratory, taken from an address of william h. seward in the celebrated freeman case. "thou shalt not kill," is a commandment addressed, not to him alone, but to me, to you, to the court, and to the whole community. there are no exceptions from that commandment, at least not in civil life, save those of self-defense, and capital punishment for crimes in the due and just administration of the law. there is not only a question, then, whether the prisoner has shed the blood of his fellow-man, but the question whether we shall unlawfully shed his blood. i should be guilty of murder if, in my present relation, i saw the executioner waiting for an insane man and failed to say, or failed to do in his behalf, all that my ability allowed. i think it has been proved of the prisoner at the bar, that during all this long and tedious trial, he has had no sleepless nights, and that even in the daytime, when he retires from the halls to his lonely cell, he sinks to rest like a wearied child, on the stone floor, and quietly slumbers till roused by the constable with his staff, to appear again before the jury. his counsel enjoy no such repose. their thoughts by day and their dreams by night are filled with oppressive apprehension that, through their inability or neglect, he may be condemned. i am arraigned before you for undue manifestations of zeal and excitement. my answer to all such charges shall be brief. when this cause shall have been committed to you, i shall be happy indeed if it shall appear that my only error has been that i have felt too much, thought too intensely, or acted too faithfully. if my error would thus be criminal, how great would yours be if you should render an unjust verdict? only four months have elapsed since an outraged people, distrustful of judicial redress, doomed the prisoner to immediate death. some of you have confessed that you approved that lawless sentence. all men now rejoice that the prisoner was saved for this solemn trial. but this trial would be as criminal as that precipitate sentence, if, through any wilful fault or prejudice of yours, it should prove but a mockery of justice. if any prejudice of witnesses, or the imagination of counsel, or any ill-timed jest, shall, at any time, have diverted your attention; or if any prejudgment which you have brought into the jury box, or any cowardly fear of popular opinion shall have operated to cause you to deny to the prisoner that dispassionate consideration of his case which the laws of god and man exact of you, and if, owing to such an error, this wretched man fall from among the living, what will be your crime? you have violated the commandment, "thou shalt not kill." it is not the form or letter of the trial by jury that authorizes you to send your fellow-man to his dread account, but it is the spirit that sanctifies that glorious institution; and if, through pride, passion, timidity, weakness, or any cause, you deny the prisoner one iota of all the defense to which he is entitled by the law of the land, you yourselves, whatever his guilt may be, will have broken the commandment, "thou shalt do no murder." narration narration is recounting the particulars of events, or enumerating facts; telling of occurrences or things in regular order. specifically, it is that part of explanation that allows the subject in its relations to the movement of time. in simple words, it is a continuous telling. the narrative form of composition is beautifully employed by daniel webster in his first bunker hill monument address, the following being an extract from that admirable speech: the society whose organ i am was formed for the purpose of rearing some honorable and durable monument to the memory of the early friends of american independence. they have thought that for this object no time could be more propitious than the present prosperous and peaceful period; that no place could claim preference over this memorable spot; and that no day could be more auspicious to the undertaking than the anniversary of the battle which was here fought. the foundation of that monument we have now laid. with solemnities suited to the occasion, with prayer to almighty god for his blessing, and in the midst of this cloud of witnesses, we have begun the work. we trust it will be prosecuted, and that, springing from a broad foundation, rising high in massive solidity and unadorned grandeur, it may remain as long as heaven permits the works of man to last, a fit emblem, both of the events in memory of which it is raised, and of the gratitude of those who have reared it. description description is showing of things by means of language-pictures; telling the attributes that make up the whole. word-pictures are created by means of explaining the individual parts of a theme or view as they affect the entire thing. as a piece of word-picturing the following description of the breaking of day, by edward everett, is certainly magnificent: much as we are indebted to our observatories for elevating our conceptions of the heavenly bodies, they present, even to the unaided sight, scenes of glory which words are too feeble to describe. i had occasion, a few weeks since, to take the early train from providence to boston, and, for this purpose, rose at two o'clock in the morning. every thing around was wrapped in darkness, and hushed in silence, broken only by what seemed, at that hour, the unearthly clank and rush of the train. it was a mild, serene, mid-summer's night; the sky was without a cloud; the winds were hushed. the moon, then in the last quarter, had just risen; and the stars shown with a spectral lustre but little affected by her presence. jupiter, two hours high, was the herald of the day: the pleiades, just above the horizon, shed their sweet influence in the east: lyra sparkled near the zenith: andromeda veiled her newly discovered glories from the naked eye, in the south: the steady pointers, far beneath the pole, looked meekly up from the depths of the north to their sovereign. such was the glorious spectacle as i entered the train. as we proceeded, the timid approach of twilight became more perceptible. the intense blue of the sky began to soften; the smaller stars, like little children, went first to rest; the sister beams of the pleiades soon melted together; but the bright constellations of the west and north remained unchanged. steadily the wondrous transfiguration went on. hands of angels, hidden from mortal eyes, shifted the scenery of the heavens; the glories of night dissolved into the glories of the dawn. the blue sky now turned more softly gray; the great watch-stars shut up their holy eyes; the east began to kindle. faint streaks of purple soon blushed along the sky; the whole celestial concave was filled with the inflowing tides of the morning light, which came pouring down from above in one great ocean of radiance; till at length, as we reached the blue hills, a flash of purple fire blazed out from above the horizon, and turned the dewy tear-drops of flower and leaf into rubies and diamonds. in a few seconds the everlasting gates of the morning were thrown wide open, and the lord of day, arrayed in glories too severe for gaze of man, began his course. examples for practice exposition _the conspiracy to murder._ a conspiracy to kill and murder does not owe its criminality to the length of time it may occupy in its progress, from its first conception to its ultimate adoption--a conspiracy may be formed the very instant before the step is taken to put it into effect. if a number of people meet accidentally in the street, and conspire together to kill and murder at the moment, it is as essentially the crime of conspiracy as if it had been intended for a year before, and hatched from that year to the moment of its accomplishment. --john p. curran, _trial of john costly for conspiracy to murder, dublin,_ feb. , _circumstantial evidence of guilt._ i need not pause to remind you how much caution, how much candor, and how much intelligence are requisite in appreciating circumstantial evidence in any case. that kind of evidence may clearly prove guilt. that many times, however, it has also shed innocent blood, and many times it has stained a fair name, i need not pause for a moment to illustrate or remind you. instead of doing that, i think i shall be better occupied, under the direction of his honor, in reminding you of the two great rules by which circumstantial evidence is to be weighed, appreciated, and applied by the jury. those rules, gentlemen, are these: in the first place, that the jury shall be satisfied that they conduct, as a necessary result and conclusion, to the inference of guilt. it is a rule that may be called a golden rule in the examination and application of this kind of evidence which we call circumstantial, that should it so turn out that every fact and circumstance alleged and proved to exist is consistent, on the one hand with the hypothesis of guilt and on the other hand consistent, reasonably and fairly, with the hypothesis of innocence, then those circumstances prove nothing at all. unless they go so far as to establish as a necessary conclusion this guilt which they are offered with a view to establish, they are utterly worthless and ineffectual for the investigation of truth. i had the honor to read to the court this morning, and possibly in your hearing, an authority in which that familiar and elementary doctrine was laid down, a doctrine every day applied, everywhere recognized as primary in the appreciation of this kind of evidence. it is not enough that the circumstances relied upon are plainly and certainly proved. it is not enough to show that they are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. they must also render the hypothesis of innocence inadmissible and impossible, unreasonable and absurd, or they have proved nothing at all. --rufus choate, _in the dalton divorce case_ _stare decisis._ the people, in forming the organic law of the government of this state, very wisely foresaw that, in its action and progress, questions of interpretation of the settlement of legal principles, and of their application, would frequently arise; and thence the necessity of constituting some tribunal with general appellate and supervisory powers, whose decisions should be final and conclusively settle and declare the law. this was supposed to have been accomplished in the organization of this court. heretofore this court, under the constitution, has been looked to by the people as the tribunal of the last resort in the state; and it has hitherto been supposed that when this court has decided a case upon its merits such decision not only determined the right of the parties litigant in that particular case, but that it also settled the principles involved in it as permanent rules of law, universally applicable in all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. these decisions thus became at once public law, measures of private right, and landmarks of property. they determined the right of persons and of things. parties entered into contracts with each other with reference to them, as to the declared and established law; law equally binding upon the courts and the people. but the doctrine recently put forth would at once overturn this whole body of law founded upon the adjudications of this court, built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors, grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the interests, and habits, and the opinions of the people. under this new doctrine all would again be unsettled--nothing established. like the ever returning but never ending labors of the fabled sisyphus, this court, in disregard to the maxim of "stare decisis," would, in each recurring case, have to enter upon its examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or settled law. each case with decision being thus limited as law to itself alone would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to govern the future. --luther bradish. _opinion given as presiding judge of court of errors, in hanford v. archer,_ dec., , _at albany, n. y._ argumentation _the obligation of contract._ we contend that the obligation of a contract--that is, the duty of performing it--is not created by the law of the particular place where it is made, and dependent on that law for its existence; but that it may subsist, and does subsist, without the law, and independent of it. the obligation is in the contract itself, in the assent of the parties, and in the sanction of universal law. this is the doctrine of grotius, vattel, burlamaqui, pothier, and rutherford. the contract, doubtless, is necessarily to be enforced by the municipal law of the place where performance is demanded. the municipal law acts on the contract after it is made, to compel its execution, or give damages for its violation. but this is a very different thing from the same law being the original or fountain of the contract. let us illustrate this matter by an example. two persons contract together in new york for the delivery, by one to the other, of a domestic animal, a utensil of husbandry, or a weapon of war. this is a lawful contract, and, while the parties remain in new york it is to be enforced by the laws of that state. but, if they remove with the article to pennsylvania or maryland, there a new law comes to act upon the contract, and to apply other remedies if it be broken. thus far the remedies are furnished by the laws of society. but suppose the same parties to go together to a savage wilderness, or a desert island beyond the reach of the laws of any society. the obligation of the contract still subsists, and is as perfect as ever, and is now to be enforced by another law, that is the law of nature; and the party to whom the promise was made has a right to take by force the animal, the utensil, or the weapon that was promised him. the right is as perfect here as it was in pennsylvania, or even in new york. --daniel webster, _in ogden v. saunders_ _parent and child._ the next greatest tie is that of parent and child. if in god's providence a man has not only watched over the cradle of his child, but over the grave of his offspring, and has witnessed earth committed to earth, ashes to ashes, and dust to dust, he knows that the love of a parent for his child is stronger than death. the bitter lamentation, "would to god i had died for thee," has been wrung from many a parent's heart. but when the adulterer's shadow comes between the parent and child, it casts over both a gloom darker than the grave. what agony is equal to his who knows not whether the children gathered around his board are his own offspring or an adulterous brood, hatched in his bed. to the child it is still more disastrous. nature designs that children shall have the care of both parents; the mother's care is the chief blessing to her child--a mother's honor its priceless inheritance. but when the adulterer enters a family, the child is deprived of the care of one parent, perhaps of both. when death, in god's providence, strikes a mother from the family, the deepest grief that preys upon a husband's heart is the loss of her nurture and example to his orphan child; and the sweetest conversation between parent and child is when they talk of the beloved mother who is gone. but how can a daughter hear that mother's name without a blush? death is merciful to the pitiless cruelty of him whose lust has stained the fair brow of innocent childhood by corrupting the heart of the mother, whose example must stain the daughter's life. --edwin m. stanton, _in sickles' trial_ _distrust of witnesses._ are they witnesses to be trusted with report of evidence by words? are they witnesses to remember words where everything may depend upon the exact expression, upon the order of the language, upon dropping an epithet here and inserting an epithet there, by which the guilt of adultery is confessed? is this a body of witnesses that are to be trusted to report words, that are the issues of life, with certainty and accuracy? i submit that, on the outside of it, the whole case of confession to be listened to by this jury is a conclusive and rational distrust which would leave my client in no fear at all of the result. here is a man that cannot be trusted to carry ten bushels of yellow, flat corn across the city for fear that he would steal half of it; who cannot be trusted to take a hat full of uncounted bills to new york. a man who has not honesty enough, or fairness enough, to weight the hind quarter of an ox--shall he be trusted to weigh out gold dust and dimes, and count the pulses of life? a man not honest enough, a combination not honest enough, to carry a letter without mutilating it into a falsehood, to prove words in which honesty, intelligence, and fairness may be entirely omitted. we come, then, to this examination of confession exactly in this state of the case: it is probability, amounting almost to a miracle, that a confession should be made under any circumstances at all. confessions themselves are never to be acted upon by the jury unless they know, upon their oaths, that they have the very words spoken in the sense in which they came. they never can have that assurance if they have not a clear and undoubting confidence in the speaker that reports them. and their case opens, i say, with this: that a moral miracle is to be established on the testimony of confessions, by the evidence of witnesses, as a body, manifestly and apparently undeserving a moment's confidence. --rufus choate, _in dalton divorce case_ narration _the history of trial by jury._ i might begin with tacitus, and show how the contest arose in the forest of germany more than two thousand years ago; how the rough virtues and sound common sense of that people established the right of trial by jury, and thus started on a career which has made their posterity the foremost race that ever lived in all the tide of time. the saxons carried it to england, and were ever ready to defend it with their blood. it was crushed out by the danish invasion; and all that they suffered of tyranny and oppression during the period of their subjugation resulted from the want of trial by jury. if that had been conceded to them the reaction would not have taken place which drove back the danes to their frozen homes in the north. but those ruffian sea-kings could not understand that, and the reaction came. alfred, the greatest of revolutionary heroes and the wisest monarch that ever sat on a throne, made the first use of his power, after the saxons restored it, to reÃ�«stablish their ancient laws. he had promised them that he would, and he was true to them because they had been true to him. but it was not easily done; the courts were opposed to it, for it limited their power--a kind of power that everybody covets--the power to punish without regard to law. he was obliged to hang forty-four judges in one year for refusing to give his subjects a trial by jury. when the historian says he hung them, it is not meant that he put them to death without a trial. he had them impeached before the grand council of the nation, the witenagemot, the parliament of that time. during the subsequent period of saxon domination no man on english soil was powerful enough to refuse a legal trial to the meanest peasant. if any minister or any king, in war or in peace, had dared to punish a freeman by tribunal of his own appointment, he would have roused the wrath of the whole population; all orders of society would have resisted it; lord and vassal, knight and squire, priest and penitent, bocman and socman, master and thrall, copyholder and villein, would have risen in one mass and burnt the offender to death in his castle, or followed him in his flight and torn him to atoms. it was again trampled down by the norman conquerors; but the evils resulting from the want of it united all classes in the effort which compelled king john to restore it by the great charter. everybody is familiar with the struggles which the english people, during many generations, made for their rights with the plantagenets, the tudors, and the stuarts, and which ended finally in the revolution of , when the liberties of england were placed upon an impregnable basis by the bill of rights. many times the attempt was made to stretch the royal authority far enough to justify military trials; but it never had more than temporary success. --judge jeremiah s. black,_in the milligan case, u. s. supreme court, washington, d. c.,_ dec., _testimony._ i will go through the case fairly and discuss it fully. i will nothing extenuate, nor aught set down in malice. i will base my argument upon the testimony, not as i would have it, but as it is. i will speak not to the world, but to you, who can correct and hold me in judgment, if i fail to redeem the promises of fairness and candor which i make. heaven can witness for me that i desire no fame at the expense of these unfortunate men. i will use no bitter words, i will affect no bitter loathing; i will assail neither man, woman, nor child, except under the urgent pressure of duty and necessity. i wish i could be spared the painful task of doing so at all. --j. a. van dyke, _in conspiracy case, detroit, mich.,_ sept., description _conscience._ lady macbeth must needs walk by night in her sleep and rub her hands as if to wash them, and cry out: "out, damned spot, out i say!" but all neptune's ocean will not wash the stain away; all the perfumes of arabia will not sweeten the murderer's hand. conscience, the greatest gift of god, the child itself of god, working and acting obedient to the same law by which your system and mine, by their nature, will attempt to throw off disease, that which is imperfect and that which is poison, i say by that same law conscience seeks to throw off its load of guilt. --state's attorney frank m. nye, _in people v. hayward, minneapolis, minn.,_ dec., _consent under protest._ sir, the consent of maine to part with her soil and her sovereignty was given with a bleeding heart; it was like the consent of him who bares his own right arm to the surgeon's knife when advised that his life can only be preserved by its amputation; she consented as one consents to commit to kindred dust the children of his body; she consented as the red man consents to be driven from his happy hunting grounds, the graves of his fathers and the banks of the streams where he sported in childhood; she consented, as was said by another, as "the victim consents to execution because he walks and is not dragged to the scaffold which has been erected to receive him." --daniel s. dickinson, _speech in reply to webster on the northwestern boundary question, u. s. senate_, april , _duties of juries._ gentlemen of the jury, i have about concluded my duties in this case. yours will follow. i ask from you nothing in the world but the intelligent judgment of twelve intelligent men on the evidence before you. i have only one little picture more to offer. it is burns's picture of the scottish farmer in the seclusion of his family. his day's work done, he draws his little family about him. he has laid aside his cap and has taken the old family bible from its shelf. he calls jane and james and the old mother and reads to them from god's promises. then all bow their heads in prayer. "in scenes like these old scotia's grandeur lies." some of you here are wont to keep that sacred tryst. into that tryst you would never admit this paper. --general black, _in people v. dunlap, new york,_ feb. , chapter v paraphrasing paraphrasing is the reproduction of the sense of a passage, a composition or a speech, in other than the terms used by the original writer or speaker. it is the holding on to the original structure and thought, but a clothing of them in entirely new language. it is an amplification of an idea, a redressing of it; the use of new terms or different language for the presentation of an old thought; as, what would have been the consequences, sir, if we had been conquered? were we not fighting against that majesty? would the justice of our opposition have been considered? the most horrid forfeitures, confiscations, and attainders would have been pronounced against us. in paraphrasing this extract from a speech by patrick henry we should keep in mind his thought only and pay no attention to the language he used in expressing the thought. we should borrow his idea, but we should clothe it in language of our own; as, let me ask you, sir, what would have resulted from our having been conquered by great britain? it was the exercise of power by that nation that we combated. would she, had our struggle for liberty failed, have considered that we fought for what we believed to be right? no, sir, history would have but repeated itself. our patriots would have died on the gallows, their children would have been deprived of their inheritance, and no cruelty would have been too great for the conquering nation to have inflicted upon her rebellious colonies. _what good is to be derived from paraphrasing?_ it trains the mind through the exercising of the power of mental concentration that is necessary in order to hold on to the thought; it helps to form the habit of constructing a framework; it aids in making a speaker arrange his thoughts consecutively; it improves the speaker's style, and it enlarges his vocabulary. on a first attempt it will seem almost impossible for many to paraphrase. they are apt to think the original matter so well constructed, and the thought so perfectly expressed, as to render any other arrangement of it ridiculous and practically out of the question. they cannot bring to mind words common to themselves with which to clothe the ideas of another. in trying to remember the words of the original writer or speaker they lose the thought and are unable to proceed. to all such, the author says: continue in the work; cease to think of words at all, keep the framework in mind, lay hold of the thought, and words to convey the thought will leap forward to do the work. they may not, at first, be the best possible words, but words that will answer the purpose of carrying the thought to the mind of the listener will flow freely, and with study and practice the vocabulary will become larger and more effective. paraphrasing helps to develop the imaginative quality by cultivating the power of producing mental images, seeing with the mind's eye, as it were. if a speaker will hold on to his picture or his theme, he will have no trouble in drawing the one or developing the other. in presenting a picture, the speaker must keep the entire scene in his mind when describing it in detail; and when developing a theme, it must be in the speaker's mental vision in its entirety while he develops it step by step, point by point; as, god called man in dreams into the vestibule of heaven, saying, "come up higher, and i will show thee the glory of my house"; and to his angels who stood about his throne, he said, "take him, strip him of his robes of flesh; cleanse his affections; put a new breath into his nostrils; but touch not his human heart--the heart that fears, and hopes, and trembles." a moment, and it was done, and the man stood ready for his unknown voyage. under the guidance of a mighty angel, with sounds of flying pinions, they sped away from the battlements of heaven. some time, on the mighty angel's wings, they fled through saharas of darkness, wildernesses of death. at length, from a distance not counted, save in the arithmetic of heaven, light beamed upon them--a sleepy flame, as seen through a hazy cloud. they sped on, in their terrible speed, to meet the light; the light with lesser speed came to meet them. in a moment the blazing of suns around them--a moment, the wheeling of planets; then came long eternities of twilight; then again, on the right hand and the left, appeared more constellations. at last, the man sank down, crying, "angel, i can go no further; let me lie down in the grave, and hide myself from the infinitude of the universe, for end there is none." "end is there none?" demanded the angel. and, from the glittering stars that shown around, there came a choral shout, "end there is none!" "end is there none?" demanded the angel again, "and it is this that awes thy soul?" i answer, "end there is none to the universe of god! lo, also, there is no beginning!" this is a story taken from the german and used by o. m. mitchell in his address "the immensity of the creation," and it made a striking illustration. it will be an easy matter to paraphrase this vivid portraiture if the student will keep in mind the idea of the angel and the man flying through space as the scene shifts. there is a continuous change in the surroundings as the angel and man continue to fly through space, but the mind of the speaker should accompany them and see all the changes that occur without losing sight of the angel and the man, as they are the picture, the surroundings being merely the accessories or details, and while these are being described the angel and the man must still be in view. the angel and the man must be seen standing at the portals of heaven, they must be seen speeding from the battlements of that glorious place. the scene now shifts to a desert of darkness, but still the angel and the man are within the mental vision of the speaker. now a ray of light, breaking through a misty cloud, showers its brightness upon them. the scene has again changed, but the picture of the angel and the man remains. the light grows in brightness and immensity, other details enter into the picture--the suns, the planets, and the twilight--but still the angel and the man are there. again the scenery is shifted, the man sinks down in weariness, the chorus of angel voices is heard as the multitude of stars open their portals to let out the heavenly shout, "end there is none," but still the picture is there--the picture of the angel and the man. in developing a theme, the same principle prevails. it is for this reason that it is wise to have in a speech but one proposition to expound, one subject to discuss, one object to accomplish. by dragging in many points, instead of developing the one, the speaker is apt to ramble, the listener to become confused, and the speech to fail. by this it is meant that there must be one grand central idea or point around which all others must revolve. this principal idea, proposition, or point must be like the hub of a wheel--it may have any number of spokes, but they must all radiate from the hub. it is like the picture of the angel and the man flying through space--the scene changes, but the angel and the man are always present to the imaginative eye of the speaker--and it is for this reason he is able to describe so vividly his picture or develop his theme to make them apparent even to the mind of the unimaginative listener. let us consider the developing of a theme in place of the drawing of a picture. for this purpose we will take an extract from a speech of that clear reasoned and eminent theologian, william ellery channing: the grand idea of humanity, of the importance of man as man, is spreading silently, but surely. even the most abject portions of society are visited by some dreams of a better condition for which they were designed. the grand doctrine, that every human being should have the means of self-culture, of progress in knowledge and virtue, of health, comfort, and happiness, of exercising the powers and affections of a man--this is slowly taking its place as the highest social truth. that the world was made for all, and not for a few; that society is to care for all, that no human being shall perish but through his own fault; that the great end of government is to spread a shield over the rights of all--these propositions are growing into axioms, and the spirit of them is coming forth in all the departments of life. how beautifully dr. channing holds on to his theme through the entire passage. he starts by telling us what the grand idea of humanity is, and then he proceeds to expound it. the first laying down of the proposition is, that "the importance of man as man" (this is the grand idea of humanity) is becoming universal. he then amplifies the idea by stating that even the lowest specimens of humanity are awakening to a realization of it. he then develops what this idea consists of--the right of all men to education, proper housing, and sufficient food, in short, the right to live as human beings--and asserts that it has become the most important of the social truths. he then enumerates what at one time were considered debatable opinions but are now recognized as undeniable facts. notice how, while he brings in many statements, they all radiate from the one proposition that "the importance of man as man is spreading silently, but surely," and never once does he permit you to lose sight of the theme, because he continuously has it before his mental eye. no matter what he says, "the importance of man as man" is uppermost, just as was the picture of the angel and the man, and if the student in paraphrasing the passage will keep that one point in mind, he should have no serious difficulty in presenting it in a new garb clearly to the minds of others. a carrying out of this principle will enable an extempore speaker to form his matter with perfect ease, and this is one reason why paraphrasing is beneficial to the student of public speaking. it is a valuable stepping stone that should be used by all in attempting to attain proficiency in the art of expressing thought by means of the spoken word. any material that comes to hand may be used for the purpose of paraphrasing provided it be properly constructed and expressed in good language. these are two important points to remember in choosing selections for paraphrasing, as students are sure to be influenced by the construction and diction of the matter they employ for this purpose. the following extracts furnish splendid matter for paraphrasing. education horace mann from her earliest history, the policy of this country has been to develop the minds of all her people, and to imbue them with the principles of duty. to do this work most effectually, she has begun with the young. if she would continue to mount higher and higher toward the summit of prosperity, she must continue the means by which her present elevation has been gained. in doing this, she will not only exercise the noblest prerogative of government, but will coÃ�¶perate with the almighty in one of his sublimest works. the greek rhetorician, longinus, quotes from the mosaic account of the creation what he calls the sublimest passage ever uttered: "god said, 'let there be light,' and there was light!" from the centre of black immensity effulgence burst forth. above, beneath, on every side, its radiance streamed out, silent, yet making each spot in the vast concave brighter than the line which the lightning pencils upon the midnight cloud. darkness fled as the swift beams spread onward and outward, in an unending circumfusion of splendor. onward and outward still they move to this day, glorifying, through wider and wider regions of space, the infinite author from whose power and beneficence they sprang. but not only in the beginning, when god created the heavens and the earth, did he say, "let there be light!" whenever a human soul is born into the world, its creator stands over it, and again pronounces the same sublime words, "let there be light." magnificent, indeed, was the material creation, when, suddenly blazing forth in mid-space, the new-born sun dispelled the darkness of the ancient night. but infinitely more magnificent is it when the human soul rays forth its subtler and swifter beams; when the light of the senses irradiates all outward things, revealing the beauty of their colors and the exquisite symmetry of their proportions and forms; when the light of reason penetrates to their invisible properties and laws, and displays all those hidden relations that make up all the sciences; when the light of conscience illuminates the moral world, separating truth from error, and virtue from vice. the light of the newly kindled sun, indeed, was glorious. it struck upon all the planets, and waked into existence their myriad capacities of life and joy. as it rebounded from them, and showed their vast orbs all wheeling, circle beyond circle in their stupendous courses, the sons of god shouted for joy. the light sped onward, beyond sirius, beyond the pole-star, beyond orion and the pleiades, and is still spreading onward into the abysses of space. but the light of the human soul flies swifter than the light of the sun, and outshines its meridian blaze. it can embrace not only the sun of our system, but all suns and galaxies of suns; ay! the soul is capable of knowing and enjoying him who created the suns themselves; and when these starry lusters that now glorify the firmament shall wax dim, and fade away like a wasted taper, the light of the soul shall still remain, nor time, nor cloud, nor any power but its own perversity, shall ever quench its brightness. again i would say, that whenever a human soul is born into the world, god stands over it and pronounces the same sublime fiat, "let there be light!" and may the time soon come, when all human governments shall coÃ�¶perate with the divine government in carrying this benediction and baptism into fulfilment! digging for the thought john ruskin when you come to a good book, you must ask yourself, "am i inclined to work as an australian miner would? are my pickaxes and shovels in good order, and am i in good trim myself--and my sleeves well up to the elbows, and my breath good, and my temper?" and, keeping the figure a little longer, even at the cost of tiresomeness, for it is a thoroughly useful one, the metal you are in search of being the author's mind or meaning, his words are as the rock which you have to crush and smelt in order to get at it. and your pickaxes are your own care, wit, and learning; your smelting-furnace is your own thoughtful soul. do not hope to get at any good author's meaning without those tools and that fire. often you will need sharpest, finest chiselling, and patientest fusing before you can gather one grain of the metal. and, therefore, first of all, i tell you earnestly and authoritatively (i know i am right in this), you must get into the habit of looking intensely at words, and assuring yourself of their meaning, syllable by syllable--nay, letter by letter. for, though it is only by reason of the opposition of letters in the function of signs to sounds that the study of books is called "literature", that a man versed in it is called, by the consent of nations, a man of letters, instead of a man of books or of words, you may yet connect with that accidental nomenclature this real fact--that you might read all the books in the british museum (if you could live long enough) and remain an utterly illiterate, uneducated person; but that if you read ten pages of a good book, letter by letter, that is to say, with real accuracy, you are forevermore in some measure an educated person. the entire difference between education and non-education (as regards the merely intellectual part of it) consists in this accuracy. a well-educated gentleman may not know many languages, may not be able to speak any but his own, may have read very few books; but whatever language he knows, he knows precisely; whatever word he pronounces, he pronounces rightly. above all, he is learned in the peerage of words, knows the words of true descent and ancient blood, at a glance, from words of modern _canaille_; remembers all their ancestry, their inter-marriages, distant relationship, and the extent to which they were admitted, and offices they held among the national _noblesse_ of words at any time and in any country. but an uneducated person may know, by memory, many languages, and talk them all, and yet truly know not a word of any--not a word even of his own. an ordinarily clever and sensible seaman will be able to make his way ashore at most ports; yet he has only to speak a sentence of any language to be known for an illiterate person. so also the accent, or turn of expression of a single sentence, will at once mark a scholar. and this is so strongly felt, so conclusively admitted, by educated persons, that a false accent or a mistaken syllable is enough, in the parliament of any civilized nation, to assign to a man a certain degree of inferior standing forever. historical reading arthur james balfour it is no doubt true that we are surrounded by advisers who shall tell us that all study of the past is barren except in so far as it enables us to determine the laws by which the evolution of human societies is governed. how far such an investigation has been up to the present time fruitful in results i will not inquire. that it will ever enable us to trace with accuracy the course which states and nations are destined to pursue in the future, or to account in detail for their history in the past, i do not indeed believe. we are borne along like travelers on some unexplored stream. we may know enough of the general configuration of the globe to be sure that we are making our way towards the ocean. we may know enough by experience or theory of the laws regulating the flow of liquids, to conjecture how the river will behave under the varying influences to which it may be subject. more than this we cannot know. it will depend largely upon causes which, in relation to any laws which we are ever likely to discover, may properly be called accidental, whether we are destined sluggishly to drift among fever-stricken swamps, to hurry down perilous rapids, or to glide gently through fair scenes of peaceful cultivation. but leaving on one side ambitious sociological speculations, and even those more modest but hitherto more successful investigations into the causes which have in particular cases been principally operative in producing great political changes, there are still two modes in which we can derive what i may call "spectacular" enjoyment from the study of history. there is first the pleasure which arises from the contemplation of some great historic drama, or some broad and well-marked phase of social development. the story of the rise, greatness, and decay of a nation is like some vast epic which contains as subsidiary episodes the varied stories of the rise, greatness, and decay of creeds, of parties and of statesmen. the imagination is moved by the slow unrolling of this great picture of human mutability, as it is moved by the contrasted permanence of the abiding stars. the ceaseless conflicts, the strange echoes of long forgotten controversies, the confusion of purpose, the successes which lay deep the seeds of future evils, the failures that ultimately divert the otherwise inevitable danger, the heroism which struggles to the last for a cause foredoomed to defeat, the wickedness which sides with right, and the wisdom which huzzahs at the triumph of folly--fate, meanwhile, through all this turmoil and perplexity, working silently toward the predestined end--all these form together a subject the contemplation of which need surely never weary. but there is yet another and very different species of enjoyment to be derived from the records of the past, which requires a somewhat different method of study in order that it may be fully tasted. instead of contemplating, as it were, from a distance, the larger aspects of the human drama, we may elect to move in familiar fellowship amid the scenes and actors of special periods. we may add to the interest we derive from the contemplation of contemporary politics a similar interest derived from a not less minute and probably more accurate knowledge of some comparatively brief passage in the political history of the past. we may extend the social circle in which we move--a circle perhaps narrowed and restricted through circumstances beyond our control--by making intimate acquaintances, perhaps even close friends, among a society long departed, but which, when we have once learnt the trick of it, it rests with us to revive. it is this kind of historical reading which is usually branded as frivolous and useless, and persons who indulge in it often delude themselves into thinking that the real motive of their investigation into bygone scenes and ancient scandals is philosophic interest in an important historical episode, whereas in truth it is not the philosophy which glorifies the details, but the details which make tolerable the philosophy. consider, for example, the use of the french revolution. the period from the taking of the bastille to the fall of robespierre is of about the same length as very commonly intervenes between two of our general elections. on these comparatively few months libraries have been written. the incidents of every week are matters of familiar knowledge. the character and the biography of every actor in the drama has been made the subject of minute study; and by common admission there is no more fascinating page in the history of the world. but the interest is not what is commonly called philosophic, it is personal. because the revolution is the dominant fact in modern history, therefore people suppose that the doings of this or that provincial lawyer, tossed into temporary eminence and eternal infamy by some freak of the revolutionary wave, or the atrocities committed by this or that mob, half-drunk with blood, rhetoric, and alcohol, are of transcendent importance. in truth, their interest is great, but their importance is small. what we are concerned to know as students of the philosophy of history is, not the character of each turn and eddy in the great social cataract, but the manner in which the currents of the upper stream drew surely in toward the final plunge, and slowly collected themselves after the catastrophe, again to pursue, at a different level, their renewed and comparatively tranquil course. now, if so much of the interest of the french revolution depends on our minute knowledge of each passing incident, how much more necessary is such knowledge when we are dealing with the quiet nooks and corners of history--when we are seeking an introduction, let us say, into the literary society of johnson or the fashionable society of walpole! society, dead or alive, can have no charm without intimacy, and no intimacy without interest in trifles. if we would feel at our ease in any company, if we wish to find humour in its jokes and point in its repartees, we must know something of the beliefs and prejudices of its various members--their loves and their hates, their hopes and their fears, their maladies, their marriages, and their flirtations. if these things are beneath our notice, we shall not be the less qualified to serve our queen and country, but need make no attempt to extract pleasure out of one of the most delightful departments of literature. eulogy of general grant dean farrar every true man derives his patent of nobleness direct from god. did not god choose david from the sheepfolds to make him ruler of his people israel? was not the "lord of life and all the worlds" for thirty years a carpenter at nazareth? do not such careers illustrate the prophecy of solomon, "seest thou the man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings." when abraham lincoln sat, book in hand, day after day, under the tree, moving around it as the shadow moved, absorbed in mastering his task; when james garfield rang the bell of hiram institute, day after day, on the very stroke of the hour, and swept the school room as faithfully as he mastered the greek lesson; when ulysses grant, sent with his team to meet some men who were to load the cart with logs, and finding no men there, loaded the cart with his own boy strength--they showed in conscientious duty and thoroughness the qualities which were to raise them to rule the destinies of men. but the youth was not destined to die in that deep valley of obscurity and toil in which it is the lot--perhaps the happy lot--of many of us to spend our little lives. the hour came: the man was needed. in there broke out the most terrible war of modern days. grant received a commission as colonel of volunteers, and in four years the struggling toiler had risen to the chief command of a vaster army than has ever been handled by any mortal man. who could have imagined that four years could make that stupendous difference? but it is often so. the great men needed for some tremendous crisis have often stepped as it were through the door in the wall which no one had noticed, and, unannounced, unheralded, without prestige, have made their way silently and single-handed to the front. and there was no luck in it. he rose, it has been said, by the upward gravitation of natural fitness. it was the work of inflexible faithfulness, of indomitable resolution, of sleepless energy, of iron purpose, of persistent tenacity. in battle after battle, in siege after siege, whatever grant had to do he did it with his might. he undertook, as general sherman said, what no one else would have adventured, till his very soldiers began to reflect some of his own indomitable determination. with a patience which nothing could tire, with a firmness which no obstacle could daunt, with a military genius which embraced the vastest plans, yet attended to the smallest minutiÃ�¦, he defeated one after another every great general of the confederates except general stonewall jackson. grant had not only to defeat armies, but to "annihilate resources"--to leave no choice but destruction or submission. he saw that the brief ravage of the hurricane is infinitely less ruinous than the interminable malignity of the pestilence, and that in that colossal struggle victory--swift, decisive, overwhelming, at all costs--was the truest mercy. in silence, in determination, in clearness of insight, he was your washington and our wellington. he was like them also in this, that the word "can't" did not exist in his soldier's dictionary, and that all he achieved was accomplished without bluster and without parade. after the surrender at appomattox the war of the secession was over. it was a mighty work, and grant had done it mightily. surely the light of god, which manifests all things in the slow history of their ripening, has shown that for the future destinies of a mighty nation it was a necessary and a blessed work. the church hurls her most indignant anathema at unrighteous war, but she never refused to honor the faithful soldier who fights in the cause of his country and his god. the gentlest and most christian of poets has used the tremendous words that-- god's most dreaded instrument, in working out a pure intent, is man--arrayed for mutual slaughter; yea, carnage is his daughter. we shudder even as we quote the words; but yet the cause for which grant fought--the unity of a great people, the freedom of a whole race of mankind--was as great and noble as that when at lexington the embattled farmers fired the shot which was heard round the world. the south has accepted that desperate and bloody arbitrament. two of the southern generals will bear general grant's funeral pall. the rancor and the fury of the past are buried in oblivion. true friends have been made out of brave foemen, and the pure glory and virtue of lee and of stonewall jackson will be part of the common national heritage with the fame of garfield and of grant. chapter vi a series of practical hows how to breathe and the lord god formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[ ] --the bible these words were spoken several thousand years ago by one of the wisest of men, who was inspired by the master of life to utter words of wisdom for the guidance of the children of men. from the moment those divine words were spoken it seems as though man has been aiming to get along with as little of the breath of god as possible. the divine breath is given as freely now as it was at the time of the creation, and it is ever present to those who are willing to receive it, as, like god's love, it is not withheld from us, but we withhold ourselves from it. no soul is ever lost save through its own determination to go to destruction, and no body suffers for the want of the life-giving breath except through sin, ignorance, or wilfulness. the great english preacher, charles h. spurgeon, in a lecture to his students, thus expressed himself: "the next best thing to the grace of god for a preacher is oxygen." as the world cannot live without the grace of god, the body cannot exist without oxygen; and this oxygen is the life-giving property of the air which is drawn into the lungs and distributed through the body by means of the blood. correct breathing insures physical health in that it causes the blood to circulate properly through all the veins as well as through the arteries, thus carrying off the particles that otherwise would remain in the system, decomposing and poisoning the body with their dead matter. proper breathing brightens the eye, makes ruddy the cheek, raises the spirits, clarifies the mind, ennobles the soul, and forms the voice. sir george mivart, the noted english naturalist, voiced a self-evident fact when he said: "of all the functions of the body that of respiration is the most conspicuously necessary for the maintenance of life," but while it is understood by all thinking animals that they must breathe in order that they may live, it is not so clearly evident to man that he must breathe correctly in order that pure vocal tones may be produced and expressive speech formed. _the question of breath._ this is of the greatest importance to the speaker, as by the action of the breathing muscles the voice is controlled in all things except modulation. speech is breath and voice before it becomes speech, and the form it takes as it starts on its journey at the moment of its creation it must retain until it ceases to exist. breath possesses three forms, effusive, expulsive, and explosive, and whichever of these forms it assumes at the start, it must retain during its transition into voice and speech. after the pressure of the breathing muscles against the lungs has forced the breath into the larynx and produced voice through the vibration of the vocal cords until that voice has been formed into articulated sounds by the action of the hard and soft palate, the tongue, the teeth, and the lips, it must remain, so far as its form is concerned, exactly as it started. effusive breath can produce only effusive voice, effusive voice can be converted into only effusive speech, and in no manner can this form be altered after the breath has been expelled from the lungs. the voice is affected and modified by the resonance chambers, the organs of articulation, and the mentality of the speaker, but it must be one of the three forms, effusive, expulsive, or explosive, and it must retain this form from its birth to its death. _respiration._ respiration is the process of taking air into the lungs and sending it out. this process of breathing is twofold, inhalation and exhalation. inhalation is the taking in of the air, and exhalation is the sending out of the breath. normal persons breathe about twenty times a minute; that is, they inhale twenty times and exhale twenty times during that period. when the air is received into the lungs, the oxygen is extracted from it, eaten up, as it were, and distributed through the system; and, on the exhalation, the carbonic gas and organic matter is carried out. if a person is confined within a limited space, and little air permitted to enter, he will soon consume most of the oxygen contained therein, poison the atmosphere with the carbonic gas which he throws off, and die for the want of the life-giving property--oxygen. it is estimated that almost half the deaths are caused through improper breathing and the inhalation of vitiated air. five hundred cubic feet of air every twenty-four hours is not too much for every human being. the lungs are the organs of respiration. they are two in number, the right and the left. the right lung possesses three distinct chambers, and the left lung is made up of two. the average adult has a lung capacity, in round numbers, of three hundred and fifty cubic inches, and uses about thirty cubic inches for an ordinary inhalation and exhalation, although it would be well if he used forty, or even fifty, cubic inches of his capacity. there are one hundred cubic inches of air always in the lungs of an adult which cannot be forced out by physical exertion and the human animal live. as soon as this reserve force of air is about to be drawn upon, nature cries out against its use, causes the being to pant, and forces him to seek other supplies. the two lungs are joined to the trachea, or air tube, by means of the bronchial tubes, and at the upper end of the trachea is the larynx, or voice box. in the larynx are the two true vocal cords, the vibration of which produces voice; and this voice, passing into the mouth, is moulded into speech by the organs of articulation. _control of the breath._ there are muscles that act on the lungs and regulate the entrance of air and the exit of breath. the muscles are: pectoral, dorsal, costal, intercostal, abdominal, and the diaphragm. the pectoral muscles hold up the chest and thus allow the air to enter the upper lobes of the lungs. the dorsal muscles press inward from the back and assist the abdominal muscles to regulate the action of the diaphragm. the costal and intercostal muscles cause the ribs to expand and contract, thus enlarging and decreasing the capacity of the cavity that contains the lungs. the abdominal muscles act directly on the diaphragm, causing it to fall and rise. the diaphragm supports the lungs and is the only muscle that comes in contact with them. this is all the information regarding the anatomy of the breathing muscles that is necessary to an understanding of the instructions here given for gaining a knowledge of their proper use and management in connection with the production of speech. _how is one to breathe properly?_ by inflating the lungs fully from their base to their apex. _how can this be accomplished?_ by bringing into use all the muscles that act on the lungs, particularly the abdominal muscles and the diaphragm. when inhaling there should be an expansion of the base of the lungs; and when exhaling there should be a contraction. the upper lobes of the lungs should be expanded all the time, the chest should be held upward and outward, whether the person is inhaling or exhaling; the air is first drawn into the lower lobes, then gradually rises and forces the air out of the upper lobes, and immediately takes its place, the upper lobes being filled with air all the time, whereas the lower lobes are only filled immediately following the full inhalation, as they commence to decrease in size as soon as the air starts to rise into the upper lobes. breathing should be accomplished without an apparent effort, and air should be taken whenever the speaker feels it required; he should not continue speaking until the breath is almost exhausted, but he should replenish while he feels confident of his ability to utter several more words without taking another breath. breathing should not be audible, but the air should be allowed to quietly and naturally enter the lungs. this can be accomplished by expanding the abdominal muscles, thus drawing down the diaphragm, releasing the pressure from the lungs and permitting the air to enter them. it requires no effort to inhale. all that is necessary is to create a vacuum in the lungs, by taking the pressure of the diaphragm from them, and the air will flow in freely. avoid "smelling" the air into the lungs--take bites out of the atmosphere, as it were, and permit the air to enter the mouth as well as the nose. habitual mouth breathing is wrong, and one should always breathe through the nose when not producing voice, but when speech is required it is necessary to allow the air to enter through both passages. unless this is done, the breathing will be forced and the speaker will always be short of breath. it is advisable to exercise physically while practicing breathing, therefore walking, running, and climbing are great aids in building up the organs of respiration, and when the exercising must be done indoors, it is advisable to go through physical movements in conjunction with the breathing. movements of the arms that represent swimming, bending the bow, sawing wood, chopping down trees, etc., are highly beneficial as aids in developing deep and full breathing, and if one is so situated that one can row, swim, cut down trees, etc., in reality, the exercise brought about by such means will be of incalculable benefit in building up the breathing mechanism. most persons cease to breathe correctly because of a non-use of some of the muscles and organs of respiration, and the exercises that are here recommended will compel the employment of all the neglected adjuncts to correct breathing, and thus bring about effective respiration. how to produce and use the voice a man was not made to shut up his mind in itself, but to give it voice and to exchange it for other minds.[ ] in order that man may enter into commerce with other men for the exchange of mental commodities he must have a medium of communication, and the greatest and noblest of all means is the human voice. we are thus admonished by one who was entitled to speak, for he knew how to convey his thought by word of mouth as well as by pen: remember that talking is one of the fine arts--the noblest, the most important, and the most difficult--and that its fluent harmonies may be spoiled by the intrusion of a single harsh note.[ ] let all who would excel as public speakers heed this wise warning and seek to obtain voices capable of producing "fluent harmonies." _what is voice?_ voice is vocalized breath. it is formed in the larynx, or voice box, and is produced by the breath acting on the vocal cords and causing them to vibrate. immediately as voice is produced it should pass from the larynx into the mouth and be converted into speech; one of the worst vocal faults, throatiness, arises from a failure to do this. voice can be modulated; that is, its pitch can be raised and lowered, and the whole gamut of vocal tones can be played upon by means of the change in pitch. the pitch of the voice is regulated by the tension of the vocal cords and the distinctive resonance chamber into which the vibration is placed. there are three such chambers; the chest, the throat, and the head. voice and resonance should not be confounded. resonance is a part of voice, it is the spirit or essence, as it were, and enters into the different chambers and thus affects the tone of the voice; but the voice itself, the body of the sound, must be placed on the lips. there are three divisions to the speaking voice, the lower, the middle, and the upper, and by moving the tone from one division to another the voice is modulated. as before stated, the tension of the vocal cords and the chamber into which the resonance enters regulate the pitch of the voice. tones on the lower register require a lesser tension of the vocal cords than do tones on the upper register, and the low tones require that the resonance be placed in the cavity of the chest, while the high tones necessitate the resonance being placed in the head. the speaker, however, must not allow his thought to dwell on the placing of the resonance; he must think only of getting the speech into the air, because the resonance, or the spirit of the voice, will enter the proper chamber if the passage is free and the speaker thinks of where he wishes the voice to go, and pays no attention as to whence it comes. the voice instantly obeys the thought, if the mechanism works properly, consequently it is well for the speaker to think of the end he has in view and not cumber the vocal machine by worrying about the means to be employed in accomplishing that end. while cultivating and disciplining the voice it is necessary to think of the means, and to make a conscious effort to use those means, but when in the act of producing speech no conscious thought should be directed toward that act. all effort used while in the process of producing speech must be subconscious, and entirely free from physical effort. _how to obtain a good voice._ mainly by ceasing to abuse it, for most of the vocal defects are acquired by bad habits. improper breathing is responsible for work begin placed upon the larynx which nature never intended it to perform, and this overworking, or straining, of the larynx produces throaty tones and causes an irritation of that organ which finally develops into laryngitis. a failure to form the sounds on the lips is the cause of mouthing, and a lack of moulding the voice into correct sound deprives the sound of its carrying power, because of its exit being impeded. for instance, round sounds like _o_ require a round mould to pass through, and if, instead of such a mould, a flat one is formed, the sound is barely able to squeeze through after having lost half of its vitality in the effort. speak the word _soul_ with the lips rounded while uttering the vowel _o_ and then attempt to speak the same word with the lips flattened when producing that sound, and the necessity of moulding will be instantly apparent. shakespeare says: "speak the speech, i pray you, as i pronounced it to you trippingly on the tongue," and if speakers would follow this splendid advice which hamlet gives to the players, throaty tones would be abolished. but how are speakers to do this? by thoroughly developing the breathing muscles by proper exercise, so as to enable them to perform their functions correctly, thereby taking away the strain from the larynx and permitting the opening of the throat, bringing the voice forward and moulding it on the lips. these are the only means that will enable anyone to speak "trippingly on the tongue," and the importance of so doing is forcefully expressed by cardinal newman, that master of english composition, in the following: our intercourse with our fellow men goes on, not by sight but by sound, not by eyes but by ears. hearing is the social sense and language is the social bond. how to produce speech effects the first duty of man is to speak, that is his chief business in this world, and talk, which is the harmonious speech of two or more, is by far the most accessible of pleasures. it costs nothing; it is all profit; it completes our education; it founds and fosters our friendships; and it is by talk alone that we learn our period and ourselves.[ ] speech is the one great outward evidence that separates the human from the brute, and the more this faculty is cultivated the higher man rises in the scale of civilization. speech permits man to clothe the immortal thought in palpable shape and present it to other minds exactly as it is perceived by the original thinker. it makes manifest that which otherwise would remain in the realm of the unseen, and permits of that communion of mind with mind which strengthens and uplifts mankind. it is the humanizing medium, the glorifying agent, and the magnifying reflector of the soul. _how is speech produced?_ speech is produced by the organs of articulation acting on the voice, cutting it up, joining, blending, and moulding the separate sounds, until symbols are produced that represent thoughts. the greek rhetorician and orator, gorgias, speaking more than two thousand four hundred years ago, said: the power of speech is mighty. insignificant in themselves, words accomplish the most remarkable ends. they have power to remove fear and assuage pain. moreover then can produce joy and increase pity. words really possess the magic power ascribed to them by this master of words, this great writer and speaker of greece at the time when she flourished in the magnificent days of pericles, the days when athens was adorned by buildings, pictures, and statuary, and her citizens listened to oratory that has never been surpassed. printed words are mighty when read by the intelligent reader, but spoken words are mightier when voiced by the imaginative speaker. then they become living things, impregnated by the voice of the speaker, and they go forth to the mind of the listener carrying their interpreted message with them. this power of expression is what gorgias meant in his reference to words, and it is this life of words that we are to consider, this explaining by tone, pitch, force, time, and color of the voice the meaning of the spoken words. it is the tone of voice in which a thought is uttered that gives the thought its power for good or evil, for pleasure or for pain, for success or failure. words spoken in one manner will be devoid of meaning; spoken in another, they will be illumined with the light of reason. words that are spoken as words will remain nothing but words, but those that are spoken as thoughts will disappear as words, and the ideas will step forward and be seen in the expressive countenance and heard in the tones of the voice. there is a soul to the voice just as there is a soul to the body, and unless this soul rays forth its light in the form of vocal color, it will be as devoid of spirituality, as bereft of all magnetic influence, as is the lifeless clay after the soul has winged its flight from the earthly habitation. it is for this reason that words struck off at white heat often sound much better than they read; they have leaped into existence willingly to perform their errand and, being full of the mentality of the being who created them, they go on their mission in a manner to carry conviction and bring about persuasion. _to speak effectively._ in the first place, by having good working tools for the making of speech. this means that one must use the muscles and organs of breath, sound, and speech in such manner as to produce the voice with ease and utter the words distinctly and with the desired force. secondly, one should so master inflection, emphasis, pitch, and color as to be able to present the thought precisely as he conceives it. the whole vocal mechanism, in both its physical and mental parts, must be under perfect control, and this control can only be gained by patient practice. attention to technique is necessary if one desires to become an artist in any department of life, and unless the seeker after oratorical honors pays particular attention to controlling those different parts of the mental and physical being that are employed in the labor of producing speech, he will never become a master of that art. nature may have endowed him with exceptional powers, but unless those powers are developed and practiced, they will be taken away. students of oratory are strongly advised to master deep breathing, articulation, modulation, emphasis, and delivery, for unless they do so they will never possess the power of conveying thought by means of the spoken word, no matter how many or what manner of beautiful thoughts they may have. a means of conveying the message is as necessary to the speaker as is the possession of the message. no matter what glorious messages speakers may have within their minds, they will do no one but themselves any good unless they can convey those messages to others, and a speaker without a well-trained and expressive voice is as badly off as is a farmer with an abundant crop and no means of getting his produce to market. a special set of exercises for the strengthening, coloring, and general building up of the speaking voice is here appended, and students are urged to practice the exercises faithfully. vocal exercises _breath._ remember that breath is the foundation of voice, and that correct breathing is necessary to the production of correct speech. breathe by means of the abdominal muscles and diaphragm, thus using the lungs from bottom to top and retaining control over the voice; at the same time, freeing the larynx from all pressure and permitting the vocal tone to come smoothly into the mouth, where it is articulated into speech. all animals, brute and human, male and female, possess organs of respiration that are similar in their nature and that work in precisely the same manner. it is a mistake to think that women breathe naturally in a different manner from men. many do so habitually, but it is only on account of their mode of dress or failure to take proper exercise, for all animals sustain life by means of similar action of like organs of respiration. _first exercise:_ close the mouth, draw a full breath into the lungs through the nose, being careful not to "smell" the air in but to take it in noiselessly; then, open the mouth and allow the breath to come into the air, as to blowing upon a pane of glass to form a coating of moisture. the chest must neither rise nor fall when inhaling or exhaling, it should be held up and out all the time, the expansion and contraction taking place at the base of the lungs. in order to obtain this full expansion and complete contraction of the lower lobes of the lungs during respiration, it is necessary to draw the abdominal muscles outward on the inhalation and inward on the exhalation. the outward action of the abdominal muscles will cause the diaphragm to flatten, thus removing the pressure of that muscle from the base of the lungs and permitting the air to enter all the lobes. the inward action of the abdominal muscles will cause the diaphragm to arch, thus pressing on the base of the lungs and forcing out the breath. the main expansion and contraction should take place below and around the diaphragm, that portion of the body from the navel up to the floating ribs and extending all around the body, bringing into play the lower costal and dorsal muscles as well as the abdominal muscles and the diaphragm. _second exercise:_ inhale as in the first exercise, then exhale through the mouth in the form of a sigh, using a quicker and stronger action of the abdominal muscles in forcing out the breath than was used in the first exercise. _third exercise:_ inhale as in the previous exercise, then exhale through the mouth in the form of an aspirated cough, being careful, however, not to allow the whispered sound to strike upon the rim of the larynx or to remain back in the pharynx, but bring it forward so as to have it explode in the air and not in the throat or mouth. deep breathing should be practiced until it becomes automatic, because the speaker who makes a conscious effort to control the breathing mechanism will be stilted and artificial in his utterance. breathing must be absolutely subconscious, and these exercises should be practiced until it becomes so. while practicing, a conscious effort must be made to use the breathing muscles properly; but as soon as this has been accomplished, the thought must be taken from the means and the disciplined muscles will then work automatically. voice voice is produced in the larynx, the voice box, but it must be immediately brought into the mouth, converted into speech, and sent on its way to perform its mission. the breath acting on the vocal cords causes them to vibrate, and this vibration is called voice. in producing voice no more breath should be used than is necessary to produce the desired sound. if too much breath is used, and it escapes through the larynx without being converted into voice, it will drown the voice and breathy tones will be formed. breath must always be kept back of the voice, it must never be permitted to escape at the sides or around the tone; if it does so escape, the tone cannot be pure, breath will be wasted, the larynx will soon tire, and the speech will be muffled and lack power. _first exercise:_ form the sound of _m._ this is done by closing the mouth and sending the voice sound into the cavity of the head and then through the nose into the air. bear in mind that you are to produce the sound of _m_ and not speak the letter _m._ prolong the sound on the one pitch for ten seconds, take a full breath, and repeat the sound, practicing in this manner for five minutes at a time. _second exercise:_ use the voice sound of _m_ as in the previous exercise, but instead of sustaining the one tone, vary it by producing medium, high, and low tones. hum a tune, keeping the mouth closed, using the one sound of _m,_ and sending the voice through the head passages into the air. this exercise will prove wonderfully beneficial if it is patiently practiced. any tune may be used for this purpose, but be sure that the voice is brought well forward and comes into the air through the nasal passages. _third exercise:_ hum the sound of _m,_ then open the mouth and produce the vowel sound of _a,_ gliding from the humming sound into the full open sound of _a_; as, _ma._ exercise on the other four vowels, _e, i, o, u,_ in like manner: as, _me, mi, mo, mu._ _fourth exercise:_ on the same pitch that you would use in asking an ordinary question, such as "are you going out today?" repeat the vowels _a, e, i, o, u,_ using a full breath for each sound and sustaining it on the same pitch, and as long as you can conveniently. then lower the voice to the deepest tone you can produce with ease and repeat the exercise. then raise the voice as high as you can without straining and repeat the exercise. practice in such a way as to bring into play all the tones of the voice and gradually to increase its compass. avoid force in increasing the vocal range. produce tones only that come with ease. _fifth exercise:_ use the ordinary speaking pitch of the voice and repeat the vowels _a, e, i, o, u_ with the explosive force; pushing the sounds out as though they did not wish to leave and you were compelled to keep up the pressure in order to prevent them coming back. be particular to press with the diaphragm only. practice on low and high tones also. _sixth exercise:_ repeat the exercise on the same register but use the explosive force, shooting the sounds into the air like the report of a pistol. practice on low and high tones also. it is a good plan to practice with speech the same as with voice. that is, produce speech in the three forms, effusive, expulsive, and explosive, and on the three registers, medium, lower, and upper. any matter can be used for this purpose, special material not being necessary. in order to bring speech forward and carry it into the air, set before you an imaginary target and direct the voice toward it, raising and lowering the target as you desire to raise and lower the tone. remember to think the voice out, as you can get it out no other way. how to strengthen the memory if any one ask me what is the only and great art of memory, i shall say it is exercise and labor. to learn much by heart, to meditate much, and, if possible, daily, are the most efficacious of all methods. nothing is so much strengthened by practice or weakened by neglect as memory. --quintilian these words, uttered by the scholarly rhetorician of rome during the first century of the christian era, are as true today as when they were first spoken. application, concentration, association, opposition, and use are the principal means for the effectual training and strengthening of the memory. many systems have been devised for memory training, but none of them is of more than superficial use, the majority making it more difficult to remember the means whereby the thought is to be recalled than to remember the thought itself. they are cumbersome, burdensome, and unworkable. loisette, in his much exploited system, _assimilative memory,_ advises paying particular attention to the location of figures in order to remember them, and he cites the following example: "pike's peak, the most famous in the chain known as the rocky mountains in america, is fourteen thousand one hundred and forty-seven feet high. . . . there are two fourteens in these figures, and the last figure is half of fourteen." this is all very well in this particular instance of pike's peak, but what are we to do with mountains that are ten thousand and eighty-five feet, seven thousand and forty-nine feet, or five thousand six hundred and fifty-one feet in height? the specific case works out nicely, but the general case cannot be worked out at all. it is the object of this work to show how to do things and not to controvert the advice given by other authors, its mission being constructive and not destructive, therefore nothing further will be said regarding the loisette or any other system of memory training; but specific advice will be given regarding the best way of laying hold of and retaining what enters the mind. _application_ is one means of strengthening the memory. whatever you desire to retain, be sure you apply your mind to it until you have it firmly impressed thereon. do not merely see or hear a fact and then permit it to pass into forgetfulness; but, if you wish to retain it, apply your thought to it, think deeply and strongly on it, on all the circumstances pertaining to it, and then pass it into the chamber of memory, there to repose until you desire to awaken it. _study it carefully before putting it away._ _concentration_ is another valuable adjunct in memory training. focus all your mental power upon the thing, person, or theme you wish to remember. bear all your mental heat upon the one spot, and you will be able to burn through whatever keeps your object from you, and after having once been perceived in this manner by the mental eye that object will never be forgotten. a lawyer may be examining a witness and ask that witness if he remembers seeing john smith on a certain occasion. the witness may say he has no recollection of having done so. the lawyer may say, "do you not remember that on the twenty-first day of june you attended a meeting of the directors of the second national bank which was called to elect a new president?" and this part of the happenings of that day may then bring all the other occurrences to the mind of the witness, and he may then say, "oh yes! john smith gave me his check for $ on that date. i now remember that fact quite well." this would be re-collecting. _association_ of words, events, or ideas, helps wonderfully in strengthening the memory, in that it enables one to group together quickly scattered parts and thus recall things in their entirety. this is what the lawyer did for the witness when he mentioned the meeting of the board of directors of the bank, and by means of the association of events enabled the witness to recall that the meeting of the directors took place on the day that smith paid him the five hundred, in this manner re-collecting the scattered parts of the events of the twenty-first day of june and bringing smith clearly into the picture. in trying to remember any occurrence, endeavor to bring to mind some incident in connection with it, and if successful in so doing, the whole train of events pertaining to that occurrence will soon move regularly along in the channels of the mind. _opposition._ a knowledge and use of the rule of opposition will greatly assist the memory. suppose an advocate should say, "the thoughtless members of the community may censure me for entering upon the prosecution of this case," and should desire to make the thought more comprehensive, he could do so by placing a phrase against the one quoted and say, "but the sober-minded men and women will surely commend me for performing my duty as i understand it." double and triple oppositions may be used as aids to the memory; as: the biblical account of the flood states that god was angry with his children of earth because of their many sins, and he determined to destroy all animal life except that of the chosen few who were to accompany noah into the ark. after the rains had ceased and the waters had subsided, noah feared to return to the land, but god dispelled that fear by placing a bow in the heavens as a covenant between him and man that never again would he permit a deluge of water to visit the earth. after four years of civil war, after the land of america had been deluged with blood, we set our nation's flag against the cloud as a covenant between north and south that never again, in this dear country of ours, shall brother's hand be raised in enmity against his brother. the whole idea of this passage can be kept clearly in mind by setting "deluge" against "civil war," "bow" against "flag." keep the idea, or the picture, before you, and there will be no difficulty in remembering what you desire to say, nor will there be any trouble experienced in finding words to express the idea. when reading, do not bother about words, but dig down deep for the thought, lay hold of it, impress it on the memory, and the substance of what you read (the really valuable part of it) will remain with you forever. in this letter to mrs. bixby, dated nov. , , president lincoln says: i have been shown in the files of the war department a statement of the adjutant general of massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. the points to remember are that five brothers died gloriously on the field of battle, and that a mother gave those treasures to her country. the pictures to place upon memory's wall are the raging battle, and the lonely mother at home. those two pictures tell the whole story, and by gazing on them the complete narrative can be given. _use._ use is another of the great aids in memory training. employ the mind. keep it busy. make it alert through exercise. train it to move quickly from point to point, picture to picture. work it hard while you work it, but give it frequent periods of rest. do not cumber the brain with a mass of words. learn words by all means, learn their meaning, relationship, and power, but do not try to remember them merely as words. think of them, rather, in their relationship with one another--their power of conveying an idea or explaining a thought, their ability to paint a picture or make clear a point--think of them collectively and not individually, and they can be marshalled easily in phrases and sentences where the speaker would stumble over them in attempting to bring them forward one by one. _sound education._ a sound general education forms a splendid foundation for a good memory, and if you have not had the benefit of schooling in early life, you should take up a course of instructive reading at the earliest possible moment. study history, the sciences, the arts. read the lives of men--the pivotal men of all periods--and select one, two, or three master works and thoroughly saturate yourself with their style as well as their substance. the author has many times recommended the bible and shakespeare for this purpose, and subsequent years of experience have only strengthened his belief in the efficiency of these immortal works. _reflection._ this is a great help in memory training. continuously hover over your subject, brood over it, keep it before the mental camera until a perfect negative is taken, from which a positive may be formed at any time. accustom yourself to see your subject on every side; use your spiritual eye so that you may see not only through but all around your theme, and then you will be able to present it in an intelligent and convincing manner because of your being complete master of it. you will _know_ it. the old saying that "one nail drives out another" does not apply to the mind. if a fact or picture is placed within the storehouse of the brain, it will be at the disposal of the possessor as long as "memory holds a seat" within the human globe. a fact cannot be clearly grasped until it is thoroughly understood, a picture cannot be seen unless all its details are collectively grasped by the eye, and it is only when the fact is understood and the picture clearly seen that they can be placed within the chambers of the mind to be brought forth by memory at will. some of the parts of the fact, or the details of the picture, may be lost, they may all be scattered, and then it is the duty of the memory to re-collect them and join them together so as to bring to mind the image of the original fact or picture. a good memory is of the greatest importance to the orator; in fact, no one who does not possess this attribute can be an orator in the true sense of the word. without it, the speaker must rely on written matter; but with it, he can take those flights of fancy which memory alone makes secure because of the assurance he possesses of his ability to hold his facts securely in mind and return to them at any time. he thus gains confidence. the object of education is to train the mind, to discipline it, and to bring it into subjection to the will. if the student accomplishes this purpose, he will then be able to concentrate his thought, to rivet it upon any subject, train the whole force of his intellect upon it, and overcome what would otherwise be insurmountable. it is for this reason that memory is so valuable to the orator. if he possesses a good memory, he may reasonably look for the greatest success; but if it is poor, his failure is equally certain. if, therefore, your memory fails to answer your purpose, set to work to strengthen it. this can be done by careful and systematic training along the lines here set forth. be patient, diligent, and persevering; make use of your own thoughts--that is, think for yourself and do not merely utter the thoughts of others--and it will not be long before you will receive the help of that matchless confidence which knowledge and memory alone are able to give. memory, like walking, breathing, thinking, and all other actions of the body and the spirit, must be subconscious in order to be right and serviceable to man, and any conscious thought concerning the means to be employed in order to remember will surely bring about a defeat of the purpose. practice in remembering, as in all things, makes perfect. how to acquire confidence, and to control an audience _preparedness._ instructions as to how a speaker can acquire confidence may be summed up in one word--preparedness. he must be sure of his audience, his subject, and himself. the way to make sure of his audience is to study it, find out its prejudices (all audiences possess prejudices), and endeavor to lead it without letting it know that it is being led. there must be a master when speaker and audience come into contact, and it is the duty of the speaker to see that the mastery is not in the hands of the audience. the speaker should be similar in his relationship with the audience as is the director with the orchestra, and he should always aim to keep the audience subject to his will. if it breaks away from him, there will be nothing but discord, and the speech, if delivered at all, will be a failure. if, however, the audience is hostile to the speaker and at first refuses to listen to him, and he is capable of resisting its onslaught, he may achieve as signal a triumph as did henry ward beecher at liverpool, england, october , , when, after struggling for three hours against the turbulent mob of southern sympathizers gathered for the avowed purpose of preventing the delivery of his speech in behalf of the union, he finally mastered the disturbers, presented his cause, and won a marvellous victory. to show the forces that beecher had to contend with, and over which he triumphed, the opening of the speech he then delivered is here given, with the interruptions noted in brackets: for more than twenty-five years i have been made perfectly familiar with popular assemblies in all parts of my country except the extreme south. there has not for the whole of that time been a single day of my life when it would have been safe for me to go south of mason's and dixon's line in my own country, and for one reason: my solemn, earnest, persistent testimony against that which i consider to be the most atrocious thing under the sun--the system of american slavery in a great free republic. [cheers.] i have passed through that early period when right of free speech was denied to me. again and again i have attempted to address audiences that, for no other crime than that of free speech, visited me with all manner of contumelious epithets; and now since i have been in england, although i have met with greater kindness and courtesy on the part of most than i deserved, yet, on the other hand, i perceive that the southern influence prevails to some extent in england. [applause and uproar.] it is my old acquaintance: i understand it perfectly--[laughter]--and i have always held it to be an unfailing truth that where a man had a cause that would bear examination he was perfectly willing to have it spoken about. [applause.] and when in manchester i saw those huge placards: "who is henry ward beecher?" [laughter, cries of "quite right" and applause] and when in liverpool i was told that there were those blood-red placards, purporting to say what henry ward beecher had said, and calling upon englishmen to suppress free speech--i tell you what i thought. i thought simply this: "i am glad of it." [laughter.] why? because if they had felt perfectly secure that you are the minions of the south and the slaves of slavery, they would have been perfectly still. [applause and uproar.] and, therefore, when i saw so much nervous apprehension that if i were permitted to speak [hisses and applause]--when i found they were afraid to have me speak [hisses, laughter, and "no, no!"], when i found they considered my speaking damaging to their cause [applause], when i found that they appealed from facts and reasoning to mob law [applause and uproar] i said, no man need tell me what the heart and secret counsel of these men are. they tremble and are afraid. [applause, laughter, hisses, "no, no!" and a voice, "new york mob."] now, personally, it is a matter of very little consequence to me whether i speak here tonight or not. [laughter and cheers.] but one thing is very certain, if you do permit me to speak here tonight you will hear very plain talking. [applause and hisses.] you will not find a man [interruption], you will not find me to be a man that dared to speak about great britain three thousand miles off, and then is afraid to speak to great britain when he stands on her shores. [immense applauses and hisses.] and if i do not mistake the tone and temper of englishmen, they had rather have a man who opposes them in a manly way [applause from all parts of the hall] than a sneak who agrees with them in an unmanly way. [applause and "bravo."] now if i can carry you with me by sound convictions, i shall be immensely glad [applause]; but if i cannot carry you with me by facts and sound arguments, i do not wish you to go with me at all; and all that i ask is simply fair play. [applause, and a voice, "you shall have it, too."] public speakers should see that their subject fits the occasion, and particularly should they make it appear as though it intimately concerned the audience to which it is addressed. mr. beecher was extremely wise in selecting the themes upon which he spoke in his memorable tour through great britain in , when he presented the cause of the federal government of the people of england and scotland. when he spoke in manchester his theme was the effect slavery had on the manufacturing interests; in glasgow, where were located the shipyards where blockade-runners were being built for the confederate states, and the laboring classes were thus personally concerned in the struggle between the states, he pointed out the degraded effect slavery had upon labor; in the cultured city of edinburgh, he discussed the philosophy and the history of slavery; thus presenting his subject, on each occasion that he spoke, in a manner to interest his audiences. this showed great tact on mr. beecher's part and accounts, in a large measure, for his success in winning the masses of the people of great britain to the cause of the union. julius m. mayer, ex-attorney general of the state of new york, at a political meeting held at cooper union, on november , , after speaking on general political topics for a considerable time, said: "i want to discuss just one thing." a voice in the audience then cried out: "go ahead, then, and do it." the rebuke was deserved. the speaker, the last on the list, had been announced to speak specifically on one question, but instead of immediately taking up his theme, which was the levy election law, he started to discuss matters foreign to his subject; consequently the audience, which had listened to two long speeches by abler campaigners than mr. mayer, were tired out and restless before he really took up his subject, the result being that half the audience left before the speaker had touched on the topic he was designated to discuss, and the other half were not disposed to listen to him patiently. they had listened while they were being amused by the witty speech of job e. hedges, enthused by the impassioned, eloquent address of william a. prendergast, and would have given attention to the remarks of mr. mayer had he immediately taken up his subject; but they were unwilling to listen to an indifferent speaker discuss matters with which the majority of them were thoroughly familiar. let this experience of mr. mayer's be a lesson to speakers, and may it admonish them not to try the patience of an audience. francis p. bent, who, at the time, was vice-chairman of the board of aldermen of the city of new york, and who is a clever campaign speaker, on a recent occasion quoted, in an address before a social club, the following passage from shakespeare's _henry v_: in peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility: but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. this last word was scarcely out of his mouth when some one cried out: "the tammany tiger?" a shout then arose from the assembly. alderman bent was not one particle disconcerted, but simply replied: "my friend, i do not suppose that shakespeare, in writing those lines, intended to prophesy the coming of the tammany tiger, nor did i specifically have that specimen of the animal in view when i used the quotation, but i have no hesitation in saying that of all the fighting machines of which i have read, or with which i have come in contact, i know of none that excelled the tammany tiger in its ability to put up a good fight." he then went on with his speech, amid the hearty applause of his audience. in this instance, alderman bent typified the ready speaker. another occasion on which a speaker cleverly turned an interruption recently came to the personal attention of the author. john f. hylan, a city magistrate of the borough of brooklyn, new york city, was the last speaker on the programme at the opening of a democratic club in that section, previous to the election of . his honor had a few pet truths in the form of facts stowed away in his brain which he desired to impart to his democratic brethren. judges, as we are informed by shakespeare, are "full of wise saws and modern instances," and magistrate hylan, whom the author has known for many years, is no exception to the rule; consequently, he proceeded to do his little "preaching." after enumerating many of the points he wished to drive home, particularly some pertaining to jeffersonian principles, he finally said: "i know these are dry facts." a democratic brother here spoke up: "you bet they are; and i'm dry, too." of course the audience roared with laughter, and it looked as though the dryness alluded to by the thirsty one had put an end to the speech; but magistrate hylan, not one whit abashed, replied: "your thirst will be attended to by the steward of the club in a few moments, and i will endeavor to moisten my remarks for you by stating that they shall soon come to a close." if a speaker will not antagonize his audience through lack of tact, will keep to his subject, will be earnest in manner and language, not overtax the patience of his listeners by needlessly prolonging his discourse, and will put his mentality into his voice, he will surely be rewarded with the attention of his audience, and he will be able to sway it to his will and compel it, unknowingly, to do his bidding. the speaker can only be sure of his subject after having considered it on all sides. he must look through it, beneath it, above it, on all sides of it, consider it carefully from every possible standpoint, after which he may safely feel that he knows his subject and is prepared to speak upon it. in order that he may be sure of himself, the speaker must be equipped physically, vocally, and mentally to carry out the task he has assumed. he must have a body capable of resisting the fatigue of standing, a voice that will serve as a vehicle for conveying the message, and a mind of sufficient power to originate, develop, and present the thought. all these parts may be made equal to the task of properly performing these important duties, and the speaker who is thus equipped will possess that perfect confidence which the consciousness of being prepared for the work he undertakes alone can give. if he possesses a justified confidence in his subject, in the art of expression, and in himself, he will be the master of all three, and by their means he will control his audience. self-consciousness is the cause of many speakers failing who otherwise are fitted for their task. the speaker must learn to avoid thinking of himself even indirectly. he should never permit himself to wonder what his auditors are thinking of him or his effort--should permit no thought to wander to them in quest of finding out their thoughts concerning him--but he should concentrate all his mental power upon his subject in order that he may send it out to his audience, drive it home, and command attention to his thought. if he does this, his will be the dominant mind, his attention will all be directed where it belongs--on his subject--and he will have no time nor inclination to think of himself. let him remember to think outward and not inward; to concern himself with his subject and not his audience; and, most of all, not himself; to keep his mentality ever active, ever seeking his picture or his theme; self-consciousness will then disappear, taking with it all uncertainty and nervousness, and leaving him master of the situation because of his being master of himself. this self-mastering is of the utmost importance to the public speaker; therefore he should do all in his power to cultivate and strengthen it. without it, he is like a ship without a rudder; but with it, he possesses not only the means of controlling his course, but also the knowledge of directing it and the certainty of reaching his destination. he is then the purposeful speaker, conscious only of his ability to perform his task, and not creating imaginary difficulties which, once created, would surely overwhelm him. how to acquire fluency of speech a good working vocabulary is obtained best by studying words, learning their meaning, their origin, and their connections; finding out how many words express practically the same idea; what words are directly opposed to other words; and, in fact, becoming perfectly familiar with them in every way. a comparatively small number of words, if thoroughly mastered, will be of more service to a speaker than will a much larger number with which he is only indifferently acquainted. it is not so much the number of tools that a workman possesses that insures the successful performance of his work, but the skill with which he manipulates those that he has at his disposal. so it is with the speaker. let him thoroughly master a small vocabulary, because the effort he puts forth to become fully acquainted with his limited stock of words will, in itself, increase them and give him confidence in their use, and he will be better off than the less informed speaker with the greater vocabulary. an easy flow of language is secured only by practice in speaking. no matter how many words one may have at one's disposal, they will be valueless unless the possessor has also the courage to use them. all who desire fluency of speech should practice continually to convey thought by word of mouth. enter into conversation at every favorable opportunity with persons of education and refinement, doing as much of the talking as the proprieties will permit, bearing in mind that only by using a faculty is it developed and strengthened. speak before public gatherings as often as possible, commencing in a modest manner by speaking for a few moments, and gradually gather confidence and power by demonstrating to yourself that you have the ability to acquire the art of speech. after satisfying yourself on that point, all that remains for you to do is to go ahead and acquire it. how to acquire proficiency in gesture gesticulation, even more than speech, should be characteristic of the speaker, and entirely free from parade or pretense. any gesticulation that calls attention to itself, and not to the thought it is intended to express, is wrong and should not be made. the aim of gesture should be to amplify, illustrate, or strengthen the spoken word, and it should only be employed in the furtherance of these objects. nothing tends more to give the speaker an appearance of affectation than does a superabundance of gesture, and nothing makes a speaker more awkward than does the making of ungainly gestures. the best speakers of today use very few gestures, these being mainly expressive of emphasis; and most strong gestures, both descriptive and active, have been abolished by english and american orators. the speakers of ancient days, and those of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, were profuse in the use of gesture, but the declamatory style of delivery has given way to the colloquial form, which does not permit of making of many gestures, particularly those of the arms and hands, and depends more on the vocal expression than it does on the physical. while speakers are advised to be sparing in their use of gesture, there is a certain class that may be employed effectively, the movements of this class not being considered by audiences, as a rule, as gestures. these are the movements and expressions of the face, and consist of the distinctive light of the eye--whether languid, animated, sorrowful, gay, loving or threatening; the play of the lips--indicating scorn, strength, or weakness; and the state of the brow--whether smooth or contracted. all these gestures, however, after they have been thought out and clearly understood, may be left to be governed by the same force that controls the coloring of the voice, and if the mentality of the speaker so acts as to cause the voice to properly express the thought, it will also move the body to work in harmony with it and to correspondingly convey the idea by means of physical expression. the question of gesticulation may easily be discussed at such length as to make a book, but the author does not deem it wise to put forth any new system of gesture, nor advise the use of any of the many old ones, but will content himself with stating a few serious errors to be avoided by all speakers, and by giving some general principles that should be adopted: do not put your hands in your pockets, nor appear not to know what to do with them. refrain from playing with your watch chain, or running your fingers through your hair. let your arms hang easily at your side, and appear unconscious of the fact that you possess hands. do not always point upward when talking of heaven or the sky, nor put your hand on your breast when speaking of love or conscience. do not attempt to describe the action of every thing--such as the flowing of rivers, rolling of clouds, or leaping of cataracts. avoid using too many active gestures--that is, gestures expressive of the action of your own mind, such as anger, fear, and joy. do not tear your hair, stamp your feet, nor give any other such outward manifestation of your feelings. keep away from reading desks, tables, and all articles of furniture. stand on your feet, in clear view of the audience; look outward and upward, and let the assembly see that you are not afraid to show yourself. use gestures sparingly until you find the ones that feel easy to you; and all gestures that come without effort it is safe to consider natural, for if they feel easy to you, they are likely to look natural and to be effective. finally, follow hamlet's advice to the players: do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus; but use all gently: for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as i may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. . . . be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor; suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature.[ ] footnotes: [ ] genesis, ii: . [ ] william ellery channing in "self-culture." [ ] oliver wendell holmes in "autocrat of the breakfast table." [ ] robert louis stevenson. [ ] hamlet, act iii, scene ii. chapter vii the grecian orators what constituted their art when you shall say, "as others do, so will i: i renounce, i am sorry for it, my early visions; i must eat the good of the land and let learning and romantic expectation go, until a more convenient season"; then dies the man in you; then once more perish the buds of art, and poetry, and science, as they have died already in a thousand thousand men. the hour of that choice is the crisis of your history, and see that you hold yourself fast by the intellect. --ralph waldo emerson: _dartmouth address_ if a man would become a truly great orator, he must put aside all mere selfish desires and heed only the call of the best that is in him. he must have visions, and realize them; he must act according to his own understanding, and not become the pliant tool of another, be that other a political boss, a political machine, or an unholy ambition; he must be himself, and refuse to echo the thoughts of others; and, as a foundation upon which all these virtues are to be built, must be the one great virtue of industry. through all climes and in all ages men have achieved eminence as orators by persevering efforts only, and while, at times, an orator, full-fledged and ready for the fray, has burst into the list and played his part upon the stage of action, such occurrences have been so rare as to make them but examples of the exception that proves the rule. therefore, let him who would become proficient in the art of speech make up his mind to labor in order to attain that proficiency. at the same time, we should remember that this labor need not necessarily be hard, need not be what is termed laborious, because the main requisite is that we should not interfere with nature in her work. it is perfectly natural for man to breathe properly, and yet how few do so; it is natural for man to speak, and yet how few speak properly! if we aim to remove the defects or errors that interfere with nature doing properly her assigned task, we need not worry but that she will perform it. take up the work of becoming a public speaker because you love the art of oratory, labor at it because you desire to accomplish it, and it will submit to you because all arts love to be mastered. the history of oratory is a history of the world, just as the history of a great central character is an epitome of the history of his time, and as it is best to study the lives of the makers of history in order to understand the events of history, so it is best to examine the orators in order that we may learn of oratory. in ancient times oratory was considered the art of arts because it embraced all other arts and was therefore the most difficult of achievements. positions of honor and renown were bestowed upon those who were capable of giving fitting expression to their thoughts in public. poets sang the praises of orators and made them the heroes of their songs. the psalmists and prophets are but types of the orator, and the actor of today is the outcome of the player of old who was more a speaker than he was an actor. every citizen, at one time, was his own lawyer, spoke in his own defense, and advocated his own cause. then came the era of the speech writers, who prepared the matter for the citizen to deliver; and finally, the professional advocate of today who appears in behalf of his client and acts and speaks for him. let us consider the productions of the orators of that marvellous period in the world's history which dates from to years previous to the coming of christ; and in doing so, let us not forget that they are all translations into a foreign tongue, and that in their transition from one language into another they have lost much of their force and beauty. another thing to bear in mind is that an oration does not read as it sounds. it lacks the magnetism of the living speaker, the presence of the assembled multitude, the concern in the subject, and the gravity of the interest at stake, to lend a completeness to the words and to impregnate them with the expression that life alone possesses, turning the dead words into living thoughts. here, in these orations, we possess the mere bodies--mummies, they might well be termed--the spirit having departed ages ago; but by the influence of the imaginative mind of the reader they may be compelled to assume some semblance of their former greatness. the best way of judging of the power of orators, and the influence of oratory, is to study the effect they had on the subjects with which they dealt, the audiences they addressed, and on posterity, which looks with an unprejudiced eye. all great orations have not accomplished the purposes for which they were uttered, but they have all had a decided influence on shaping the thoughts of man and directing his actions many years after the orators who uttered the words have passed back in to the elements whence they came. demosthenes did not succeed in saving his loved athens from the clutches of philip, but his burning words in behalf of liberty have stirred the hearts of men in other lands and other ages and caused them to battle in behalf of the principles for which the ancient grecian spoke; edmund burke and the earl of chatham did not succeed in turning lord north from his determination to subdue the colonies of north america by force of arms, but their noble speeches inspired their brother whigs in america to rush to arms and sacrifice their all in the struggle for independence; abraham lincoln, in his debate with stephen a. douglas, did not prevail on the electorate of the state of illinois to return legislators who would elect him to the united states senate, but his clear reasoning and masterful presentation of facts in that famous debate drew the attention of the nation to him and contributed much toward making him president of the united states. oratory cannot fail in ultimately accomplishing its object, although it may not accomplish the specific object that the speaker had in mind at the time of uttering the oration, because truth must always ultimately triumph, and real oratory is always truth. oratory requires a large theme. men cannot grow eloquent over a ship subsidy; they may rhetorically wave the flag of their country and claim the land will go to ruin unless the subsidy is granted, but there can be no genuine enthusiasm, no eloquence, over such a cause. when henry clay declared that the american flag should be honored wherever it floated, that its folds should protect its citizens on sea as well as on land, he had a theme of such magnitude that was able to move his country to take up arms in defense of the doctrine he espoused. when lincoln started on his mission to preserve the union, he held a tremendous question in hand--the question whether government by the people should pass from the earth--and this question brought as a response the immortal gettysburg address. william h. grady, when speaking to the north on the subject of the new south, had a theme of vast importance--the theme of a reunited country. theodore roosevelt, in adopting "conservation of natural wealth" as his subject, brought to the minds of his countrymen a truth to which they had blindly closed their eyes since the settlement of the western hemisphere. these are subjects upon which, if the man is prepared, he can grow eloquent; and as soon as the people seriously consider questions of moment to themselves and their posterity, men will come forward who are able to discuss such questions with eloquence that will equal that of the past. oratory is not dead, nor is it sleeping; it is merely awaiting the sound of the voice it knows to cause it to come forth. it is no use calling to it in a foreign tongue--it must be spoken to in the voice of truth. right, liberty, justice, the rights of man to enjoy the blessings of life--these are themes that will cause eloquence to become once more the art of arts. examples of grecian oratory[ ] for the benefit of the student of oratory, specimen orations are here given of ten of the most famous grecian orators. short biographical and other notes accompany each selection, as guides to the student regarding the careers of the orators and the circumstances under which the orations were delivered. antiphon antiphon, the oldest of the ten attic orators, and founder of grecian political oratory, was the first to systematize the rules and principles for the guidance of public speakers. he was born at rhamnus, attica, about b.c., and, because of his activity in establishing the oligarchy of the four hundred, was executed at athens in b.c., after a change had taken place in the government. he was noted for his readiness in debate, and gained great renown by composing orations by which many accused of capital offenses defended themselves. the following oration was composed by antiphon for a man by the name of helus, who was accused of having murdered herodes, who, while on a journey with helus, mysteriously disappeared. _on the murder of herodes._ (helus, a mitylenean, having been accused of the murder of herodes, who had mysteriously disappeared from the boat in which the two had embarked in company, defended himself in the following speech, composed for him by antiphon): i could have wished, gentlemen, that i possessed the gift of eloquence and legal experience proportionate to my adversity. adversity i have experienced in an unusual degree, but in eloquence and legal experience i am sadly deficient. the result is that, in circumstances where i was compelled to suffer personal ill-usage on a false charge, legal experience did not come to my rescue; and here, when my salvation depends on a true statement of the facts, i feel embarrassed by my incapacity for speaking. many an innocent man has been condemned because of his inability to present clearly the truth and justice of his cause. many a guilty man, on the other hand, has escaped punishment through skilful pleading. it follows, then, that if the accused lacks experience on these matters, his fate depends rather on the representation of his prosecutors than on the actual facts and true version of the case. i shall not ask you, gentlemen, to give me an impartial hearing. and yet i am aware that such is the practice of most men on trial, who have no faith in their own cause or confidence in your justice. no, i make no such request, because i know full well that, like all good men and true, you will grant me the same hearing that you grant the prosecution. i do ask you, however, to be indulgent if i commit any indiscretion of speech, and to attribute it rather to my inexperience than to the injustice of my cause. but if my argument has any weight i pray you will ascribe it rather to the force of truth than rhetorical art. i have always felt that it is not just either that one who has done wrong should be saved through eloquence, or that one who has done no wrong should be condemned through lack of eloquence. unskilful speaking is but a sin of the tongue; but wrongful acts are sins of the soul. now it is only natural that a man whose life is in danger should commit some indiscretion of speech; for he must be intent not only on what he says but on the outcome of the trial, since all that is still uncertain is controlled rather by chance than by providence. this fact inspires great fear in a man whose life is at stake. in fact, i have often observed that the most experienced orators speak with embarrassment when their lives are in danger. but whenever they seek to accomplish some purpose without danger they are more successful. my request for indulgence, then gentlemen, is both natural and lawful; and it is no less your duty to grant it than my right to make it. i shall now consider the case for the prosecution in detail. and first i shall show you that i have been brought to trial here in violation of law and justice, not on the chance of eluding your judgment--for i would commit my life to your decision, even if you were bound by no oath to pronounce judgment according to law, since i am conscious that i have done no wrong and feel assured that you will do me justice: no, my purpose in showing you this is rather that the lawlessness and violence of my accusers may bear witness to you of their better feeling towards me. first, then, though they imprisoned me as a malefactor, they have indicted me for homicide--an outrage that no one has ever suffered in this land. for i am not a malefactor, or amenable to the law of malefactors, which has to do only with thieves and highwaymen. so far, then, as they have dealt with me by summary process, they have made it possible for you to make my acquittal lawful and righteous. but they argue that homicide is a species of malefaction. i admit that it is a great crime, as great as sacrilege or treason. but these crimes are dealt with each according to its own particular laws. moreover, they compel me to undergo trial in this place of public assemblage, where all men charged with murder are usually forbidden to appear; and furthermore they would commute to a fine in my case the sentence of death imposed by law on all murderers, not for my benefit, but for their own private gain, thereby defrauding the dead of lawful satisfaction. their reason for so doing you will perceive as my argument advances. in the second place, you all know that the courts decide murder cases in the open air, for no reason than that the judges may not assemble in the same place with those whose hands have been defiled with blood, and that the prosecutor may not be sheltered beneath the same roof with the murderer. this custom my accusers have utterly disregarded. nay, they have even failed to take the customary solemn oath that, whatever other crimes i may have committed, they will prosecute me for murder alone, and will allow no meritorious act of mine to stand in the way of my condemnation. thus do they prosecute me unsworn; and even their witnesses testify against me without having taken the oath. and then they expect you, gentlemen, to believe these unsworn witnesses and condemn me to death, when they have made it impossible for you to accept such testimony by their violation and contempt of the law. but they contend if i had been set free i would have fled. what motive could i have had? for, if i did not mind exile, i might have refused to come home when summoned, and have incurred judgment by default, or, having come, might have left voluntarily after my first trial. for such a course is open to all. and yet my accusers in their lawlessness seek to deprive me alone of the common right of all greeks. this leads me, gentlemen, to say a word about the laws that govern my case. and i think you will admit that they are good and righteous, since, though very ancient, they still remain unchanged--an unmistakable proof of excellence in laws. for time and experience teach men what is good and what is not good. you ought not, therefore, judge by the arguments of my accusers whether the laws are good or bad, but rather judge by the laws whether their claims are just or unjust. so perfect, indeed, are the laws that relate to homicide, that no one has ever dared to disturb them. but these men have dared to constitute themselves lawmakers in order to effect their wicked purposes, and disregarding these ordinances they seek unjustly to compass my ruin. their lawlessness, however, will not help them, for they well know that they have no sworn witness to testify against me. moreover, they did not make a single decisive trial of the matter, as they would have done if they had confidence in their cause. no, they left room for controversy and argument, as if, in fact, they meant to dispute the previous verdict. the result is that i gain nothing by an acquittal, since it will be open to them to say that i was acquitted as a malefactor, not as a murderer, and catching me again they will ask to have me sentenced to death on a charge of homicide. wicked schemers! would ye have the judges set aside a verdict obtained by fair means, and put me a second time in jeopardy of my life for the same offense? but this is not all. they would not even allow me to offer bail according to law, and thus escape imprisonment, though they have never before denied this privilege even to an alien. and yet the officers in charge of malefactors conform to the same custom. i, alone, then, have failed to derive advantage from this common right conferred by law. this wrong they have done me for two reasons: first, that they might render me helpless to prepare for my defense; and, second, that they might influence my friends, through anxiety for my safety, to bear false witness against me. thus, would they bring disgrace upon me and mine for life. in this trial, then, i am at a disadvantage in respect to many points of your law and of justice. nevertheless, i shall try to prove my innocence. and yet i realize that it will be difficult immediately to dissipate the false impression which these men have long conspired to create. for it is impossible for any man to guard against the unexpected. now, the facts in the case, gentlemen, are briefly these: i sailed from mitylene in the same boat with herodes, whom i am accused of having murdered. our destination was the same--aenus, but our objectives were different. i went to visit my father, who happened to be at aenus at that time; herodes went to sell some slaves to certain thracian merchants. both the slaves and the merchants sailed with us. to confirm these statements i shall now offer the testimony of competent witnesses. to continue, then, we were compelled by a violent storm to put in at a port on the methymnian coast, and there we found the boat on which they allege i killed herodes. now i would have you bear in mind that this whole affair took place not through design on my part, but through chance. for it was by chance that herodes undertook the voyage with me. it was by chance that we encountered the storm, which compelled us to put in at the methymnian port. and it was by chance that we found the cabined boat in which we sought shelter against the violence of the storm. after we had boarded the other boat and had taken some wine, herodes left us, never to return. but i did not leave the boat at all that night. on the day after herodes disappeared, however, i sought him as diligently as any of our company, and felt his loss as keenly. it was i who proposed sending a messenger to mitylene, and when no one else was willing to go i offered to send my own attendant. of course, i would not have done this if i had murdered herodes, for i would be sending an informant against myself. finally, it was only after i was satisfied by diligent search that herodes was nowhere to be found, that i sailed away with the first favorable wind. such are the facts. what inference can you draw from these facts other than that i am an innocent man? even these men did not accuse me on the spot, while i was still in the country, although they knew of the affair. no, the truth was too apparent at that time. only after i had departed, and they had had an opportunity to conspire against me, did they bring this indictment. now the prosecution have two theories of the death of herodes. one is that he was killed on shore, the other that he was cast into the sea. first, then, they say that i killed herodes on shore, by striking him on the head with a stone. this is impossible, since, as i have proved, i did not leave the boat that night. strange that they should pretend to have accurate knowledge of the manner of his death, and yet not be able satisfactorily to account for the disappearance of his body. evidently this must have happened near the shore, for, since it was night, and herodes was drunk, his murderer could have had no reason to take him far from the shore. however that may be, two days' search failed to produce any trace of him. this drives them to their second hypothesis--that i drowned herodes. if that were so, there would be some sign in the boat that the man was murdered and cast into the sea. no such sign, however, appears. but they say they have found signs in the boat in which he drank the wine. and yet they admit he was not killed in that boat. the utter absurdity of this second view is shown by the fact that they cannot find the boat they say i used for the purpose of drowning herodes, or any trace of it. it was not till after i sailed away to aenus, and the boat in which herodes and i made the voyage had returned to mitylene, that these men made the examination that led to the discovery of blood. at once they concluded that i killed herodes on that very boat. but when they found that this theory was inadmissible, since the blood was proved to be that of sheep, they changed their course and sought to obtain information by torturing the crew. the poor wretch whom they first subjected to torture said nothing compromising about me. but the other, whom they did not torture till several days later, keeping him near them in the meantime, is the one who has borne false witness against me. all that is possible for you to learn, gentlemen, from the testimony of human witnesses, you have now heard. it remains to consider the testimony of the gods, expressed by signs. for by reliance on these heaven-sent signs you will best secure the safety of the state both in adversity and in prosperity. in private matters, too, you ought to attach great weight to these signs. you all know, of course, that, when a wicked man embarks in the same boat with a righteous man, the gods not infrequently cause the shipwreck and destruction of both because of the sinfulness of one alone. again, the righteous, by association with the wicked, have been brought, if not to destruction, at least into the greatest dangers that divine wrath can send. finally, the presence of guilty men at a sacrifice has often caused the omens to be unfavorable. thus do the gods testify to the guilt and wickedness of man. in the light of divine testimony, then, my innocence is established. for no mariner with whom i have sailed has ever suffered shipwreck. nor has my presence at a sacrifice ever caused the omens to be unfavorable. now, i feel sure, gentlemen, that if the prosecution could find evidence that my presence on shipboard or at a sacrifice had ever caused any mishap, they would insist upon this as the clearest proof of my guilt. since, however, this divine testimony is adverse to their claims, they ask you to reject it, and to have faith in their representation. thus do they run counter to the practice of reasonable men. for, instead of testing words by facts, they seek to overthrow facts by words. having now concluded my defense, gentlemen, against all that i can recall of the charge against me, i look to you for acquittal. on that depends my salvation and the fulfilment of your oath. for you have sworn to pronounce judgment according to law. now, i am not liable to the laws under which i was arrested, while as to the facts with which i am charged i can still be brought to trial in the legal form. and if two trials have been made out of one, the fault is not mine, but that of my accusers. when, however, my worst enemies give me the chance of a second trial, surely you, the impartial awarders of justice, will never pronounce on the present issue a premature verdict of murder. be not so unjust; rather leave something for that other witness, time, who aids the zealous seekers of eternal truth. i should certainly desire that in cases of homicide the sentence be in accordance with law, but that the investigation, in every possible instance, be regulated by justice. in this way the interests of truth and right would best be secured. for in homicide cases an unjust sentence banishes truth and justice beyond recall. if, then, you condemn me, you are bound to abide by the sentence, however guiltless i may be. no one would dare, through confidence in his innocence, to contravene the sentence passed upon him, nor, if conscious of guilt, would he rebel against the law. we must yield not only to the truth, but to a verdict against the truth, especially if there be no one to support our cause. it is for these reasons that the laws, the oaths, and the solemnities in murder cases differ from those in all other cases. in this case of cases it is of the utmost importance that the issue be clear and the decisions correct. for, otherwise, either the murdered will be deprived of vengeance or an innocent man will suffer death unjustly. for their accusation is not decisive, the result depends on you. decide, then, justly; for your decision, if wrong, admits of no remedy. but how, you may ask, will you decide justly? by compelling my accusers to take the customary solemn oath before they put me upon my defense against an indictment for murder. and how are you to accomplish this? by acquitting me now. and remember that, even though you acquit me now, i shall not escape your judgment, since in the other trial, too, you will be my judges. by an acquittal now you make it possible to deal with me hereafter as you will, but, if you condemn me now, my case will not be open to reconsideration. if, then, you must make any mistake, an undeserved acquittal is less serious than an unjust condemnation. for the former is a mistake only; the latter an eternal disgrace. take care, then, that you do no irreparable wrong. some of you in the past have actually repented of condemning innocent men, but not one of you has ever repented of making an undeserved acquittal. moreover, involuntary mistakes are pardonable, voluntary unpardonable. the former we attribute to chance; the latter to design. of two risks, then, run the lesser; commit the involuntary mistake; acquit me. now, gentlemen, if my conscience were guilty, i should never have come into this city. but i did come--with an abiding faith in the justice of my cause, and strong in conscious innocence. for not once alone has a clear conscience raised up and supported a failing body in the hour of trial and tribulation. a guilty conscience, on the other hand, is a source of weakness to the strongest body. the confidence, therefore, with which i appear before you, is the confidence of innocence. to conclude, gentlemen, i have only to say that i am not surprised that my accusers slander me. that is their part; yours is not to credit their slander. if, on the other hand, you listen to me, you can afterwards repent, if you like, and punish me by way of remedy, but, if you listen to my accusers, and do what they wish, no remedy will then be admissible. moreover, no long time will intervene before you can decide lawfully what the prosecution now asks you to decide unlawfully. matters like these require not haste, but deliberation. on the present occasion, then, take a survey of the case; on the next, sit in judgment on the witnesses; form, now, an opinion; later, decide the facts. it is very easy, indeed, to testify falsely against a man charged with murder. for, if he be immediately condemned to death, his false accusers have nothing to fear, since all danger of retribution is removed on the day of execution. and, even if the friends of the condemned man cared to exact satisfaction for malicious prosecution, of what advantage would it be to him after his death? acquit me, then, on this issue, and compel my accusers to indict me according to law. your judgment will then be strictly legal, and, if condemned, i cannot complain that it was contrary to law. this request i make of you with due regard to your conscience as well as to my own right. for upon your oath depends my safety. by whichever of these considerations you are influenced, you must acquit me. pericles pericles is considered by many historians to have been the greatest statesman and orator that athens produced, but the truth regarding his oratorical ability cannot be verified by his orations, because not one of them, in its entirety, has come down to us. we are indebted to the historian thucydides for what speeches of pericles we possess, and he has this to say regarding their authenticity: "i have found it difficult to retain a memory of the precise words that i had heard spoken, and so it was with those who brought me report. i have made the persons say what it seemed to me most opportune for them to say, in light of the situation; at the same time i have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said." pericles was born about b.c., and died in . _in favor of the peloponnesian war_ ( b.c.). i always adhere to the same opinion, athenians, that we should make no concessions to the lacedaemonians; although i know that men are not persuaded to go to war, and act when engaged in it, with the same temper; but that, according to results, they also change their views. still i see that the same advice, or nearly the same, must be given by me now as before; and i claim from those of you who are being persuaded to war, that you will support the common resolutions, should we ever meet with any reverse; or not, on the other hand, to lay any claim to intelligence, if successful. for it frequently happens that the results of measures proceed no less incomprehensively than the counsels of man; and therefore we are accustomed to regard fortune as the author of all things that turn out contrary to our expectation. now the lacedaemonians were both evidently plotting against us before, and now especially are doing so. for whereas it is expressed in the treaty, that we should give and accept judicial decisions of our differences, and each side [in the meantime] keep what we have; they have neither themselves hitherto asked for such a decision, nor do they accept it when we offer it; but wish our complaints to be settled by war rather than by words; and are now come dictating, and no longer expostulating. for they command us to raise the siege of potidaea, and to leave aegina independent, and to rescind the decree respecting the megareans; while these last envoys that have come charge us also to leave the greeks independent. but let none of you think we would be going to war for a trifle, if we did not rescind the decree respecting the megareans, which they principally put forward [saying] that if it were rescinded, the war would not take place: nor leave it in your mind any room for self-accusation hereafter, as though you had gone to war for a trivial thing. for this trifle involves the whole confirmation, as well as trial, of your purpose. if you yield to these demands, you will soon also be ordered to do something greater, as having in this instance obeyed through fear: but by resolutely refusing you would prove clearly to them that they must treat with you more on an equal footing. henceforth then make up your minds, either to submit before you are hurt, or, if we go to war, as i think is better, alike to make no concession on important or trivial grounds, nor to keep with fear what we have not acquired; for both the greatest and the least demand from equals, imperiously urged on their neighbors previous to a judicial decision, amounts to the same degree of subjugation. now with regards to the war, and the means possessed by both parties, that we shall not be the weaker side, be convinced of hearing the particulars. the peloponnesians are men who cultivate their land themselves; and they have no money either in private or public funds. then they are inexperienced in long and transmarine wars, as they only wage them with each other for a short time, owing to their poverty. and men of this description can neither man fleets nor often send out land armaments; being at the same time absent from their private business, and spending from their own resources; and, moreover, being also shut out from the sea: but it is superabundant revenues that support wars, rather than compulsory contributions. and men who till the land themselves are more ready to wage war with their persons than with their money: feeling confident, with regard to the former, that they will escape from dangers; but not being sure, with regard to the latter, that they will not spend it before they have done; especially should the war be prolonged beyond their expectations, as [in this case] it probably may. for in one battle the peloponnesians and their allies might cope with all the greeks together; but they could not carry on a war against resources of a different description to their own; since they have no one board of council, so as to execute any measure with vigor; and all having equal votes, and not being of the same races, each forwards his own interest; for which reasons nothing generally is brought to completion. most of all will they be impeded by scarcity of money, while, through their slowness in providing it, they continue to delay their operations; whereas the opportunities of war wait for no one. neither, again, is their raising works against us worth fearing, or their fleet. with regard to the former, it were difficult even in time of peace to set up a rival city; much more in a hostile country, and when we should have raised works no less against them: and if they build [only] a fort, they might perhaps hurt some part of our land by incursions and desertions; it will not, however, be possible for them to prevent our sailing to their country and raising forts, and retaliating with our ships, in which we are so strong. for we have more advantage for land-service from our naval skill, than they have for naval matters from their skill by land. but to become skilful at sea will not easily be acquired by them. for not even have you, though practicing from the very time of the median war, brought it to perfection as yet; how then shall men who are agriculturists and not mariners, and, moreover, will not even be permitted to practice, from being always observed by us with many ships, achieve anything worth speaking of? against a few ships observing them they might run the risk, encouraging their ignorance by their numbers; but when kept in check by many, they will remain quiet; and through not practicing will be the less skilful, and therefore the more afraid. for naval service is a matter of art, like anything else; and does not admit of being practiced just when it may happen, as a bywork; but rather does not even allow of anything else being a bywork to it. even if they should take some of the funds at olympia or delphi, and endeavor, by higher pay, to rob us of our foreign sailors, that would be alarming, if we were not a match for them, by going on board ourselves and our resident aliens; but now this is the case; and, what is best of all, we have native steersmen, and crews at large, more numerous and better than all the rest of greece. and with the danger before them, none of the foreigners would consent to fly his country, and at the same time with less hope of success to join them in the struggle, for the sake of a few days' higher pay. the circumstances of the peloponnesians then seem, to me at least, to be of such or nearly such a character; while ours seem both to be free from the faults i have found in theirs, and to have other great advantages in more than an equal degree. again, should they come by land against our country, we will sail against theirs; and the loss will be greater for even a part of the peloponnese to be ravaged, than for the whole of attica. for they will not be able to obtain any land in its stead without fighting for it; while we have abundance, both in islands and on the mainland. moreover, consider it [in this point of view]: if we have been islanders, who would have been more impregnable? and we ought, as it is, with views as near as possible to those of islanders, to give up all thought of our land and houses, and keep watch over the sea and the city; and not, though being enraged on their account, to come to an engagement with the peloponnesians, who are much more numerous: (for if we defeat them, we shall have to fight again with no fewer of them; and if we meet with a reverse, our allies are lost also; for they will not remain quiet if we are not able to lead our forces against them); and we should make lamentation, not for the houses and land, but for the lives [that are lost]; for it is not these things that gain men, but men that gain these things. and if i thought that i should persuade you, i would bid you go out yourselves and ravage them, and show the peloponnesians that you will not submit to them for these things, at any rate. i have also many other grounds for hoping that we shall conquer, if you will avoid gaining additional dominion at the time of your being engaged in the war, and bringing on yourselves dangers of your own choosing; for i am more afraid of our own mistakes than of the enemy's plans. but those points shall be explained in another speech at the time of the events. at the present time let us send these men away with this answer: that with regard to the megareans, we will also allow them to use our ports and markets, if the lacedaemonians also abstain from expelling foreigners, whether ourselves or our allies (for it forbids neither the one nor the other in the treaty): with regard to the states, that we will leave them independent, if we also hold them as independent when we made the treaty; and when they, too, restore to the states a permission to be independent suitably to the interests, not of the lacedaemonians themselves, but of the several states as they wish: that we are willing to submit to judicial decision, according to the treaty: and that we will not commence hostilities, but will defend ourselves against those who do. for this is both a right answer and a becoming one for the state to give. but you should know that go to war we must; and if we accept it willingly rather than not, we shall find the enemy less disposed to press us hard; and, moreover, that it is from the greatest hazards that the greatest honours also are gained, both by state and by individual. our fathers, at any rate, by withstanding the medes--though they did not begin with such resources [as we have], but had even abandoned what they had and by counsel, more than by fortune, and by daring, more than by strength, beat off the barbarian, and advanced their resources to their present height. and we must not fall short of them; but must repel our enemies in every way, and endeavor to bequeath our power to our posterity no less [than we received it]. andocides andocides, a greek orator, diplomatist, and politician, was born at athens about b.c., and died about b.c. his speeches disclose the possession of practical common sense rather than deep learning, he being one who gained his proficiency of speech by practice in the public assemblies, and not, as most of the orators of his time, in schools of rhetoric. few authentic speeches of his are in existence, the one here given being his speech "on the mysteries," which is considered his best. he delivered it in his own defense against the charge of having mutilated the busts of hermes. _speech on the mysteries._ the preparation and zeal of my enemies, gentlemen, to do me harm in every way, justly or unjustly, from the very time i arrived in this city, are by no means unknown to you. it is therefore unnecessary for me to speak at length on this matter. i shall make of you, however, a request that is both just and easy for you to grant as it is important for me to obtain. i ask you to bear in mind that i have come here now, when there was no necessity of my remaining in the city, and although i did not offer bail, and was not committed to prison. i have appeared before you simply because i have confidence in the justice of my cause, and firmly believe that you will decide fairly, and will rather justly acquit me in accordance with your laws and your oaths, than suffer me to be unjustly destroyed by my enemies. it is only natural, gentlemen, that you should have the same opinion of a man that he has of himself. if he is unwilling to undergo trial and thus condemns himself, it is only reasonable that you, too, should condemn him. but if, confident in his innocence, he awaits your judgment, you should be predisposed to acquit him. at least you ought not to condemn him by a premature verdict of guilty. my enemies are reported to have said that i would not dare to undergo trial, but would seek safety in flight. "for what object," they say, "can andocides have in submitting to trial when it is possible for him to leave the city and have all the necessaries and convenience of life elsewhere? in cyprus, where he formerly lived, he has a large amount of good land, bestowed on him as a gift. can he, then, be willing to put his life in jeopardy? for what purpose? does he not perceive the feeling of our city towards him?" my feeling in this matter, gentlemen, is very different from what my enemies suppose. even though i do not, as these men assert, share the good will of my countrymen, i am unwilling to live elsewhere in affluence--an exile from my native land. i should much prefer to be a citizen of this commonwealth than of all others, however prosperous they may now seem to be. it is with such a feeling of patriotism that i entrust my life to your decision. i ask you, then, gentlemen, to accord me in my defense a preponderance of your good will, since you know that, even if you grant both parties in the suit an impartial hearing, i, the defendant, must necessarily be at a disadvantage. for the prosecution, after long preparation, bring this indictment against me without danger to themselves. but i must make my defense in fear and trembling for my life, and weighed down by the obloquy that has been heaped upon me. it is, therefore, only reasonable that you should favor me rather than the prosecution. there is a further consideration to dispose you in my favor. prosecutors have frequently been found to bring charges so palpably false that you could not but convict and punish them. witnesses, too, who have been instrumental in bringing about the condemnation of innocent men, have been convicted only after it was too late to save the guiltless victims of their false testimony. guided, then, and warned by the experience of the past, you will not take for granted the truth of what my accusers say. the magnitude of the charges against me you can learn from the prosecution; but the truth or falseness of that charge you cannot know until you have heard my defense. now, how to begin my defense, gentlemen, perplexes me not a little. i feel considerable doubt whether i ought first to show you that the prosecution have brought the wrong form of action against me; or that the decree of isotimidas is null and void; or that certain laws and oaths forbid this action; or whether i ought to tell you all the facts from beginning to end. but what most perplexes me is the fact that you do not all perhaps regard as equally serious the same points in the charge against me. each one of you, i suppose, has in mind some point about which he would like to have me speak first. since, however, it is impossible to speak of all points at one and the same time, i shall set before you all the facts in order from beginning to end, omitting nothing. for if you get a right understanding of the facts you will readily perceive how false a charge the prosecution have brought against me. i think, then, that you will feel disposed of your own accord to pronounce a just sentence. and i am led to this conclusion because i have observed that you always consider it a matter of the greatest importance, both in private and public affairs, to vote according to your oaths. it is this very thing that holds the state together, much against the will of those who would have it otherwise. confiding, then, in your sense of justice, i ask you to hear my defense with good will, and not to act the part of adversaries in this suit. suspect not the truth of my statements, and ensnare not my words. hear me patiently to the end, and then pronounce whatever judgment you deem best and most in accordance with your oaths. . . . now with regard to the information laid on account of the mutilation of the images, i will tell you everything from the beginning. when, then, teucrus came from megara, having obtained special permission, he gave what information he had about the mysteries and images, and denounced eighteen men. of the men thus denounced, some fled, and others were arrested and put to death on the strength of this information. those who fled have returned and are now here. many relatives of those who were put to death are likewise present. i ask, then, any one of these, who will, to interrupt me in the course of my argument and show, if he can, that i was the cause of exile or death in a single case. after this had taken place, pisander and charicles, who were members of the commission of inquiry, and had the reputation at that time of being loyal to the people, declared that what had been done was not the work of merely a few men, but part of a conspiracy to overthrow the commonwealth, and that they ought, therefore, to continue the investigation. the city was then in a sorry plight. when the herald made proclamation for the senate to enter the council chamber and hauled down the signal, the trouble began. then it was that the conspirators fled from the market-place in fear of arrest. then, too, diocleides, elated with hope over the misfortunes of the city, brought an impeachment before the senate, declaring that he knew the men who had mutilated the hermae, and that they were thirty in number. he told how he chanced to be an eye-witness of the affair. now i ask you, judges, to give your attention to this matter, and recall whether i speak the truth, refreshing each other's memories; for diocleides spoke in your midst. to that fact you yourselves can testify. diocleides, you will remember, said that he had a slave at laurium, and that he had occasion to go for a payment due to him. "he rose early in the morning, mistaking the hour, and started on his way. the moon was full. when he got near the gateway of dionysus, he saw several men going down from the odeum into the orchestra of the theater. afraid of them, he drew into the shade, and crouched down between the pillar and the column with the bronze statue of the general. he saw the men, about three hundred in number, standing around in groups of fifteen and twenty. most of them he recognized in the light of the moon." thus, in the first place, judges, he assumed this story--a most extraordinary one--in order, i fancy, that it might rest with him to include in this list any athenian he pleased, or at pleasure to exempt him. after he had seen all this he went, he said, to laurium, where he learned on the following day that the hermae had been mutilated. he knew at once that it was the work of the men he had seen in the night. returning to the city he learned that a commission of inquiry had been appointed and that a reward of a hundred minae had been offered for information. seeing euphemus, the brother of callias, the son of telecles, setting in his smithy, he brought him into the hephaesteum and told him how he had seen us on that night. now, he said, he did not desire to receive a reward from the city rather than from us, if he could have us for friends. euphemus said that he did well to tell him, and asked him to come to the house of leogoras, that they might there confer with andocides and the other needful persons. he came, he declared, on the following day, and knocked at the door. he met my father going out, who said to him: "are you the visitor whom the company here expect? well, you ought not to reject such friends," and with these words he was gone. in this way he sought to ruin my father, denouncing him as a confederate. he then stated that we told him we had decided to give him two talents instead of a hundred minae, as offered by the state for information, and that we pledged ourselves, in the event of our success, to make him one of us. his reply, he said, was that he would think it over. we then asked him, he maintained, to come to the house of callias, the son of telecles, that he, too, might be present. thus he sought to ruin also my kinsman. he came, he said, to the home of callias, concluded an agreement with us, and gave us pledges on the acropolis, but we failed to pay him, as agreed, the following month. he came, therefore, he said, to give information about what had been done. such, judges, was his impeachment. . . . now, after we were all arrested and the prison doors were shut at night, there came the mother of one man, the sister of another, and the wife and children of another. then they wept and bewailed their misfortunes. and charmides, a cousin of my own age, who had been brought up in our home from childhood, said to me: "andocides, you see how great our calamity is. although, then, heretofore, i had no wish to speak or to give you pain, yet i am now constrained to do so by our present evil. for all your friends and associates, except us, your relations, have either been put to death of the reasons on account of which we now perish, or have gone into exile, thereby condemning themselves. if, then, you know anything of this matter, tell it, and save first yourself, then your father, whom you ought to love exceedingly, then your brother-in-law, who married your only sister, then the rest of your numerous kinsmen and relatives, and finally me, who never grieved you in my whole life, but have ever been most eager to do whatever was for your interest." now when charmides had said this, judges, and each of the others besought and supplicated me, i reflected how unhappy i was to have fallen into such misfortune. was i to see my kinsman put to death unjustly and their property confiscated, and see those who were in no sense to blame for what had been done have their names inscribed on columns as impious sinners against the gods? was i further to see three hundred athenians perish undeservedly, the city involved in calamity, and the citizens suspicious of one another? was i, i ask, to sit by idly, and see all this, or was it my place to tell the people of athens what i had heard from euphiletus himself, the man who committed the outrage? i further reflected, judges, that of those who had wrought the deed of shame some had been put to death on the information of teucrus, and others, having gone into exile, had sentence of death passed upon them in their absence. four remained, who had not been informed against by teucrus,--panaetius, chaeredamus, diacritus, and lysistratus. these men above all seemed likely to have been confederates of those against whom diocleides had informed, since they were their intimate friends. for these men, then, safety was never secure; but over my own relatives hung certain destruction, unless some one told the people of athens the actual facts. it seemed to me, therefore, better to deprive these four men of their country, who are still alive and have returned to enjoy their patrimony, than to see my own suffer an unjust death. such were my reflections. if now any of you, judges, had a preconceived idea that i have information to ruin these men and save myself--an assertion that my enemies make in their attempt to asperse my character--examine that idea in the light of the facts. for i must now give a truthful account of my doings in the presence of the very men who perpetrated the crime and then fled. they know best whether i lie or speak the truth, and may confute me, if they can, in the course of my speech; for i appeal to them. but you must learn the facts. for in this trial, judges, nothing is so important for me as that, if acquitted, i should be acquitted with honor; and, further, that the general public should understand my whole conduct to have been absolutely free from baseness or cowardice. i told what i had heard from euphiletus through solicitude for my friends and kinsmen, through solicitude for the whole city, with courage and not cowardice. if, then, this is so, i ask you to acquit me and not to think me base. now consider--for a judge ought to examine the facts by a human standard, as if the misfortune had been his own--what would any one of you have done? if it had been a question of death with honor or life with shame, you might condemn my conduct as cowardice. and yet many would have chosen life in preference to an honorable death. but here the case was the very reverse: by keeping silent i must have perished ignominiously in my innocence, and must also have permitted the destruction of my father, of my brother-in-law, of all my cousins and relations, whom i and no one else threatened with death, by concealing the guilt of others. the falsehoods of diocleides had sent them to prison; their only hope of deliverance lay in the athenians learning the whole truth. i was in danger, therefore, of becoming their murderer, if i failed to tell you what i had heard. i was also in danger of destroying three hundred athenians, and of involving athens in the most serious evils. this, then, was the prospect, if i were silent. how different the prospect if i had made known the truth! then i should save myself, my father, and my kinsmen, and should deliver the city from dangers and misfortunes. accordingly four men who participated in the crime were driven into exile through me. i had nothing, however, to do with the death or exile of the men against whom teucrus had laid information. considering all this, judges, i concluded that the least of the pressing evils was to tell the whole truth, and, by convicting diocleides of falsifying, to have him punished--a man who sought to ruin us unjustly by deceiving the city, and who, for so doing, was proclaimed a public benefactor and received money from the state. i therefore told the senate that i knew the men who did the act; that, while we were at a banquet, euphiletus suggested this scheme, which was not carried out then on account of my opposition; but that later, when i had fallen from my horse in the cynosarges, and had broken my collar-bone and cut my head, so that i had to be carried home on a stretcher, euphiletus, seeing my condition, told his confederates that i had agreed to coÃ�¶perate with them and would mutilate the hermes by the phorbanteum. thus did he deceive them. yet on that very account the hermes near my father's house, dedicated by the aegean tribe, is, as you all know, the only one in athens not mutilated; for that task, as euphiletus told his companions, was assigned to me. when they found this out, they were furious, because i knew of the deed without having had a hand in it. on the following day meletus and euphiletus came to me and said: "we have done the deed, andocides. and if you think fit to remain silent, you will have our friendship as heretofore; otherwise our enmity will be more effectual than any friendship you can make by betraying us." thereupon i told them that i considered euphiletus a villain, and that they ought to feel furious, not because i knew it, but because they had done the abominable deed. in support of this statement i gave my own slave for the torture, to prove that i had been ill and unable even to leave my bed; and the presidents received the female slaves for examination in the house from which the conspirators set forth to begin their work. after the senate and the commission of inquiry found out that everything was just as i had stated, they summoned diocleides. no words were wasted. he at once admitted that he had lied, and asked to be spared on condition of revealing the men who had put him up to it. he said they were alcibaides of the deme of phegeus and amiantus from aegina; both of whom fled in fear. after you had heard this you imprisoned diocleides and put him to death, but delivered my relatives from destruction--all on my account. moreover you allowed the exiles to return; and you yourselves were freed from great dangers and evils. wherefore, judges, you ought to pity me in my misfortune; nay, you ought to hold me in honor for what i have done. when euphiletus proposed the most traitorous of all compacts, i opposed him, and upbraided him as he deserved. yet i concealed the crime of the conspirators, even when some were put to death and others driven into exile through the information laid by teucrus. only after we were imprisoned and on the point of being put to death through the instrumentality of diocleides, did i denounce the four conspirators--panaetius, diacritus, lysistratus, and chaeredemus. these men, i admit, were driven into exile on my account. but my act saved my father, my brother-in-law, three cousins, and seven other relatives, all of whom were about to suffer an unjust death. these now behold the light of day on my account, and they frankly admit it. moreover, the man who threw the whole city into confusion and involved it in the greatest dangers has been convicted. finally you have been delivered from great dangers and freed from suspicion, one against another. recall, now, judges, whether i speak the truth, and do those of you who know, enlighten the rest. and do you, clerk, call the persons themselves who were released through me; for they know and can tell you best. this is so, judges; as they will come up and testify as long as you care to listen. . . . and now, gentlemen, when you are about to pronounce final judgment, there are certain things you should call to mind. remember that you now enjoy among all the greeks the enviable reputation of being not only brave on the field of battle, but wise in the council chamber, since you attend not so much to the punishment of past misdeeds as to the future security of the state and the concord of its citizens. other states as well as ours have had their share of evils. but the peaceful settlement of civil discord is the triumph of the best and wisest peoples. since, then, you have the admiration of all nations, hostile as well as friendly, take care that you do not deprive your city of its fair fame, or create the impression that your success is due rather to chance than deliberation. i ask you further to have the same opinion of me that you have of my ancestors. give me the chance to follow their example. they occupy a place in the memory of their countrymen by the side of the greatest benefactors of the state. they served their country nobly and well, chiefly through good will to you, and with the further purpose that, if ever they or their descendants should fall into misfortune, they might find favor and pardon with you. forget them not; for once their meritorious deeds served our city in a time of need. when our navy was annihilated at aegospotami, and many were bent on the destruction of athens, the spartans decided to save the city through respect for the memory of those men who had fought for the liberty of all greece. since, then, our city was saved through the merits of my ancestors; for to the deeds that saved our city my ancestors contributed no small part. share with me, then, the salvation that you received from the greeks. consider, also, if you save me, what manner of citizen you will have in me. once rich and affluent, i have been reduced to penury and want through no fault of mine, but through calamities that befell our city. since then i have earned my livelihood in an honest way, toiling with my hands and brain. many friends, i have, too; among them kings and great men of the world, whose friendship you will share with me. if, on the other hand, you destroy me, there will be no one left to perpetuate our name and family. and yet the home of andocides and leogoras is no disgrace to athens. but great will be the disgrace if i am in exile, and cleophon, the lyremaker, dwells in the house of my fathers--a house whose walls are decked with trophies taken by my ancestors from the enemies of their country. though my ancestors be dead, let their memory still live, and fancy that you see their shades solemnly pleading in my behalf. for whom else have i to plead for me? my father? he is dead. brothers? i have none. children? none have yet been born to me. do you, then, be to me father, brother, children. to you i flee for refuge; you i supplicate and beseech. turn then, in supplication to yourselves, and grant me life and safety. lysias lysias, while he never attained athenian citizenship, resided most of his life at athens, and took an important and intimate part in the affairs of that city while it was a democracy. the ancient historians place his birth at b.c., and his death at b.c., but modern critics would place his birth at about b.c., and his death at b.c. thirty-four orations are ascribed to lysias, but the authenticity of several of them is questionable. his style is simple and clear, at the same time possessing force and vividness of expression. the oration here given was delivered in athens in b.c., and is considered the best of his speeches that have come down to us. eratosthenes was one of the thirty tyrants who decreed the death of the brother of lysias. _against eratosthenes_ ( b.c.). it is an easy matter, o athenians, to begin this accusation. but to end it without doing injustice to the cause will be attended with no small difficulty. for the crimes of eratosthenes are not only too atrocious to describe, but too many to enumerate. no exaggeration can exceed, and within the time assigned for this discourse it is impossible fully to represent them. this trial, too, is attended with another singularity. in other causes it is usual to ask the accusers: "what is your resentment against the defendants?" but here you must ask the defendant: "what was your resentment against your country? what malice did you bear your fellow citizens? why did you rage with unbridled fury against the state itself?" the time has now indeed come, athenians, when, insensible to pity and tenderness, you must be armed with just severity against eratosthenes and his associates. what avails it to have conquered them in the field, if you be overcome by them in your councils? do not show them more favor for what they boast they will perform, than resentment for what they have already committed. nor, after having been at so much pains to become masters of their persons, allow them to escape without suffering that punishment which you once sought to inflict; but prove yourselves worthy of that good fortune which has given you power over your enemies. the contest is very unequal between eratosthenes and you. formerly he was both judge and accuser; but we, even while we accuse, must at the same time make our defense. those who were innocent he put to death without trial. to those who are guilty we allow the benefit of law, even though no adequate punishment can ever be inflicted. for should we sacrifice them and their children, would this compensate for the murder of your fathers, your sons, and your brothers? should we deprive them of their property, would this indemnify the individuals whom they have beggared, or the state which they have plundered? though they can not suffer a punishment adequate to their demerit, they ought not, surely, on this account, to escape. yet how matchless is the effrontery of eratosthenes, who, being now judged by the very persons whom he formerly injured, still ventures to make his defense before the witnesses of his crimes. what can show more evidently the contempt in which he holds you, or the confidence which he reposes in others? let me now conclude with laying before you the miseries to which you were reduced, that you may see the necessity of taking punishment on the authors of them. and first, you who remained in the city, consider the severity of their government. you were reduced to such a situation as to be forced to carry on a war, in which, if you were conquered, you partook indeed of the same liberty with the conquerors; but if you proved victorious, you remained under the slavery of your magistrates. as to you of the piraeus, you will remember that though you never lost your arms in the battles which you fought, yet you suffered by these men what your foreign enemies could never accomplish, and at home, in times of peace, were disarmed by your fellow citizens. by them you were banished from the country left you by your fathers. their rage, knowing no abatement, pursued you abroad, and drove you from one territory to another. recall the cruel indignities which you suffered; how you were dragged from the tribunal and the altars; how no place, however sacred, could shelter you against their violence. others, torn from their wives, their children, their parents, after putting an end to their miserable lives, were deprived of funeral rites; for these tyrants imagined their government so firmly established that even the vengeance of the gods was unable to shake it. but it is impossible for one, or in the course of one trial, to enumerate the means which were employed to undermine the power of this state, the arsenals which were demolished, the temples sold or profaned, the citizens banished or murdered, and those whose dead bodies were impiously left uninterred. those citizens now watch your decree, uncertain whether you will prove accomplices of their death or avengers of their murder. i shall desist from any further accusations. you have heard, you have seen, you have experienced. decide then! isocrates isocrates, one of the greatest of the great men who lived between and b.c., and made greece famous for literary and oratorical preÃ�«minence, owes his renown not to his ability as a deliverer of speeches, but as a constructor of them, and as a teacher of rhetoric and oratory. he understood the principles of vocal expression perfectly, but he was of a retiring nature and lacked volume of voice, the latter being a particularly serious drawback because of the necessity of speaking in the open before vast concourses of people. he withdrew from active participation in the public life of athens, and opened a school in that city for the training of orators. isaeus, the teacher of demosthenes, was one of his pupils. isocrates was born in b.c., and died at the age of ninety-eight. _encomium on evagoras._ when i saw, o nicocles, that you were honoring the tomb of your father, not only with numerous and magnificent offerings, according to custom, but also with dances, musical exhibitions, and athletic contests, as well as with horse races and trireme races, on a scale that left no possibility of their being surpassed, i thought that evagoras, if the dead have any feeling of what happens on earth, while accepting this offering favorably, and beholding with joy your filial regard for him and your magnificence, would feel far greater gratitude to any one who could show himself capable of worthily describing his mode of life and the dangers he had undergone than to any one else; for we shall find that ambitious and high-souled men not only prefer praise to such honors, but choose a glorious death in preference to life, and are more jealous of their reputation than of their existence, shrinking from nothing in order to leave behind a remembrance of themselves that shall never die. now, expensive displays produce none of these results, but are merely an indication of wealth; those who are engaged in liberal pursuits and other branches of rivalry, by displaying, some their strength, and others their skill, increase their reputation; but a discourse that could worthily describe the acts of evagoras would cause his noble qualities to be ever remembered amongst all mankind. other writers ought accordingly to have praised those who showed themselves distinguished in their own days, in order that both those who are able to embellish the deeds of others by their eloquence, speaking in the presence of those who were acquainted with the facts, might have adhered to the truth concerning them, and that the younger generation might be more eagerly disposed to virtue, feeling convinced that they will be more highly praised than those to whom they show themselves superior. at the present time, who could help being disheartened at seeing those who lived in the times of the trojan wars, and even earlier, celebrated in songs and tragedies, when he knows beforehand that he himself, even if he surpass their noble deeds, will never be deemed worthy of such eulogies? the cause of this is jealousy, the only good of which is that it is the greatest curse to those who are actuated by it. for some men are naturally so peevish that they would rather hear men praised, as to whom they do not feel sure that they ever existed, than those at whose hands they themselves have received benefits. men of sense ought not to be the slaves of the folly of such men, but, while despising them, they ought at the same time to accustom others to listen to matters which ought to be spoken of, especially since we know that the arts and everything else are advanced, not by those who abide by established customs, but by those who correct and, from time to time, venture to alter anything that is unsatisfactory. i know that the task i am proposing to myself is a difficult one--to eulogize the good qualities of a man in prose. a most convincing proof of this is that, while those who are engaged in the study of philosophy are ever ready to speak about many other subjects of various kinds, none of them has ever yet attempted to compose a treatise on a subject like this. when a boy, he was distinguished for beauty, strength, and modesty, the most becoming qualities at such an age. in proof of which witnesses could be produced: of his modesty, those of the citizens who were brought up with him; of his beauty, all who saw him; of his strength, the contests in which he surpassed his compeers. when he grew to man's estate, all these qualities were proportionately enhanced, and in addition to them he acquired courage, wisdom, and uprightness, and these in no small measure, as is the case with some others, but each of them in the highest degree. for he was so distinguished for his bodily and mental excellence, that, whenever any of the reigning princes of the time saw him, they were amazed and became alarmed for their rule, thinking it impossible that a man of such talents would continue to live in the position of a private individual, and whenever they considered his character they felt such confidence in him, that they were convinced that he would assist them if any one ventured to attack them. in spite of such changes of opinion concerning him, they were in neither case mistaken; for he neither remained a private individual, nor, on the other hand, did them injury, but the deity watched over him so carefully in order that he might gain the kingdom honorably, that everything which could not be done without involving impiety was carried out by another's hands, while all the means by which it was possible to acquire the kingdom without impiety or injustice he reserved for evagoras. for one of the nobles plotted against and slew the tyrant, and afterwards attempted to seize evagoras, feeling convinced that he would not be able to secure his authority unless he got him out of the way. evagoras, however, escaped this peril and, having got safe to soli in cilicia, did not show the same feeling as those who are overtaken by like misfortunes. others, even those who have been driven from sovereign power, have their spirits broken by the weight of their misfortunes; but evagoras rose to such greatness of soul, that, although he had all along lived as a private individual, at the moment when he was compelled to flee, he felt that he was destined to rule. despising vagabond exiles, unwilling to attempt to secure his return by means of strangers, and to be under the necessity of courting those inferior to himself, he seized this opportunity, as befits all who desire to act in a spirit of piety and to act in self-defense rather than to be the first to inflict an injury, and made up his mind either to succeed in acquiring the kingdom or to die in the attempt if he failed. accordingly, having got together fifty men (on the highest estimate), he made preparations to return to his country in company with them. from this it would be easy to recognize his natural force of character and the reputation he enjoyed amongst others; for, when he was on the point of setting sail with so small a force on so vast an undertaking, and when all kinds of perils stared him in the face, he did not lose heart himself, nor did any of those whom he had invited to assist him think fit to shrink from dangers, but, as if they were following a god, all stood by their promises, while he showed himself as confident as if he had a stronger force at his command than his adversaries, or knew the result beforehand. this is evident from what he did; for, after he had landed on the island, he did not think it necessary to occupy any strong position, and, after providing for the safety of his person, to wait and see whether any of the citizens would come to his assistance; but, without delay, just as he was, on that eventful night he broke open a gate in the wall, and leading his companions through the gap, attacked the royal residence. there is no need to waste time in telling of the confusion that ensues at such moments, the terror of the assaulted, and his exhortations to his comrades; but, when the supporters of the tyrant resisted him, while the rest of the citizens looked on and kept quiet, fearing, on the one hand, the authority of their rule, and, on the other, the valor of evagoras; he did not abandon the conflict, engaging either in single combat against numbers, or with few supporters against the whole of the enemy's forces, until he had captured the palace, punished his enemies, succored his friends, and finally recovered for his family its ancestral honors, and made himself ruler of the city. i think, even if i were to mention nothing else, but were to break off my discourse at this point, it would be easy to appreciate the valor of evagoras and the greatness of his achievements; however, i hope that i shall be able to present both even more clearly in what i am going to say. for while, in all ages, wo many have acquired sovereign power, no one will be shown to have gained this high position more honorably than evagoras. if we were to compare the deeds of evagoras with those of each of his predecessors individually, such details would perhaps be unsuitable to the occasion, while time would be insufficient for their recital; but if, selecting the most famous of these men, we examine them in the light of his actions, we shall be able to investigate the matter equally well, and at the same time to discuss it more briefly. who would not prefer the perils of evagoras to the lot of those who inherited kingdoms from their fathers? for no one is so indifferent to fame that he would choose to receive such power from his ancestors rather than to acquire it, as he did, and to bequeath it to his children. further, amongst the returns of princes to their thrones that took place in old times, those are most famous which we hear of from the poets; for they not only inform us of the most renowned of all that have taken place, but add new ones out of their own imaginations. none of them, however, has invented the story of a prince who, after having undergone such fearful and terrible dangers, has returned to his own country; but most of them are represented as having regained possession of their kingdoms by chance, others as having overcome their enemies by perfidy and intrigue. amongst those who lived afterwards (and perhaps more than all) cyrus, who deprived the medes of their rule and acquired it for the persians, is the object of most general admiration. but, whereas, cyrus conquered the army of the medes with that of the persians, an achievement which many (whether hellenes or barbarians) could easily accomplish, evagoras undoubtedly carried out the greater part of what has been mentioned by his own unaided energy and valor. in the next place, it is not yet certain, from the expedition of cyrus, that he would have faced the perils of evagoras, while it is obvious, from the achievements of the latter, that he would readily have attempted the same undertakings as cyrus. further, while evagoras acted in everything in accordance with rectitude and justice, several of the acts of cyrus were not in accordance with religion; for the former merely destroyed his enemies, the latter slew his mother's father. wherefore, if any were content to judge, not the greatness of events, but the good qualities of each, they would rightly praise evagoras more than cyrus. but--if i am to speak briefly and without reserve, without fear of jealousy, and with the utmost frankness--no one, whether mortal, demigod, or immortal, will be found to have acquired his kingdom more honorably, more gloriously, or more piously than he did. one would feel still more confident of this if, disbelieving what i have said, he were to attempt to investigate how each obtained supreme power. for it will be manifest that i am not in any way desirous of exaggerating, but that i have spoken with such assurance concerning him because the facts which i state are true. even if he had gained distinction only for unimportant enterprises, it were fitting that he should be considered worthy of praise in proportion; but, as it is, all would allow that supreme power is the greatest, the most august, and most coveted of all blessings, human and divine. who then, whether poet, orator, or inventor of words, could extol in a manner worthy of his achievements one who has gained the most glorious prize that exists by most glorious deeds? however, while superior in these respects, he will not be found to have been inferior in others, but, in the first place, although naturally gifted with most admirable judgment, and able to carry out his undertakings most successfully, he did not think it right to act carelessly or on the spur of the moment in the conduct of affairs, but occupied most of his time in acquiring information, in reflection, and deliberation, thinking that, if he thoroughly developed his intellect, his rule would be in like manner glorious, and looking with surprise upon those who, while exercising care in everything else for the sake of the mind, took no thought for the intelligence itself. in the next place, his opinion of events was consistent; for, since he saw that those who look best after realities suffer the least annoyance, and that true recreation consists not in idleness, but in success that is due to continuous toil, he left nothing unexamined, but had such thorough acquaintance with the condition of affairs, and the character of each of the citizens, that neither did those who plotted against him take him unawares, nor were the respectable citizens unknown to him, but all were treated as they deserved; for he neither punished nor rewarded them in accordance with what he heard from others, but formed his judgment of them from his own personal knowledge. but, while he busied himself in the care of such matters, he never made a single mistake in regard to any of the events of everyday life, but carried on the administration of the city in such a spirit of piety and humanity that those who visited the island envied the power of evagoras less than those who were subject to his rule; for he consistently avoided treating any one with injustice, but honored the virtuous, and, while ruling all vigorously, punished the wrongdoers in strict accordance with justice; having no need of counsellors, but, nevertheless, consulting his friends; often making concessions to his intimates, but in everything showing himself superior to his enemies; preserving his dignity, not by knitted brows, but by his manner of life; not behaving irregularly or capriciously in anything, but preserving consistency in word as well as in deed; priding himself, not on the successes that were due to chance, but those due to his own efforts; bringing his friends under his influence by kindness, and subduing the rest by his greatness of soul; terrible, not by the number of his punishments, but by the superiority of his intellect over that of the rest; controlling his pleasures, but not led by them; gaining much leisure by little labor, but never neglecting important business for the sake of short-lived ease; and, in general, omitting none of the fitting attributes of kings, he selected the best from each form of political activity; a popular champion by reason of his care for the interests of the people, an able administrator in his management of the state generally, a thorough general in his resourcefulness in the face of danger, and a thorough monarch from his pre-eminence in all these qualities. that such were his attributes, and even more than these, it is easy to learn from his acts themselves. hyperides hyperides, born in b.c., and died in b.c., was a pupil in philosophy of plato, and studied oratory under isocrates. he was at one time a close associate and follower of demosthenes, but later disagreed with him on matters pertaining to the state, and took part in the prosecution that finally drove demosthenes into exile. hyperides was famed for the charm of his delivery, being esteemed by many equal to demosthenes in this respect, and for the brilliancy and quickness of his wit. _speech against athenogenes._ [hyperides' client, whose name does not appear, desired to obtain a boy slave, who, with his father and brother, was the property of athenogenes. the plaintiff proposed to purchase the liberty of the boy in question, while athenogenes, aided by antigona, lured the purchaser, by false representations, into buying all three slaves with their liabilities, which he pretended were but trifling. after the bargain was completed the plaintiff found that the slaves had brought him debts enough to compass his ruin; he therefore brought suit against athenogenes and engaged hyperides as counsel. the following speech, of which some fragments are missing, presents a satisfactory example of the orator's style. the opening sentences are lost. what is here given is but an extract from the speech]: gentlemen, you have heard the whole story in all its details. possibly, however, athenogenes will plead, when his turn comes, that the law declares all agreements between man and man to be binding. just agreements, my dear sir. unjust ones, on the contrary, it declares shall not be binding. i will make this clearer to you from the actual words of the laws. you need not be surprised at my acquaintance with them. you have brought me to such a pass and have filled me with such a fear of being ruined by you and your cleverness that i made it my first and main duty to search and study the laws night and day. now one law forbids falsehood in the market-place, and a very excellent injunction it is, in my opinion; yet you have, in open market, concluded a contract with me to my detriment by means of falsehoods. for if you can show that you told me beforehand of all the loans and debts, or that you mentioned in the contract the full amount of them, as i have since found it to be, i will abandon the prosecution and confess that i have done you an injustice. there is, however, also a second law bearing on this point, which relates to bargains between individuals by verbal agreements. it provides that "when a party sells a slave he shall declare beforehand if he has any blemish; if he omit to do so, he shall be compelled to make restitution." if, then, the vendor of a slave can be compelled to make restitution because he has omitted to mention some chance infirmity, is it possible that you should be free to refuse responsibility for the fraudulent bargain which you have deliberately devised? moreover, an epileptic slave does not involve in ruin all the rest of his owner's property, whereas midas, whom you sold to me, has ruined, not me alone, but even my friends as well. and now, athenogenes, proceed to consider how the law stands, not only with respect to slaves, but also concerning free men. even you, i suppose, know that children born of a lawfully betrothed wife are legitimate. the lawgiver, however, was not content with merely providing that a wife should be betrothed by her father or brother, in order to establish legitimacy. on the contrary, he expressly enacts that "if a man shall give a woman in betrothal justly and equitably, the children born of such marriage shall be legitimate," but not if he betroths her on false representations and inequitable terms. thus the law makes just betrothals valid, and unjust ones it declares invalid. again, the law relating to testaments is of a similar nature. it enacts that a man may dispose of his own property as he pleases, "provided that he be not disqualified by old age or disease or insanity, or by influenced by a woman's persuasions, and that he be not in bonds or under any other constraint." in circumstances, then, in which marriages and testaments relating solely to a man's own property are invalidated, how can it be right to maintain the validity of such an agreement as i have described, which was drawn up by athenogenes in order to steal property belonging to me? can it be right that the disposition of one's property by will should be nullified if it is made under the persuasions of a woman, while, if i am persuaded by athenogenes' mistress and am entrapped by them into making this agreement, i am thereby to be ruined, in spite of the express support which is given me by the law? can you actually dare to rest your case on the contract of which you and your mistress procured the signature by fraud, which is also the very ground on which i am now charging you with conspiracy, since my belief in your good faith induced me to accept the conditions which you proposed? you are not content with having got the forty minas which i paid for the slaves, but you must needs plunder me of five talents in addition, plucking me like a bird taken in a snare. to this end you have the face to say that you could not inform me of the amount of the debts which midas had contracted, because you had not the time to ascertain it. why, gentlemen, i, who brought absolute inexperience into the arrangement of commercial matters, had not the slightest difficulty in learning the whole amount of the debts and the loans within three months; but he, with an hereditary experience of three generations in the business of perfumery; he, who was at his place in the market every day of this life; he, who owned three shops and had his accounts made up every month, he, forsooth, was not aware of the debts! he is no fool in other matters, but in his dealings with his slave it appears he at once became a mere idiot, knowing of some of the debts, while others, he says, he did not know of--those, i take it, which he did not want to know of. such a contention, gentlemen, is not a defense, but an admission that he has no sound defense to offer. if he states that he was not aware of the debts, it is plain that he cannot at the same time plead that he told me all about them; and it is palpably unjust to require me to discharge debts of the existence of which the vendor never informed me. well, then, athenogenes, i think it is tolerably plain on many grounds, that you knew of midas' debts, and not the least from that fact that you demanded. . . .[ ] if, however, you did not inform me of the total amount of the debts simply because you did not know it yourself, and i entered into the contract under the belief that what i had heard from you was the full sum of them, which of us ought in fairness to be liable for them--i, who purchased the property after their contraction, or you who originally received the sums borrowed? in my opinion it should be you; but if we differ on this point let the law be our arbiter. the law was not made either by infatuated lovers or by men engaged in conspiracy against their neighbor's property, but by the most public-spirited of statesmen, solon. solon, knowing that sales of property are common in the city, enacted a law--and one universally admitted to be just--to the effect that fines and expenditures incurred by slaves should be discharged by the master for whom they work. and this is only reasonable; for if a slave effect a good stroke of business or establish a flourishing industry, it is his master who reaps the profit of it. you, however, pass over the law in silence, and are eloquent about the iniquity of breaking contracts. whereas solon held that a law was more valid than a temporary ordinance, however just that ordinance might be, you demand that a fraudulent contract should outweigh all laws and all justice alike. i am told, however, that the defendant has another plea in reserve, and will argue that i brought all this mischief on my own head by disregarding his advice. he will declare that he offered to let me take the two boys, but that he urged me to leave midas to him and not to buy him. i, however, he says, refused and insisted on buying all three. and this, they say, he intends to plead before a court such as the present! his object, of course, is to assume the appearance of fair dealing, but he must have forgotten that he will not be addressing an audience of fools, but one quite capable of seeing through his shameless effrontery. let me tell you the actual facts, and you will see that they are of a piece with the rest of the conduct of himself and his confederate. he sent the boy, whom i mentioned just now, to me, to say that he could not be mine unless i bought his father and his brother as well as himself. i had actually assented to this and promised to pay the price for all three of them, when athenogenes, thinking that he now had the upper hand and wishing me to have as much trouble as possible, came to some of my friends. . . .[ ] now i am no professional perfume-seller, neither have i learned any other trade. i simply till the land which my father gave me. it was solely by this man's craft that i was entrapped into the sale. which is more probable on the face of things, athenogenes, that i was coveting your business (a business of which i had no sort of experience), or that you and your mistress were plotting to get my money? i certainly think the design was on your side. . . .[ ] further, at the time of the war against philip he left the city shortly before the battle, and instead of marching out with us to chaeronea he migrated to troezen. by so doing he broke the law which enacts that if a man migrates from the city during time of war he shall be liable to impeachment and summary arrest whenever he returns. his action shows that he had made up his mind that the city would escape peril, while he laid ours under sentence of death; and he corroborated this by not marrying his daughters here in athens, but giving them to husbands in troezen. . . .[ ] so while he has broken the general covenant which every citizen makes with his state, he lays stress on the private covenant which he made with me, apparently expecting people to believe that a man who is indifferent to justice in his dealings with you would have been careful to observe it in his dealings with me! why, so universal and impartial was he in his want of principle that, when he had gone to troezen, and the people of troezen had conferred their citizenship upon him, he put himself under the directions of mnesias of argos, and having been appointed archon by his means, expelled the citizens from their own city. they will prove this to you themselves, since they are living here in exile. you, gentlemen, gave them an asylum when they were expelled from their country, you gave them your citizenship, who shared with them every privilege that you possess. you remembered the service which they had rendered to you more than a hundred and fifty years ago, during the war with persia, and you recognized the duty of helping in the hour of their misfortune those who had aided you in the hour of your peril. but this scoundrel, this deserter from athens who had procured admission as a citizen of troezen, when once his position was thus secured, cared nothing for either the state or the welfare of the citizens, but behaved with the utmost barbarity towards the city which had granted him its hospitality. . . .[ ] to prove the truth of these assertions the clerk shall read to you, first, the law which forbids resident aliens to migrate in time of war; secondly, the evidence of the troezenians; and finally the ordinance which these same troezenians passed in your honor, in return for which you gave them asylum here and conferred your citizenship upon them. read. [_the law, the evidence, and the ordinance are read._] now take the deposition of his own relative. . . . you know of what manner he conspired against me, and how he has been found a traitor against your state; how he despaired of your safety and abandoned the commonweal in the hour of danger; and how he has made homeless many of those to whom he migrated. will you not then punish this scoundrel, now that you have him in your power? and for myself, gentlemen, i implore you not to refuse me your protection. reflect that your decision in this case is a matter of life or death for me, while an adverse verdict will inflect no very serious loss upon him. . . . remember, gentlemen, the oath that you have taken and the laws that have been read in your ears, and give sentence against him in accordance with the justice that you have been sworn to observe. isaeus isaeus, the pupil of isocrates and the teacher of demosthenes, was born about b.c., but it is disputed as to whether he was born a chalcidian or an athenian. he is famous for his mastery of argumentative oratory, and appears to have studied lysias attentively, because of the similarity of their styles. lysias, however, used closely the divisions of a speech, such as introduction, argument, and epilogue, whereas isaeus avoided formal arrangement of his matter and depended on his argumentative skill for convincing his hearers. he died about the year b.c. eleven of his speeches, dealing mainly with the law of inheritance, have come down to us. _menexenus and others against dicaeogenes and leochares._ [dicaeogenes, whose estate was in dispute, had four sisters, all of whom were married and had issue. when he died without children, his uncle, proxenus, produced a will by which the deceased appeared to have left a third part of his estate to his cousin, dicaeogenes. this cousin, not content with a share, insisted that he had a right to the whole, and, having set up another will in his own favor, took possession of the remaining two-thirds of the property. this belonged to the sisters of the deceased, who proved the second will to be a forgery; upon this dicaeogenes undertook to restore the two-thirds without diminution, and one leochares was his surety; but on their refusal to perform their promise, the nephews of the elder dicaeogenes began a suit against them for the performance of their agreement.] we had imagined, judges, that all agreements made in court concerning this dispute would have been specifically performed; for when dicaeogenes disclaimed the remaining two-thirds of this estate, and was bound, together with his surety, to restore them without any controversy, on the faith of this assurance we gave a release of our demands; but now, since he refuses to perform his engagement, we bring our complaint, conformably to the oath which we have taken, against both him and his surety, leochares. [the oath] that we swore truly, both cephisodotus, who stands near me, perfectly knows, and the evidence, which we shall adduce, will clearly demonstrate. read the depositions. [evidence] you have heard the testimony of these witnesses, and i am persuaded that even leochares himself will not venture to assert that they are perjured; but he will have recourse perhaps to this defense, that dicaeogenes has fully performed his agreement, and that his own office of surety is completely satisfied. if he allege this, he will speak untruly and will easily be confuted; for the clerk shall read to you a schedule of all the effects which dicaeogenes, the son of menexenus, left behind him, together with an inventory of those which the defendant unjustly took; and if he affirms that our uncle neither had them in his lifetime nor left them to us at his death, let him prove his assertion; or if he insists that the goods were indeed ours, but that we had them returned to us, let him call a single witness to that fact; as we have produced evidence on our part that dicaeogenes promised to give us back the two-thirds of what the son of menexenus possessed, and that leochares undertook to see him perform his promise. this is the ground of our action, and this we have sworn to be true. let the oath be read. [the oath] now, judges, if the defendants intended only to clear themselves of this charge, what has already been said would be sufficient to ensure my success; but, since they are prepared to enter once more into the merits of the question concerning the inheritance, i am desirous to inform you on our side of all the transactions in our family; that, being apprised of the truth, and not deluded by their artifices, you may give a sentence agreeable to reason and justice. menexenus our grandfather had one son named dicaeogenes, and four daughters, of whom polyaratus my father married one; another was taken by democles of phrearrhi; a third by cephisophon of paeania; and the fourth was espoused by theopompus the father of cephisodotus. our uncle dicaeogenes, having sailed to cnidos in the parhalian galley, was slain in a sea fight; and, as he left no children, proxenus the defendant's father brought a will to our parents, in which his son was adopted by the deceased and appointed heir to a third part of his fortune; this part our parents, unable at that time to contest the validity of the will permitted him to take; and each of the daughters of menexenus, as we shall prove by the testimony of persons then present, had a decree for her share of the residue. when they had thus divided the inheritance and had bound themselves by oath to acquiesce in the division, each person possessed his allotment for twelve years; in which time, though the courts were frequently open for the administration of justice, not one of these men thought of alleging any unfairness in the transaction; until, when the state was afflicted with troubles and seditions, this dicaeogenes was persuaded by melas the egyptian, to whom he used to submit on other occasions, to demand from us all our uncle's fortune and to assert that he was appointed heir to the whole. when he began his litigation we thought he was deprived of his senses; never imagining that the same man, who at one time claimed to be heir to a third part, and at another time an hear to the whole, could gain any credit before this tribunal; but when we came into court, although we urged more arguments than our adversary and spoke with justice on our side, yet we lost our cause; not through any fault of the jury, but through the villainy of melas and his associates, who, taking advantage of the public disorders, assumed a power of seizing possessions to which they had no right, by swearing falsely for each other. by such men, therefore, were the jury deceived; and we, overcome by this abominable iniquity, were stripped of our effects; for my father died not long after the trial and before he could prosecute, as he intended, the perjured witnesses of his antagonist. on the very day when dicaeogenes had thus infamously prevailed against us, he ejected the daughter of cephisophon, the niece of him who left the estate, from the portion allotted to her; took from the wife of democles what her brother had given her as co-heiress; and deprived both the mother of cephisodotus and the unfortunate youth himself of their whole fortune. of all these he was at the same time guardian and spoiler, next of kin, and cruelest enemy; nor did the relation which he bore them excite in the least degree his compassion; but the unhappy orphans, deserted and indigent, became destitute even of daily necessities. such was the guardianship of dicaeogenes their nearest kinsman! who gave to their avowed foes what their father theopompus had left them, illegally possesses himself of the property which they had from their maternal uncle and their grandfather; and (what was the most open act of cruelty) having purchased the house of their father and demolished it, he dug up the ground on which it stood, and made that handsome garden for his own house in the city. still further; although he receives an annual rent of eighty minas from the estate of our uncle, yet such are his insolence and profligacy that he sent my cousin, cephisodotus, to corinth as a service attendant on his brother harmodius; and adds to his other injuries this cruel reproach, that he wears ragged clothes and coarse buskins; but is not this unjust, since it was his own violence which reduced the boy to poverty? on this point enough has been said, i now return to the narration from which i have thus digressed. menexenus then, the son of cephisophon, and cousin both to this young man and to me, having a claim to an equal portion of the inheritance, began a prosecution against those who had perjured themselves in the former cause, and convicted lycon, whom he had first brought to justice, of having falsely sworn that our uncle appointed this dicaeogenes heir to his whole estate; when, therefore, this pretended heir was disappointed in his hopes of deluding you, he persuaded menexenus, who was acting both for our interest and his own, to make a compromise, which, though i blush to tell it, his baseness compels me to disclose. what was their agreement? that menexenus should receive a competent share of the effects on condition of his betraying us, and releasing the other false witnesses, whom he had not yet convicted; then, injured by our enemies, and by our friends, we remained with silent indignation; but you shall hear the whole transaction from the mouths of witnesses. [evidence] nor did menexenus lose the reward of his perfidy; for, when he had dismissed the persons accused, and given up our cause, we could not recover the promised bribe from his seducer whose deceit he so highly resented, that he came over again to our side. we, therefore, justly thinking that dicaeogenes had no right to any part of the inheritance, since his principal witness had been actually convicted of perjury, claimed the whole estate as next of kin to the deceased; nor will it be difficult to prove the justice of our claim; for, since two wills have been produced, one of an ancient date, and the other more recent; since by the first, which proxenus brought with him, our uncle made the defendant heir to a third part of his fortune, which will dicaeogenes himself prevailed upon the jury to set aside; and since the second, under which he claims the whole has been proved invalid by the conviction of the perjured witnesses, who swore to its validity; since, i say, both will have been shown to be forged, and no other testament existed, it was impossible for any man to claim the property as heir by appointment, but the sisters of the deceased, whose daughters we married, were entitled to it as heirs by birth. these reasons induced us to sue for the whole as next of kin, and each of us claimed a share; but when we were on the point of taking the usual oaths on both sides, this leochares put in a protestation that the inheritance was not controvertible; to this protestation we took exceptions, and having begun to prosecute leochares for perjury, we discontinued the former case. after we had appeared in court, and urged the same arguments on which we have now insisted, and after leochares had been very loquacious in making his defense, the judges were of opinion that he was perjured, and as soon as this appeared by the number of pellets, which were taken out of the urns, it is needless to inform you what entreaties he used both to the court and to us, or what an advantage we might then have taken; but attend to the argument which we have made, and upon our consenting that the archon should mix the pellets together without counting them, dicaeogenes undertook to surrender two-thirds of the inheritance, and to resign them without any dispute to the sisters of the deceased, and for the full performance of this undertaking, leochares was his surety, together with mnesiptolemus the plotian; all which my witnesses will prove. [evidence] although we had been thus injured by leochares, and had it in our power, after he was convicted of perjury, to mark him with infamy, yet we consented that judgment should not be given, and were willing to drop the prosecution upon condition of recovering our inheritance; but after all this mildness and forbearance we were deceived, judges, by these faithless men; for neither has dicaeogenes restored to us the two-thirds of his estate, conformably to his agreement in court; nor will leochares confess that he was bound for the performance of that agreement. now if these promises had not been made before five hundred jurymen and a crowd of hearers, one cannot tell how far this denial might have availed him; but, to show how falsely they speak, i will call some witnesses who were present both when dicaeogenes disclaimed two-thirds of the succession and undertook to restore them undisputed to the sisters of our uncle, and when leochares engaged that he should punctually perform what he had undertaken; to confirm his evidence, judges, we entreat you, if any of you were then in court, to recollect what passed, and, if our allegations are true, to give us the benefit of your testimony, for, if dicaeogenes speaks the truth, what advantage did we reap from gaining the cause, or what inconvenience did he sustain by losing it? if, as he asserts, he only disclaimed the two-thirds without agreeing to restore them unencumbered, what has he lost by relinquishing his present claim to an estate the value of which he has received? for he was not in possession of the two third parts, even before we succeeded in our suit, but had either sold or mortgaged them; it was his duty, however, to return the money to the purchasers and to give us back our share of the land; since it was with a view to this that we, not relying singly upon his own engagement, instead upon his finding a surety. yet, except two small houses without the walls of the city, and about sixty acres of land in the plain, we have received no part of our inheritance; nor did we care to eject the purchasers of the rest lest we should involve ourselves in litigation; for when, by the advice of dicaeogenes, and on his promise not to oppose our title, we turned micio out of a bath which he had purchased, he brought an action against us and recovered forty minas. this loss, judges, we incurred through the perfidy of dicaeogenes; for we, not imagining that he would recede from an agreement so solemnly made, assured the court that we would suffer any evil if dicaeogenes should warrant the bath to micio; not that we depended on his own word, but we could not conceive that he would betray the sureties who had undertaken for him; yet this very man, who disavowed all pretensions to these two-thirds, and even now admits his disavowal, had the baseness, when he was vouched by micio, to acknowledge his warranty; while i, unhappy man, who had not received a particle of my share, was condemned to pay forty minas for having ousted a fair purchaser and left the court oppressed by the insults of this dicaeogenes. to prove the transaction i shall call my witnesses. [evidence] thus have we been injured, judges, by this man; whilst leochares, who was bound for him and has been the cause of all our misfortunes, is confident enough to deny what has been proved against him; because his undertaking was not entered in the register of the court; now, judges, as we were then in great haste, we had time to enter part only of what had been agreed on, and took care to provide faithful witnesses of all the rest; but these men have a convenient subterfuge: what is advantageous to them they allow to be valid although it be not written, but deny the validity of what may be prejudicial to their interests unless it be in writing; nor am i surprised that they refuse to perform their verbal promises since they will not act conformably to their written agreements. that we speak truly, an undeniable proof shall be produced: dicaeogenes gave my sister in marriage with a portion of forty minas to protarchides of potamos; but, instead of paying her fortune in money he gave her husband a house which belonged to him in ceramicus; now she had the same right with my mother to a share of the estate; when dicaeogenes, therefore, had resigned to the women two-thirds of the inheritance, leochares told protarchides in what manner he had become a surety, and promised in writing to give him his wife's allotment if he would surrender to him the house which he had taken instead of the portion; protarchides, whose evidence you shall now hear, consented; but leochares took possession of his house and never gave him any part of the allotment. [evidence] as to the repairs of the bath and the expenses of building, dicaeogenes has already said, and will probably say again, that we have not reimbursed him, according to our engagement, for the sum which he expended on that account, for which reason he cannot satisfy his creditors nor give us the shares to which we are entitled. to answer this, i must inform you that, when we compelled him in open court to disclaim this part of the inheritance, we permitted him, by the advice of the jury, to retain the products of the estate, which he had enjoyed for so long, by way of compensation for his expense in repairs and for his public charges; and some time after, not by compulsion, but of our own free will, we gave him a house in the city, which we separated from our own estate and added to this third part. this he had as an additional recompense for the materials which he had bought for his building; and he sold the house to philonicus for fifty minas; nor did we make him this present as a reward of his probity, but as a proof that our own relatives, how dishonest soever, are not undervalued by us for the sake of lucre; and even before, when it was in our power to take ample revenge of him by depriving him of all his possession, we could not act with the rigor of justice, but were contented with obtaining a decree for part of our own property; whilst he, when he had procured an unjust advantage over us, plundered us with all possible violence, and now strives to ruin us, as if we were not his kinsmen, but his inveterate foes. we will now produce a striking instance of our candor and of his knavery. when, in the month of december, judges, the prosecution against leochares was carried on with firmness, both he and dicaeogenes entreated me to postpone the trial and refer all matters in dispute to arbitration; to which proposal, as if we had sustained only a slight injury, we consented; and four arbitrators were chosen, two by us, and as many by them; we then swore, in their presence, that we would abide by their award; and they told us that they would settle our controversy, if possible, without being sworn; but that, if they found it impossible to agree, they would severally declare upon oath what they thought the merits of the case. after they had interrogated us for a long time, and inquired minutely into the whole transaction, diotamus and melanopus the two arbitrators, whom we had brought, expressed their readiness to make their award, either upon oath or otherwise, according to their opinion of the truth from the testimony of both parties; but the other two, whom leochares had chosen, refused to join in any award at all; though one of them, diopithes, was a kinsman of leochares, and an enemy to me on account of some former disputes, and his companion, demaratus, was a brother of that mnesiptolemus whom i mentioned before as one of the sureties for dicaeogenes; these two decided against giving any opinion, although they had obliged us to swear that we would submit to their decision. [evidence] it is abominable, then, that leochares should request you to pronounce a sentence in his favor which his own relation, diopithes, refused to pronounce; and how can you, judges, with propriety decree for this man, when even his friends have virtually decreed against him? for all these reasons i entreat you, unless you think my request inconsistent with justice, to decide this case against leochares. as for dicaeogenes, he deserves neither your compassion as an indigent and unfortunate man, nor your indulgence as a benefactor in any degree to the state; i shall convince you, judges, that neither of these characters belongs to him; shall prove him to be both a wealthy and a profligate citizen, and shall produce instances of his base conduct towards his friends, his kinsmen, and the public. first, though he took from us an estate from which he annually received eighty minas, and although he enjoyed the profits of it for ten years, yet he is neither in possession of the money nor will declare in what manner he has employed it. it is also worthy of your consideration, that, when he presided over the games of his tribe at the feast of bacchus he obtained only the fourth prize, and was the last of all in the theatrical exhibitions and the pyrrhic dances: these were the only offices that he has served, and these, too, by compulsion; and see how liberally he behaved with so large an income! let me add that in a time of the greatest public calamity, when so many citizens furnished vessels of war, he would not equip a single galley at his own expense, nor even joined with another; whilst others, whose entire fortune was not equal to his yearly rents, bore that expensive office with alacrity; he ought to have remembered that it was not his father who gave him his estate, but you, judges, who established it by your decree; so that, even if he had not been a citizen, gratitude should have prompted him to consult the welfare of the city. again, when contributions were continually brought by all who loved their country, to support the war and provide for the safety of the state, nothing came from dicaeogenes; when lechaeum indeed was taken, and when he was pressed by others to contribute, he promised publicly that he would give three minas, a sum less than that which cleonymus the cretan voluntarily offered; yet even this promise he never performed; but his name was hung up on the statues of the eponymi with an inscription asserting, to his eternal dishonor, that he had not paid the contribution, which he promised in public, for his country's service. who can now wonder, judges, that he deceived me, a private individual, when he so notoriously deluded you all in your common assembly? of this transaction you shall now hear the proof. [evidence] such and so splendid have been the services which dicaeogenes, possessed of so large a fortune, has performed for the city! you perceive, too, in what manner he conducts himself towards his relatives, some of whom he has deprived, as far as he was able, of their property; others he has basely neglected, and forced, through the want of mere necessaries, to enter into the service of some foreign power. all athens saw his mother sitting in the temple of illithyia, and heard her accuse him of a crime which i blush to relate, but which he blushed not to commit. as to his friends, he has now incurred the violent hatred of melas the egyptian, who had been fond of him from his early youth, by refusing to pay him a sum of money which he had borrowed; his other companions he had either defrauded of sums which they lent him, or has failed to perform his promise of giving them part of his plunder if he succeeded in his cause. yet our ancestors, judges, who first acquired this estate, and left it to their descendants, conducted all the public games, contributed liberally toward the expense of the war, and continually had the command of galleys, which they equipped: of these noble acts the presents with which they were able, from what remained of their fortune after their necessary charges, to decorate the temples, are no less undeniable proofs, than they are lasting monuments of their virtue; for they dedicated to bacchus the tripods which they won by their magnificence in their games; they gave new ornaments to the temple of the pythian apollo, and adorned the shrine of the goddess in the citadel, where they offered the first fruits of their estate, with a great number, if we consider that they were only private men, of statues both in brass and stone. they died fighting resolutely in defense of their country; for dicaeogenes, the father of my grandfather, menexenus, fell at the head of the olysian legion in spartolus; and his son, my uncle, lost his life at cnidos, where he commanded the parhalian galley. his estate, o dicaeogenes, thou hast unjustly seized and shamefully wasted, and, having converted it into money, hast the assurance to complain of poverty. how hast thou spent that money? not for the use of the state or of your friends; since it is apparent that no part of it has been employed for those purposes; not in breeding fine horses, for thou never wast in possession of a horse worth more than three minas; not in chariots, for, with so many farms and so great a fortune, that never hadst a single carriage even drawn by mules; nor hast thou redeemed any citizen from captivity; nor hast thou conveyed to the citadel those statues which menexenus had order to be made for the price of three talents, but was prevented by his death from consecrating in the temple; and, through thy avarice, they lie to this day in the shop of the statuary; thus hast thou presumed to claim an estate to which thou hast no color of right, and hast not restored to the gods the statues, which were truly their own. on what ground, dicaeogenes, canst thou ask the jury to give a sentence in thy favor? is it because thou hast frequently served the public offices; expended large sums of money to make the city more respectable, and greatly benefited the state by contributing bountifully towards supporting the war? nothing of this sort can be alleged with truth. is it because thou art a valiant soldier? but thou never once could be persuaded to serve in so violent and so formidable a war, in which even the olynthians and the islanders lose their lives with eagerness, since they fight for this country; while thou, who art a citizen, wouldst never take arms for the city. perhaps the dignity of thy ancestors, who slew the tyrant, emboldens thee to triumph over us; as for them, indeed, i honor and applaud them, but cannot think that a spark of their virtue animates thy bosom; for thou hast preferred the plunder of our inheritance to the glory of being their descendant, and wouldst rather be called the son of dicaeogenes than of harmodius; not regarding the right of being entertained in the prytaneum, nor setting any value on the precedence and immunities which the posterity of those heroes enjoy; yet it was not for noble birth that harmonius and aristogiton were so transcendently honored, but for their valor and probity; of which thou, dicaeogenes, hast not the smallest share. lycurgus lycurgus, a pupil both of plato and isocrates, was born at athens about the year b.c., and died in b.c. during the great struggle with philip of macedon, he allied himself with demosthenes and became one of the leaders of the national party. he was a man of refined and artistic tastes, a patriot, and an orator. only the conclusion of his speech is here given. _oration against leocrates._ gentlemen, you have heard the witnesses. it may well be that what i now declare will rouse your indignation and your scorn of this leocrates. not content to abscond alone with his wretched self and his money, he must needs drag with him the ancestral faith, today become your law because your ancestors kept it, the establishment of the fathers and the heritage of him their child, drag this to megara, filch it from the land. he hallowed not that sacred name of old, would tear it from its home, make it forsake with him the temples and the country once its own, as if in the land of the stranger it could rise again, for him. athena, with no athens there! in megara! their land and their laws to be here! why did your fathers give to the land her name? because her land was here. in the name of athena did they put their trust; she abandons not her own. leocrates, recreant to law and tradition and religion, took from us all, as far as in him lay, the help that is ours from on high. and not content with all these grievous wrongs, he took the capital he had withdrawn here and with it made shipments of grain from cleopatra in epirus into leucas and from there into corinth; this in violation of your law which lays so severe a penalty on any man of athens who shall ship grain to any port but ours. here then is your man; traitor in war; lawbreaker in business; false to the faith and the land and the law. here he is in your jurisdiction: shall not his doom be death? shall he not serve warning to others? if not, then ye must be some listless men, whose wrath no crime can rouse. and now in what strains did homer voice this theme? to your fathers he was such a noble poet that they passed a law that at every pan-athenian festival, as the five years came round, his epics alone should be delivered; thus bearing witness to the world of greece that the greatest of works were the works for them. a salutary measure. brevity is the nature of the law. it may not instruct; it must simply command. to the poets it must refer the life of man, to portray the human spirit in its loftiest achievement, and with the resistless argument of art our souls are swayed. it is hector who speaks rousing the trojans in their country's name: when ye have reached the ships, fight onward, ceaselessly striving: what though the stroke of fate shall call some man to his glory? where is the sting of death when a hero falls for his country? wife and child and home are safe in the hour that the argives take to the ships once more and sail for the land of their fathers. with strains like these, men of athens, ringing in the ears of your sires, they could emulate the deeds of old; rising to such heights of valor that not for their own native state alone, but for all hellas as a common fatherland, they stood ready to offer up their lives. there on marathon they went into line in the face of the barbarians, bore down all asia in arms, the stake their lives alone, winning security for greece at large; not puffed up with the pride of renown, but glad their work was worthy of its fame; of greece the champions, masters of the heathen worlds; letting their deeds proclaim aloud with glory. such was the strenuous life they led in athens in the great days of old that once when the lacedaemonians, valiant of men, were at war with the messinians, the god vouchsafed them a response that bade them take a leader from our people, and then they should conquer their enemies. if then divine judgment declared in favor of our leadership, even for the children of hercules, lords for all time in sparta, are we not justified in our faith that once athenian valor was peerless? who that is greek does not know that they took one tyrtaeus for their general? and with him they overthrew their enemies. and when the immediate peril was past, they (with an admirable wisdom) turned the episode to the advantage of their youth for all time. for when tyrtaeus left them, his elegiacs were still theirs. while other poets have had no vogue among them, for him their enthusiasm has been so great that they passed a law that whenever a campaign was to open, all the man should be called to the tent of the king to hear the strains of tyrtaeus. nothing else, they thought, could make their men so ready to lay down their lives for their country. and now the day is come when we ourselves may need the sound of those elegiacs which could make their way to the souls of spartans: blest is the brave: how glorious is his prize, when at his country's call he dares and dies. and sad the sight when, envious of the dead, the man without a country begs his bread. his poor old parents feebly toil along, and little children who have done no wrong. spurned by the glance he meets at every turn, he learns how hot the beggar's brand can burn. his name is shame: the human form divine shows in its fall the soul's dishonored shrine. deeds in the dust of ages swiftly root, and children's children reap the bitter fruit. strike for our country, comrades: on, ye brave! where is the man that dreads a patriot grave? and ye, my younger brethren, side by side, shoulder to shoulder stand, whate'er betide. the surging thrill ye feel before your foe swept o'er your father's heart-strings long ago. to those whose days are longer in the land lend in the pride of youth the helping hand. for shame to see an old man fall in front when young men leave him there to bear the brunt: low in the dust the hoary hair is trailed; and last is quenched a soul that never quailed, youth in its bloom should pluck the glowing bough whose leaves in glory wreathe a hero's brow. welcome to man, and fair in woman's eye, the manly form that living dares to die. fate hangs apoise, with gloom and triumph fraught: up, hearts! and in the balance count we our lives as naught. noble sentiments, gentlemen, that sway the soul of him that hath ears to hear. the spartans could hear them, and receive such an impulse into manhood that they engaged with us in a struggle for the hegemony. it was nature's rivalry; for the noblest achievements have been wrought on either side. our ancestors had overthrown the barbarian who had set the first hostile foot upon attic soil; in them was made manifest a manhood that no money could corrupt, a valor no host countervail. in thermopylae the lacedaemonians made their stand; and though the fate they met was not like ours, yet there the ideals of human devotion became reality. and thus on the borne of life we can see the memorials of the valor of our race graven with the chisel of truth unto all greek blood: for theirs: go stranger, tell the spartans where we lie, true to the land that taught her sons to die. for yours: on marathon when athens fought alone, down to the dust the golden east was thrown. these great memories, athenians, are the glory of the men who bequeathed them and of athens the undying renown. not in this wise was leocrates wrought. the fair fame of the city, flower of the ages, deliberately hath he defiled. if then he meet death at your hands, all greece will feel the abhorrence in which you hold such acts. if not, then are the fathers of their ancient fame bereft by the same fell stroke that wounds your brothers in citizenship. they who revere not the men of old will follow the footsteps of this man, quick to descry the path that shall lead them to favor with our enemies, quick to perceive that shamelessness, treachery, cowardice, need only a verdict from you to prove their native worth. one word more and i am done. to your sovereign chastisement i commit the man who stands for athenian annihilation. on your own honor and in the presence of the gods you are to give leocrates his due. on the head of the criminal lies the crime; but in a miscarriage of justice the jurors delinquent become participant of guilt. gentlemen, ye cast the secret ballot now; but be not deceived: not one man among you can deposit a vote that the eye of heaven does not see. in my opinion, gentlemen, your verdict today reaches all the greatest and most fearful crimes at once: we behold them in the person of leocrates; treason, for he abandoned the city to subjugation by the enemy; apostasy, for he played a coward's part in freedom's cause; sacrilege for the groves might be felled, the temples razed, as far as he was concerned; abomination, for the memorials of our fathers might be swept away and the hallowed observance abolished; desertion, for the nidering did not report for duty in the line. where then is the man who will vote to clear him? who is he that will show his sympathy with crime that shows malice aforethought? is there a man so bereft of sense that he will set leocrates free and so place his own security at the mercy of men who would abandon him? that out of pity for leocrates he will take no pity on himself, when his choice may mean death at the hands of the foe? that by extending clemency to a traitor he will lay himself open to the retribution of heaven? in support of our country, religion and laws i have pleaded this case, in righteousness and in fairness, indulging in no irrelevant abuse of the man and making no charges extraneous to the case. you must all be convinced that a vote for the acquittal of leocrates is a vote for the conviction of the country; for in the life of nations subjugation is the death. here stand the two urns; one for your undoing, one for your redemption: vote there for the disruption of the country, vote here for her security and prosperity. think, men of athens: the land and the trees are pleading, the harbors, the walls are entreating, the temples and shrines are in prayer. save them. make of leocrates an example. one final declaration of my confidence: this pity that fills your hearts for the tears you look upon can never avail to pervert your loyalty to the law of the land, your devotion to the people of athens. aeschines aeschines, best known as an opponent of demosthenes, was, in fact, a gallant solider, a man of much ability, and a really great orator. he was born in attica, b.c., five years before the birth of his famous rival, and died b.c. his eloquence was of a high order, but his renown was tarnished by his defeat of demosthenes in the contest on the proposition of ctesiphon that demosthenes should be awarded a golden crown for his patriotic services to the state. the speech delivered by aeschines on that occasion was in many respects able, but he committed the grievous error of abusing his adversary and thus exposing his animosity. _against crowning demosthenes._ you see, athenians, what preparations are on foot, what forces are arrayed, what appeals to the assembly are being made by certain persons to prevent the proper and ordinary course of justice from having its effect in the city. for myself i came before you, first, with a firm belief in the immortal gods, next, with an abiding confidence in the laws and in you, convinced that intrigues will not more avail with you than these laws and the cause of justice. i could indeed have fain desired that both in the council of five hundred and in the assembly the presiding officers had compelled conformity to established rules of debate, and that the laws had been enforced concerning the orderly deportment of public speakers which were laid down by solon. it should thus have been permitted to the oldest citizens, as the laws prescribe, to ascend the platform decorously, and without tumult or annoyance, according to their experience, express their opinions upon what they regarded most advantageous to the city. afterwards, each citizen in order of seniority should have in turn presented his independent views upon every question. in this way it seems to me would the affairs of the city have been best conducted, and prosecutions have been reduced within the smallest compass. since, however, the old recognized rules of procedure have been swept away, and certain men recklessly introduce illegal propositions, and certain others put them to the vote--men who have managed to secure the presidency, not by just and proper means, but taking possession of it by contrivance--it is brought to pass that if any other senator shall succeed in reaching the first place in due course of law and shall then attempt to obtain the result of your votes properly, such an one is denounced and impeached by the men who regard our government as no longer a common inheritance but as their own peculiar property. and when in this way, by reducing private citizens to servitude and by securing absolute power themselves, they have overthrown established legal judgments and have passed decrees according to the dictates of their passions, there shall be heard no longer that most beautiful and proper invitation of the herald, "who desires to express his opinion, of citizens of fifty years of age and upwards, and afterwards, of all other in rotation?" thus neither the laws, nor the senators, nor the presidents, nor the presiding tribe itself a tenth part of the city, can control the indecent conduct of these orators. such being the case, and such the position in which the city is placed--and you must be convinced that this is so,--one part at least of the constitution, if i know anything of the matter, still survives--the right of prosecution for proposing unconstitutional measures. should you destroy this right, or surrender it to those who will destroy it, i prophesy that you will have unconsciously given away to a few men almost our entire form of government. for you must surely know, athenians, that but three forms of government exist, monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy: the two former are administered according to the feeling and opinions of those who are at the head of affairs, but republics repose upon the authority of law. let no one of you, therefore, forget, but on the contrary let him lay it carefully to heart, that when he enters this tribunal for the trial of such an issue, on that day he is called upon to cast his vote upon his own right of free speech. therefore was it that our old lawgivers placed in the forefront of the juror's oath these words, "i will render a verdict according to law," knowing well that when the laws were jealously observed by the city free institutions were safe. wherefore is it that, bearing these things in mind, you should hold in abhorrence all who commit unconstitutional acts, and that you should look upon no infraction of the constitution as small or unimportant, but treat all as of the gravest nature. nor should you suffer any man to deprive you of this most vital right--neither the persuasions of the generals who for a long time past have been at work with certain of our orators to overthrow the constitution, nor the solicitations of strangers when those whose administration has been illegal have brought up hither to screen them from justice--but as each one of you would blush to quit the ranks in which he was stationed on the day of battle, so you should now blush at the thought of abandoning the post in which you are placed by the laws which are today the guardians of our institutions. you must further bear in mind that your fellow citizens have now entrusted to your keeping the city itself in thus confiding the constitution to your charge; not only those of them who are here present intent upon the course of this trial, but those also who are necessarily absent upon their private business. if, therefore, holding in due regard these your fellow citizens, and remembering the oaths you have sworn and the laws you are living under, you should convict ctesiphon for having introduced an unconstitutional bill false in terms and injurious to the city, overturn, athenians, such unconstitutional enactments, confirm our free institutions, and punish the men who have been advising against the law and against the interests both of the state and of yourselves. if in this frame of mind you listen to the words which are about to be spoken, i well know that your verdict will be in accordance with justice and right, and that it will redound to the credit of yourselves and of the whole community. i have thus far spoken about the general nature of this prosecution, and, i hope, with sufficient fairness. i now desire to speak briefly about the laws which have been passed in regard to persons who are accountable to the state, against which the decree of ctesiphon offends. in former times it happened that men who had exercised the highest employment and had been entrusted with the management of the public revenues, although guilty therein of the grossest corruption, would, by conniving with certain orators both in the senate and the general assembly, anticipate all examination into their accounts by means of votes of condemnation and proclamations of thanks in their behalf. not only were citizens who attempted to bring them to justice for the state of their accounts in this way much perplexed, but the jurors themselves who were to try the cause were reduced to a grave dilemma. and many of these officials, although clearly proved to have embezzled public moneys in the most flagrant way, were yet permitted to leave the judgment-seat unpunished. and not unreasonably. for the jurors were ashamed, it seems to me, that it should appear the same man in the same city, and perchance in the very same year, who had been proclaimed in the assemblies as worthy of being honored with a golden crown by the people for his virtue and uprightness, should a short time afterwards be brought to trial, and go forth from our courts of justice convicted of fraud in his accounts. so that the jurors were compelled, as it were, to give their verdict not so much upon the crime which was proven, as in regard to the honor of the city itself. and hence it was that one of our lawgivers provided for this very emergency by propounding a law--and a most admirable one it was--by which the coronation of all persons liable to account was distinctly forbidden. notwithstanding the passage of this law, evasions of it more efficacious than the law itself have been invented, in ignorance of which, unless they be explained to you, you would be entirely deceived. this decree for the crowning of officials while they were still liable to account were introduced contrary to law by men not ill disposed by nature--if any one can be well-disposed who thus acts illegally--and by way of a slave to propriety they added to the propositions the words, "after they shall have rendered a correct account of their administration." the city, however, was injured in the same way by this evasion, since the accounting was equally forestalled by the panegyrics and votes of crowns; and the propounder of the decree, by thus qualifying it, admitted to his discredit that at the time of its proposal he was conscious of an intended infraction of the law. but this fellow ctesiphon, men of athens, at one bound clears both law and qualification; for by his decree he asks that demosthenes, while actually in office, before he has furnished any explanations or delivered in any accounts, shall be crowned by the people! . . . you have just heard, athenians, that the law directs the proclamation of one who is crowned by the people to be made in the pnyx at an assembly of the people, and nowhere else. ctesiphon, however, not only transgresses the law by directing it to be done in the theatre, thus changing the place from that where the athenians hold their assembly, but he commands it to take place, not before the people alone, but in presence of the assembled greeks, that they may see along with us what manner of man it is whom we then honor. . . . since, then, it is directed that those honored with a crown by the senate shall be proclaimed in the senate chamber, and those crowned by the people in the assembly, and it is interdicted to those crowned by the tribes or demes to be so proclaimed in the theatre, that no one by mean solicitations for crowns and proclamations should thereby obtain a spurious honor, and it is moreover forbidden by the law that proclamation shall be made by any one unless by the senate, the people, the tribes, and the demes; if all these be excepted, what remains but the case of crowns conferred by foreign states? that this is manifestly so, i shall convince you by the laws themselves. . . . besides it is enjoined by law that the crown of gold which shall be proclaimed in the theatre in behalf of any one shall be taken from him and consecrated to athens. who would dare, however, from this, to accuse the people of athens of a sordid economy? never was there a city, never an individual, so destitute of generosity, as in the same moment to proclaim, take away, and consecrate a crown of their own bestowal! this consecration is doubtless directed to be made because the crown has been conferred by strangers, that no man may estimate a foreign honor as of greater value than his country, and may not be tempted in consequence to fail in his devotion to her. the crown conferred by the people and proclaimed in the assembly is never consecrated, but on the contrary is permitted to be enjoyed, not only by its recipient, but by his descendants, that by preserving this memorial in their family they may never become ill-disposed to their country. and this is the reason why the lawmaker has prohibited the proclamation in the theatre of a crown conferred by strangers unless authorized by a decree of the people; the foreign city which may desire so to honor one of your citizens shall first through an embassy demand it of the people; and thus he who is crowned shall owe higher debt of gratitude to you who have permitted the proclamation than to those who have presented him with the crown itself. . . . i may here foretell the part that he will play when he sees that you are in earnest in your endeavor to hold him to his true course. ctesiphon will introduce that arch-impostor, that plunderer of the public, who has cut the constitution into shreds; the man who can weep more easily than others laugh, and from whom perjury flows in ready words! he can, i doubt not, change his tone, and pass from tears to gross abuse, insult the citizens who are listening outside, and cry out that the partisans of oligarchical power, detested by the hand of truth, are pressing round the prosecutor to support him, while the friends of the constitution are rallying round the accused. and when he dares to speak so, answer thus his seditious menaces: "what, demosthenes, had the heroes who brought back our fugitive citizens from phyle been like you, our democratic form of government had ceased to exist! those illustrious men saved the state exhausted by great civil disorders in pronouncing that wise and admirable sentence 'oblivion of all offenses.' but you, more careful of your rounded periods than of the city's safety, are willing to reopen all her wounds." when this perjurer shall seek for credit by taking refuge in his oaths, remind him that to the foresworn man who asks belief in them from those he has deceived so often, of two things one is needful, neither of which exists for demosthenes; he must either get new gods, or an audience not the same. and to his tears and wordy lamentations, when he shall ask, "whither shall i fly, athenians should you cast me out, i have not where to rest," reply "where shall the people seek refuge, demosthenes; what allies, what resources, what reserve have you prepared for us? we all see what you have provided for yourself. when you have left the city, you shall not stop, as you would seem, to dwell in piraeus, but, quickly thence departing, you shall visit other lands with all the appointments for your journey provided through your corruption from persian gold or public plunder." but why at all these tears, these cries, this voice of lamentation? is it not ctesiphon who is accused, and even for him may not the penalty be moderated by you? thou pleadest not, demosthenes, either for thy life, thy fortune, or thy honor! why is he then so disquieted? about crowns of gold and proclamations in the theatre against the laws: the man who, were the people so insensate or so forgetful of the present as to wish to crown him in this time of public distress, should himself step forth and say, "men of athens, while i accept the crown, i disapprove the proclamation of the honor at a time like this: it should not be in regard to things for which the state is now mourning and while it is in the depth of grief." would not a man whose life was really upright so speak out; only a knave who assumes the garb of virtue would talk as you do? let none of you, by hercules, be apprehensive lest this high-souled citizen, this distinguished warrior, from loss of this reward should on his return home take his life. the man who rates so low your consideration as to make a thousand incisions on that impure and mortgaged head which ctesiphon proposes against all law to honor with a crown, makes money of his wounds by bringing actions for the effects of his own premeditated blows. yes, that crown of his so often battered, that perhaps even now it bears upon it the marks of meidias' anger, that crown which brings its owner in an income, serves both for revenue and head! . . . and can it be that he whom you have thought worthy by your decree, of the honor of this crown, is so unknown to the public which has been so largely benefited by him that you must procure assistance to speak in his behalf? ask of the jurors whether they know chabrias, iphicrates and timotheus, and learn from them why they have honored and erected statues to them? will they not proclaim with one voice that they rendered honor to chabrias for his naval victory near naxos; to iphicrates for having cut off a spartan corps; to timotheus for his expedition to corcyra; to other heroes for their many glorious achievements? ask them now why demosthenes is to be rewarded. is it for his venality, for his cowardice, for his base desertion of his post in the day of battle? in honoring such an one will you not dishonor yourselves and the gallant men who have laid down their lives for you in the field? whose plaintive remonstrances against the crowing of this man you may almost seem to hear. strange, passing strange, does it seem, athenians, that you banish from the limits of the state the stocks and stones the senseless implements which have unwittingly caused death by casualty; that the hand which has inflicted the wound of self-destruction is buried apart from the rest of the body; and that yet you can render honor to this demosthenes, by whose counsels this last fatal expedition in which your troops were slaughtered and destroyed was planned! the victims of this massacre are thus insulted, in their graves, and the survivors outraged and discouraged when they behold the only reward of patriotic valor to be an unremembered death and a disregarded memory! and last and most important of all consequences, what answer shall you make to your children when they ask you after what examples they shall frame their lives? is it not, men of athens--you know it well--is it not the palaestra, the seminary, or the study of the liberal arts alone, which form and educate our youth. of vastly greater value are the lessons taught by these honors publicly conferred. if a man proclaimed and crowned in the theatre for virtue, courage, and patriotism when his irregular and vicious life belies the honor, the young who witness this are perverted and corrupted! in a profligate and a pander, such as ctesiphon, sentenced and punished, an instructive lesson is given to the rising generation. has a citizen voted in opposition to justice and propriety, and does he, on his return to his house, attempt to instruct his son; disobedience surely follows, and the lesson is justly looked upon as importunate and out of place. pronounce your verdict then, not as simple jurors, but as guardians of the state, whose decision can be justified in the eyes of their absent fellow citizens who shall demand a strict account of it. know ye not, athenians, that the people is judged by the ministers whom it honors; will it not be disgraceful, then, that you shall be thought to resemble the baseness of demosthenes, and not the virtues of your ancestors? how, then, is this reproach to be avoided? it must be to distrusting the men who usurp the character of upright and patriotic citizens, which their entire conduct gainsays. good will and zeal for the public interest can be readily assumed in name: oftentimes those who have the smallest pretensions to them by their conduct seize upon and take refuge behind these honorable titles. when you find, then, an orator desirous of being crowned by strangers and of being proclaimed in presence of the greeks, let him, as the law requires in other cases, prove the claim which he asserts by the evidence of a life free from reproach, and a wise and blameless course. if he be unable to do this, do not confirm to him the honors which he claims, and try at least to preserve the remnant of that public authority which is fast escaping from you. even now, strange as it should seem, are not the senate and the people passed over and neglected, and despatches and deputations received by private citizens, not from obscure individuals, but from the most important personages of europe and asia? far from denying that for which under our laws the punishment is death, it is made the subject of open public boast; the correspondence is exhibited and read; and you are invited by some to look upon them as the guardians of the constitution, while others demand to be rewarded as the saviors of the country. the people, meanwhile, as if struck with the decrepitude of age and broken down by their misfortunes, preserve the republic only in name and abandon to others the reality of authority. you thus retire from the assembly, not as from a public deliberation, but as from an entertainment given at common cost where each guest carries away with him a share of the remnants of the feast. that i speak forth the words of truth and soberness, hearken to which i am about to say. it distresses me to recur so often to our public calamities, but when a private citizen undertook to sail only to samos to get out of the way, he was condemned to death on the same day by the council of areopagus as a traitor to his country. another private citizen, unable to bear the fear which oppressed him, and sailing in consequence to rhodes, was recently denounced for this and escaped punishment by an equal division of the votes. had a single one been cast on the other side, he would have been either banished or put to death. compare these instances with the present one. an orator, the cause of all our misfortunes, who abandons his post in time of war and flies from the city, proclaims himself worthy of crowns and proclamations. will you not drive such a man from your midst as the common scourge of greece; or will you not rather seize upon and punish him as a piratical braggart who steers his course through our government by dint of phrases? consider, moreover, the occasion on which you are called upon to record your verdict. in a few days the pythian games will be celebrated, and the assembled greeks will all be reunited in your city. she has already suffered much disparagement from the policy of demosthenes: should you now crown him by your votes you will seem to share the same opinion as the men who wish to break the common peace. by adopting the contrary course you will free the state from any such suspicion. let your deliberations, then, be in accord with the interests of the city: it is for her, and not a foreign community, you are now to decide. do not throw away your honors, but confer them with discernment upon high-minded citizens and deserving men. search with both eyes and ears as to who they are among you who are today standing forth in demosthenes' behalf. are they the companions of his youth who shared with him the manly toils of the chase or the robust exercises of the palaestra? no, by the olympian jove, he has passed not his life in hunting the wild boar or in the preparation of his body for fatigue and hardship, but in the exercise of chicane at the cost of the substance of men of wealth! examine well his vainglorious boasting when he shall dare to say that by his embassy he withdrew the byzantines from the cause of philip; that by his eloquence he detached from him the acarnanians, and so transported the thebans as to confirm them upon your side. he believes indeed that you have reached such a point of credulity that you are ready to be persuaded by him of anything he may choose to utter, as if you had here in your midst the goddess persuasion herself, and not an artful demagogue. and when, at the close of his harangue, demosthenes shall invite the partakers of his corruption to press round and defend him, let there be present in your imagination upon the platform from which i am now speaking the venerable forms of the ancient benefactors of the state, arrayed in all their virtue, to oppose these men's insolence. i see among them the wise solon, that upright lawgiver who founded our popular government upon the soundest principles of legislation, gently advising you with his native moderation not to place your oaths and the law under the control of this man's discourse. and aristides, by whose equity the imposts upon the greeks were regulated, whose daughters, left in poverty through his incorruptible integrity, were endowed by the state, aristides is seen complaining of this outrage upon justice, and demanding whether the descendants of the men who fought worthy of death and actually banished from their city and country arthmius the zelian, then living in their midst and enjoying the sacred rights of hospitality for merely bringing persian gold into greece, are now going to cover themselves with disgrace by honoring with a crown of gold the man who has not simply brought higher the stranger's money, but is enjoying here the price of his treason. and themistocles and the men who fell at marathon and plataea, think you that they are insensible to what is taking place? do not their voices cry out from the very tombs in mournful protests against this perverse rendering of honor to one who has dared to proclaim his union with the barbarians against the greeks? as for me, o earth and sun, o virtue, and thou, intelligence, by whose light we are enabled to discern and to separate good from evil, as for me, i have directed my efforts against this wrong. i have lifted up my voice against this injustice! if i have spoken well and loftily against this crime, i have spoken as i should have wished; but if my utterances have been feeble and ill-directed, still they have been according to the measure of my strength. it is for you, men of athens and jurors, to weigh carefully both what has been spoken and what has been left unsaid, and to render such a decision as shall not only be upright but for the advantage of the state. demosthenes demosthenes, considered the greatest of the greek orators, and consequently the greatest orator in the history of the world, as oratory flourished nowhere as it did in greece between and b.c., was born about b.c., and died by poison administered to himself, after being captured by macedonian troops, b.c. "he [demosthenes] seems to have lacked by nature all the physical qualifications of a great orator, and to have acquired them solely by indefatigable self-discipline and training. at about the age of thirty he made his first appearance as a politician; he continued to practice as a logographer (speech-writer) until he was about forty, by which time he had made a fortune sufficient to enable him to devote himself exclusively to political life until he died, at the age of sixty-one." demosthenes studied under isaeus and profited by the work previously done by the great rhetoricians and orators, lysias, isocrates, antiphon, and others. demosthenes' political morality was of the highest, and this was one of the main sources of his great strength. _speech of demosthenes in defense of ctesiphon, commonly known as the "oration on the crown."_ i begin, men of athens, by praying to every god and goddess that the same good-will, which i have ever cherished toward the commonwealth and all of you, may be requited to me on the present trial. i pray likewise--and this specially concerns yourselves, your religion, and your honor--that the gods may put it in your minds not to take counsel of my opponent touching the manner in which i am to be heard--that would, indeed, be cruel!--but of the laws and of your oath; wherein (besides the other obligations) it is prescribed that you shall hear both sides alike. this means, not only that you must pass no precondemnation, not only that you must extend your good-will equally to both, but also that you must allow the parties to adopt such order and course of defense as they severally choose and prefer. many advantages hath aeschines over me on this trial; and two especially, men of athens. first, my risk in the contest is not the same. it is assuredly not the same for me to forfeit your regard, as for my adversary not to succeed in his indictment. to me--but i will say nothing untoward at the outset of my address. the prosecution, however, is play to him. my second disadvantage is, that natural disposition of mankind to take pleasure in hearing invective and accusation, and to be annoyed by those who praise themselves. to aeschines is assigned the part which gives pleasure; that which is (i may fairly say) offensive to all, is left for me. and if, to escape from this, i make no mention of what i have done, i shall appear to be without defense against his charges, without proof of my claims to honor; whereas, if i proceed to give an account of my conduct and measures, i shall be forced to speak frequently of myself. i will endeavor then to do so with all becoming modesty; what i am driven to by the necessity of the case will be fairly chargeable to my opponent, who has instituted such a prosecution. i think, men of the jury, you will all agree that i, as well as ctesiphon, am a party to this proceeding, and that it is a matter of no less concern to me. it is painful and grievous to be deprived of anything, especially by the act of one's enemy; but your good-will and affection are the heaviest loss, precisely as they are the greatest prize to gain. such being the matters at stake in this cause, i conjure and implore you all alike, to hear my defense to the charge in that fair manner which the laws prescribe--laws, to which their author, solon, a man friendly to you and to popular rights, thought that validity should be given, not only by the recording of them, but by the oath of you, the jurors; not that he distrusted you, as it appears to me, but, seeing that the charges and calumnies, wherein the prosecutor is powerful by being the first speaker, cannot be got over by the defendant, unless each of you jurors, observing his religious obligation, shall work with like favor receive the arguments of the last speaker, and lend an equal and impartial ear to both, before he determines upon the whole case. as i am, it appears, on this day to render an account both of my private life and my public measures, i would fain, as in the outset, call upon the gods to my aid; and in your presence i implore them, first, that the good-will which i have ever cherished toward the commonwealth and all of you may be fully requited to me on the present trial; next, that they may direct you to such a decision upon this indictment as will conduce to your common honor, and to the good conscience of each individual. had aeschines confined his charge to the subject of the prosecution, i, too, would have proceeded at once to my justification of the decree. but since he has wasted now fewer words in the discussion of other matters, in most of them calumniating me, i deem it both necessary and just, men of athens, to begin by shortly adverting to these points, that none of you may be induced by extraneous arguments to shut your ears against my defense of the indictment. to all his scandalous abuse of my private life, observe my plain and honest answer. if you know me to be such as he alleged--for i have lived nowhere else but among you--let not my voice be heard, however transcendent my statesmanship! rise up this instant and condemn me! but if, in your opinion and judgment, i am far better and of better descent than my adversary; if (to speak without offense) i am not inferior, i or mine, to any respectable citizens; that give no credit to him for his other statements--it is plain they were all equally fictions--but to me let the same good-will, which you have uniformly exhibited upon many former trials, be manifested now. with all your malice, aeschines, it was very simple to suppose that i should turn from the discussion of measures and policy to notice your scandal. i will do no such thing; i am not so crazed. your lies and calumnies about my political life i will examine forthwith; for that loose ribaldry i shall have a word hereafter, if the jury desire to hear it. the crimes whereof i am accused are many and grievous; for some of them the laws enact heavy--most severe penalties. the scheme of this present proceeding includes a combination of spiteful insolence, insult, railing, aspersion, and everything of the kind; while for the said charges and accusations, if they were true, the state has not the means of inflicting an adequate punishment, or anything like it. for it is not the right to debar another of access to the people and privilege of speech; moreover, to do so by way of malice and insult--by heaven! is neither honest, nor constitutional, nor just. if the crimes which he saw me committing against the state were as heinous as he so tragically gave out, he ought to have enforced the penalties of the law against them at the time; if he saw me guilty of an impeachable offense, by impeaching and so bringing me to trial before you; if moving illegal decrees, by indicting me for them. for surely if he can prosecute ctesiphon on my account, he would not have forborne to indict me myself, had he thought he could convict me. in short, whatever else he saw me doing to your prejudice, whether mentioned or not mentioned in his catalogue of slander, there are laws for such things, and punishments, and trials, and judgments, with sharp and severe penalties; all of which he might have enforced against me: and had he done so--had he thus pursued the proper method with me, his charges would have been consistent with his conduct. but now he has declined the straightforward and just course, avoided all proofs of guilt at the time, and after this long interval gets up, to play his part withal, a heap of accusation, ribaldry, and scandal. then he arraigns me, but prosecutes the defendant. his hatred of me he makes the prominent part of the whole contest; yet, without having ever met me upon that ground, he openly seeks to deprive a third party of his privileges. now, men of athens, besides all the other arguments that may be urged in ctesiphon's behalf, this, methinks, may very fairly be alleged--that we should all try our own quarrel by ourselves; not leave our private dispute, and look what third party we can damage. that surely were the height of injustice. it may appear, from what has been said, that all his charges are alike unjust and unfounded in truth; yet i wish to examine them separately, and especially his calumnies about the peace and the embassy, where he attributed to me the acts of himself and philocrates. it is necessary also, and perhaps proper, men of athens, to remind you how affairs stood at those times, that you may consider every single measure in reference to the occasion. when the phocian war had broken out--not through me, for i had not then commenced public life--you were in this position: you wished the phocians to be saved, though you saw they were not acting right; and would have been glad for the thebans to suffer anything, with whom for a just reason you were angry; for they had not borne with moderation their good fortune at leuctra. the whole of peloponnesus was divided: they that hated the lacedaemonians were not powerful enough to destroy them; and they that ruled before by spartan influence were not masters of the states: among them, as among the rest of the greeks, there was a sort of unsettled strife and confusion. philip, seeing this--it was not difficult to see--lavished bribes upon the traitors in every state, embroiled and stirred them all up against each other; and so, by the errors and follies of the rest, he was strengthening himself, and growing up to the ruin of all. but when every one saw that the then overbearing, but now unfortunate, thebans, harassed by so long a war, must of necessity have recourse to you, philip, to prevent this, and obstruct the union of the states, offered to you peace, to them succor. what helped him then almost to surprise you in a voluntary snare? the cowardice, shall i call it? or ignorance--or both--of the other greeks, who while you were waging a long and incessant war--and that, too, for their common benefit, as the event has shown--assisted you neither with money nor men, nor anything else whatsoever. you, being justly and naturally offended with them, lent a willing ear to philip. the peace then granted was through such means brought about, not through me, as aeschines calumniously charged. the criminal and corrupt practice of these men during the treaty will be found, on fair examination, to be the cause of our present condition. the whole matter am i for truth's sake discussing and going through; for, let there appear to be ever so much criminality in these transactions, it is surely nothing to me. the first who spoke and mentioned the subject of peace was aristodemus the actor; the seconder and mover, fellow-hireling for that purpose with the prosecutor, was philocrates the agnusian--your associate, aeschines, not mine, though you should burst with lying. their supporters--from whatever motives--i pass that by for the present--were eubulus and cephisophon. i had nothing to do with it. notwithstanding these facts, which i have stated exactly according to the truth, he ventured to assert--to such a pitch of impudence had he come--that i, besides being author of the peace, had prevented the country making it in a general council with the greeks. why, you--i know not what name you deserve!--when you saw me robbing the state of an advantage and connection so important as you described just now, did you ever express indignation? did you come forward to punish and proclaim what you now charge me with? if, indeed, i had been bribed by philip to prevent the conjunction of the greeks, it was your business not to be silent, but to cry out, to protest, and inform the people. but you never did so--your voice was never heard to such a purpose, and no wonder; for at that time no embassy had been sent to any of the greeks--they had all been tested long before; and not a word of truth upon the subject has aeschines spoken. besides, it is the country that he most traduces by his falsehoods. for, if you were at the same time calling on the greeks to take arms and sending your own ambassadors to treat with philip for peace, you were performing the part of an eurybatus, not the act of a commonwealth, or of honest men. but it is false, it is false. for what purpose could ye have sent for them at that period? for peace? they all had it. for war? you were yourselves deliberating about peace. it appears, therefore, i was not the adviser or the author of the original peace; and none of his other calumnies against me are shown to be true. observe again, after the state had concluded the peace, what line of conduct each of us adopted. hence you will understand who it was that coÃ�¶perated in everything with philip, who that acted in your behalf, and sought the advantage of the commonwealth. i moved in the council, that our ambassadors should sail instantly for whatever place they heard philip was in, and receive his oath: they would not, however, notwithstanding my resolution. what was the effect of this, men of athens? i will explain. it was philip's interest that the interval before the oaths should be as long as possible; yours, that it should be as short. why? because you discontinued all your warlike preparations, not only from the day of swearing peace, but from the day you conceived hopes of it; a thing which philip was from the beginning studious to contrive, believing--rightly enough--that whatever of your possessions he might take before the oath of ratification he should hold securely; as none would break the peace on such account. i, men of athens, foreseeing and weighing these consequences, moved the decree, to sail for whatever place philip was in, and receive his oath without delay; so that your allies, the thracians, might be in possession of the places which aeschines ridiculed just now (serrium, myrtium, and ergisce), at the time of swearing the oaths; and that philip might not become master of thrace by securing the post of vantage, nor provide himself with plenty of money and troops to facilitate his further designs. yet this decree he neither mentions nor reads; but reproaches me, because, as councillor, i thought it proper to introduce the ambassadors. why, what should i have done? moved not to introduce men who were come for the purpose of conferring with you? or ordered the manager not to assign them places at the theatre? they might have had places for their two obols, if the resolution had not been moved. was it my duty to guard the petty interests of the state, and have sold our main interests like these men? surely not. take and read me this decree, which the prosecutor, knowing it well, passed over. read! the decree "in the archonship of mnesiphilus, on the thirteenth of hecatombaeon, in the presidency of the pandionian tribe, demosthenes, son of demosthenes of paeania, moved: whereas, philip hath sent ambassadors for peace, and hath agreed upon articles of treaty, it is resolved by the council and people of athens, in order that the peace voted in the first assembly may be ratified, to choose forthwith from the whole body of athenians five ambassadors; and that the persons elected do repair, without any delay, wheresoever they shall ascertain that philip is, and as speedily as may be exchange oaths with him, according to the articles agreed on between him and the athenian people, comprehending the allies of either party. for ambassadors were chosen, eubulus of anaphlystus, aeschines of cothocidae, cephisophon of rhamnus, democrates of phyla, cleon of cothocidae." notwithstanding that i had passed this decree for the advantage of athens, not that of philip, our worthy ambassadors so little regarded it as to sit down in macedonia three whole months, until philip returned from thrace after entirely subjugating the country; although they might in ten days, or rather in three or four, have reached the hellespont and saved the fortresses, by receiving his oath before he reduced them: for he would never have touched them on our presence, or we should not have sworn him; and thus he would have lost the peace, and not have obtained both the peace and the fortresses. such was the first trick of philip, the first corrupt act of these accursed miscreants, in the embassy: for which i avow that i was and am and ever will be at war and variance with them. but mark another and still greater piece of villainy immediately after. when philip had sworn to the peace, having secured thrace through these men disobeying my decree, he again bribes them not to leave macedonia until he had got all ready for his expedition against the phocians. his fear was, if they reported to you his design and preparation for marching, you might sally forth, sail round with your galleys to thermopylae as before, and block up the strait; his desire, that, the moment you received the intelligence from them, he should have passed thermopylae, and you be unable to do anything. and in such terror and anxiety was philip, lest, notwithstanding he had gained these advantages, if you voted succor before the destruction of the phocians, his enterprise should fail, he hires this despicable fellow, no longer in common with the other ambassadors, but by himself individually, to make that statement and report to you, by which everything was lost. i conjure and beseech you, men of athens, throughout the trial to remember this: that, if aeschines in his charge had not travelled out of the indictment, neither would i have spoken a word irrelevant; but since he has resorted to every species both of accusation and calumny, it is necessary for me to reply briefly to each of his charges. what, then, were the statements made by aeschines, through which everything was lost? that you should not be alarmed by philip's having passed thermopylae--that all would be as you desired, if you kept quiet; and in two or three days you would hear he as their friend to whom he had come as an enemy, and their enemy to whom he had come as a friend--it was not words that cemented attachments (such was his solemn phrase), but identity of interest; and it was the interest of all alike, philip, the phocians, and you, to be relieved from the harshness and insolence of the thebans. his assertions were heard by some with pleasure, on account of the hatred which then subsisted against the thebans. but what happened directly, almost immediately, afterwards? the wretched phocians were destroyed, their cities demolished; you that kept quiet, and trusted to aeschines, were shortly bringing in your effects out of the country, while aeschines received gold; and yet more--while you got nothing but your enmity with the thebans and thessalians, philip won their gratitude for what he had done. to prove what i say, read me the decree of callisthenes, and the letter of philip, from both of which these particulars will be clear to you. * * * * * * * these and like measures, aeschines, are what become an honorable citizen (by their success--o earth and heaven! we should have been the greatest of people incontestably, and deserved to be so: even under their failure the result is glory, and no one blames athens or her policy; all condemn fortune that so ordered things); but never will he desert the interests of the commonwealth, nor hire himself to her adversaries, and study the enemy's advantage, instead of his country's; nor on a man who has courage to advise and propose measures worthy of the state, and resolution to persevere in them, will he cast an evil eye, and, if any one privately offends him, remember and treasure it up; no, nor keep himself in a criminal and treacherous retirement, as you so often do. there is indeed a retirement just and beneficial to the state, such as you, the bulk of my countrymen, innocently enjoy; that, however, is not the retirement of aeschines; far from it. withdrawing himself from public life when he pleases (and that is often), he watches for the moment when you are tired of a constant speaker, or when some reverse of fortune has befallen you, or anything untoward has happened (and many are the casualties of human life); at such a crisis he springs up an orator, rising from his retreat like a wind; in full voice, with words and phrases collected, he rolls them out audibly and breathlessly, to no advantage or good purpose whatsoever, but to the detriment of some or other of his fellow-citizens and to the general disgrace. yet from this labor and diligence, aeschines, if it proceeded from an honest heart, solicitous for your country's welfare, the fruits should have been rich and noble and profitable to all--alliances of states, supplies of money, conveniences of commerce, enactment of useful laws, opposition to our declared enemies. all such things were looked for in former times; and many opportunities did the past afford for a good man and true to show himself; during which time you are nowhere to be found, neither first, second, third, fourth, fifth, nor sixth--nor in any rank at all--certainly in no service by which your country was exalted. for what alliance has come to the state by your procurement? what succors, what acquisition of good will or credit? what embassy or agency is there of yours, by which the reputation of the country has been increased? what concern, domestic, hellenic, or foreign, of which you have had the management, has improved under it? what galleys? what ammunition? what arsenals? what repair of walls? what cavalry? what in the world are you good for? what assistance in money have you ever given, either to the rich or the poor, out of public spirit or liberality? none. but, good sir, if there is nothing of this, there is at all events zeal and loyalty. where? when? you infamous fellow! even at a time when all who ever spoke upon the platform gave something for the public safety, and last aristonicus gave the sum which he had amassed to retrieve his franchise, you neither came forward nor contributed a mite--not from inability--no! for you have inherited above five talents from philo, your wife's father, and you had a subscription of two talents from the chairmen of the boards for what you did to cut up the navy law. but, that i may not go from one thing to another and lose sight of the question, i pass this by. that it was not poverty prevented your contributing, already appears: it was, in fact, your anxiety to do nothing against those to whom your political life is subservient. on what occasion, then, do you show your spirit? when do you shine out? when aught is to be spoken against your countrymen!--then it is you are splendid in voice, perfect in memory, an admirable actor, a tragic theocrines. you mention the good men of olden times; and you are right to do so. yet it is hardly fair, o athenians, that he should get the advantage of that respect which you have for the dead, to compare and contrast me with them--me who am living among you; for what mortal is ignorant that toward the living there exists always more or less of ill will, whereas the dead are no longer hated even by an enemy? such being human nature, am i to be tried and judged by the standard of my predecessors? heaven forbid! it is not just or equitable, aeschines. let me be compared with you, or any persons you like of your party who are still alive. and consider this--whether it is more honorable and better for the state, that because of the services of a former age, prodigious though they are beyond all power of expression, these of the present generation should be unrequited and spurned, or that all who give proof of their good intentions should have their share of honor and regard from the people? yet indeed--if i must say so much--my politics and principles, if considered fairly, will be found to resemble those of the illustrious ancients, and to have had the same objects in view, while yours resemble those of their calumniators: for it is certain there were persons in those times who ran down the living, and praised people dead and gone, with a malignant purpose like yourself. two things, men of athens, are characteristic of a well-disposed citizen: so may i speak of myself and give the least offense: in authority, his constant aim should be the dignity and pre-eminence of the commonwealth; in all times and circumstances his spirit should be loyal. this depends upon nature; power and might upon other things. such a spirit, you will find, i have ever sincerely cherished. only see, when my person was demanded--when they brought amphictyonic suits against me--when they menaced--when they promised--when they set these miscreants like wild beasts upon me--never in any way have i abandoned my affection for you. from the very beginning i chose an honest and straightforward course in politics, to support the honor, the power, the glory of my fatherland, these to exalt, in these to have my being. i do not walk about the market place gay and cheerful because the stranger has prospered, holding out my right hand and congratulating those who i think will report it yonder, and on any news of our own success shudder and groan and stoop to the earth, like these impious men, who rail at athens, as if in so doing they did not rail at themselves; who look abroad, and if the foreigner thrives by the distress of greece, are thankful for it, and say we should keep him so thriving all the time. never, o ye gods, may those wishes be confirmed by you! if possible, inspire even in these men a better sense and feeling! but if they are indeed incurable, destroy them by themselves; exterminate them on land and sea; and for the rest of us, grant that we may speedily be released from our present fears, and enjoy a lasting deliverance. footnotes: [ ] it may be doubted whether any compositions which have ever been produced in the world are equally perfect in their kind with the great athenian orations.--macaulay's essay, _athenian orators_ [ ] the rest of the column is hopelessly mutilated. [ ] the rest of the column is mutilated. [ ] the remainder of this column and the whole of the next are either lost or so mutilated as to be unintelligible. [ ] when the next continuous passage is reached the speaker has quitted the direct issue and is attacking the political conduct of his adversary. [ ] half a column is hopelessly mutilated here. chapter viii the latin orators their style and means the latin temperament being practical, whereas the grecian was highly imaginative, it was a long time before roman oratory escaped from the hardness of competition and delivery that pervaded it for many centuries, and it was not until the conquest of greece that the classic style of oratory made its deep impress upon the work of the roman orators. the elder cato was austere in matter and manner, and the younger cato, dying years after the death of his great-grandfather, inherited many of his characteristics, and although his oratory displayed candor, truth, and courage, it lacked the finish, smoothness, and grace of the grecian school, which qualities were, to a great extent, possessed by cicero, caesar, crassus, and marc antony. caius gracchus and his brother tiberius had a marked influence upon the roman style of oratory by softening and smoothing it, but this influence was not strongly felt until the coming of cicero, and that marvellous group of statesmen, politicians, and orators which embraced pompey, crassus, caesar, cato, antonius (marc antony), and hortensius. the latin oratory had been candid but hard, and lacked all the grace that made the grecian oratory so bewitching; but cicero, by combining the candor of the roman style with the beauty of the grecian, produced a form of oratory that has not been surpassed by any other orator. crassus was undoubtedly an orator of the first rank. plutarch said of him: "as for learning, he chiefly cared for rhetoric, and what would be serviceable with large numbers; he became one of the best speakers at rome, and by his pains and industry outdid the best natural orators." little of his matter has come down to us. julius caesar, among his other powers, possessed that of oratory, and were it not for his transcendent abilities as a solider, which overshadowed his other talents, his oratorical ability would have insured him a place in history. marc antony was another great orator of the ciceronian period, but nothing very authentic of his has come down to us. shakespeare was indebted to plutarch for his idea of the oration over the body of caesar, and this matchless oration no doubt gives us a just conception of antony's style. history tells us that antony possessed almost unnatural influence over his soldiers through his eloquence, and that when they were discouraged over long marches, hardships, and privations, he would go the rounds of his encampment, addressing his troops; that he would so enthuse them that they would forget their fears and miseries, and rush with him to victory. the speech delivered over the body of caesar by marc antony is reported by dion cassius in his _history of rome,_ but how much of it was spoken by antony is problematical. the selections here given will convey a clear and comprehensive idea of the scope and style of roman oratory in its palmiest days. cato the censor marcus porcius cato, surnamed censorius, or major, roman statesman, general, and orator, bas born at tusculum, b.c., and died in b.c. he was scrupulously honest himself, and demanded honesty in all who would serve the state. he opposed the influence of greek civilization over the romans, and conceived it to be his duty to prevent new ideas being taught to the younger men of his generation. he was a maintainer of primitive discipline, and it was for this reason he gained the title of the censor. the speech here given displays his character and style to perfection. it was delivered in the roman forum in b.c. _speech in support of the oppian law._ if, romans, every individual among us had made it a rule to maintain the prerogative and authority of a hundred with respect to his own wife, we should have less trouble with the whole sex. but now our privileges, overpowered at home by female contumacy, are, even here in the forum, spurned and trodden under foot; and because we are unable to withstand each separately, we now dread their collective body. i was accustomed to think it a fabulous and fictitious tale that in a certain island the whole race of males was utterly extirpated by a conspiracy of the women. but the utmost danger may be apprehended equally from either sex if you suffer cabals and secret consultations to be held: scarcely indeed can i determine, in my own mind, whether the act itself, or the precedent that it affords, is of more pernicious tendency. the latter of these more particularly concerns us consuls and the other magistrates; the former, you, my fellow-citizens: for, whether the measure proposed to your consideration be profitable to the state or not, is to be determined by you, who are to vote on the occasion. as to the outrageous behavior of these women, whether it be merely an act of their own, or owing to your instigations, marcus fundanius and lucius valerius, it unquestionably implies culpable conduct in magistrates. i know not whether it reflects greater disgrace on you, tribunes, or on the consul: on you certainly, if you have brought these women hither for the purpose of raising tribunician seditions; on us, if we suffer laws to be imposed on us by a secession of women, as was done formerly by that of the common people. it was not without painful emotions of shame that i, just now, made my way into the forum through the midst of a band of women. had i not been restrained by respect for the modesty and dignity of some individuals among them, rather than of the whole number, and been unwilling that they should be seen rebuked by a consul, i should not have refrained from saying to them, "what sort of practice is this, of running out into the public, besetting the streets, and addressing other women's husbands? could not each have made the same request to her husband at home? are your blandishments more seducing in public than in private, and with other women's husbands than with your own? although if females would let their modesty confine them within the limits of their own right, it did not become you, even at home, to concern yourselves about any laws that might be passed or repealed here." our ancestors thought it not proper that women should perform any, even private, business, without a director, but that they should be ever under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands. we, it seems, suffer them, now, to interfere in the management of state affairs, and to thrust themselves into the forum, into general assemblies, and into assemblies of election: for what are they doing at this moment in your streets and lanes? what, but arguing, some in support of the motion of tribunes; others contending for the repeal of the law? will you give the reins to their intractable nature, and then expect that themselves should set bounds to their licentiousness, and without your interference? this is the smallest of the injunctions laid on them by usage or the laws, all of which women bear with impatience: they long for entire liberty; nay, to speak the truth, not for liberty, but for unbounded freedom in every particular: for what will they not attempt if they now come off victorious? recollect all the institutions respecting the sex, by which our forefathers restrained their profligacy and subjected them to their husbands; and yet, even with the help of all these restrictions, they can scarcely be kept within bounds. if, then, you suffer them to throw these off one by one, to tear them all asunder, and, at last, to be set on an equal footing with yourselves, can you imagine that they will be any longer tolerable? suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors. but, indeed, they only object to any new law being made against them; they mean to deprecate, not justice, but severity. nay, their wish is that a law which you have admitted, established by your suffrages, and found in the practice and experience of so many years to be beneficial, should now be repealed; and that by abolishing one law you should weaken all the rest. no law perfectly suits the convenience of every member of the community; the only consideration is, whether, on the whole, it is profitable to the greater part. if, because a law proves obnoxious to a private individual, it must therefore be cancelled and annulled, to what purpose is it for the community to enact laws, which those, whom they were particularly intended to comprehend, could presently repeal? let us, however, inquire what this important affair is which has induced the matrons thus to run out into public in this indecorous manner, scarcely restraining from pushing into the forum and the assembly of the people. is it to solicit that their parents, their husbands, children, and brothers may be ransomed from captivity under hannibal? by no means: and far be ever from the commonwealth so unfortunate a situation. yet, when such was the case, you refused this to the prayers which, on that occasion, their duty dictated. but it is not duty, nor solicitude for their friends; it is religion that has collected them together. they are about to receive the idaean mother, coming out of phrygia from pessinus. what motive, that even common decency will not allow to be mentioned, is pretended for this female insurrection? hear the answer: that we may shine in gold and purple; that both on festival and common days, we may ride through the city in our chariots, triumphing over vanquished and abrogated law, after having captured and wrested from your suffrages; and that there may be no bounds to our expenses and our luxury. often have you heard me complain of the profuse expenses of the women--often of these of the man; and that not only of men in private stations, but of the magistrates; and that the state was endangered by two opposite vices, luxury and avarice; these pests which have ever been the ruin of every great state. these i dread the more, as the circumstances of the commonwealth grow daily more prosperous and happy; as the empire increases; as we have passed over into greece and asia, places abounding with every kind of temptation that can inflame the passions; and as we have begun to handle even royal treasures; for i greatly fear that these matters will rather bring us into captivity than we them. believe me, those statues from syracuse made their way into this city with hostile effect. i already hear too many commending and admiring the decorations of athens and corinth, and ridiculing the earthen images of our roman gods that stand on the fronts of their temples. for my part, i prefer these gods--propitious as they are, and i hope will continue, if we allow them to remain in their own mansions. in the memory of our fathers, pyrrhus, by his ambassador cineas, made trial of the dispositions, not only of our men, but of our women also, by offers of presents: at that time the oppian law, for restraining female luxury, had not been made; and yet not one woman accepted a present. what, think you, was the reason? that for which our ancestors made no provision by law on this subject: there was no luxury existing which might be restrained. as diseases must necessarily be known before their remedies, so passions come into being before the laws which prescribe limits to them. what called forth the licinian law, restricting estates to five hundred acres, but the unbounded desire of enlarging estates? what the cineian law, concerning gifts and presents, but that the plebeians had become vassals and tributaries to the senate? it is not, therefore, in any degree surprising that no want of the oppian law, or of any other, to limit the expenses of the women, was felt at that time, when they refused to receive gold and purple that was thrown in their way and offered to their acceptance. if cineas were now to go round the city with his presents, he would find numbers of women standing in the public streets ready to receive them. there are some passions the causes or motives of which i can no way account for. to be debarred of a liberty in which another is indulged may perhaps naturally excite some degree of shame or indignation; yet, when the dress of all is alike, what inferiority in appearance can any one be ashamed of? of all kinds of shame, the worst, surely, is the being ashamed of frugality or of poverty; but the law relieves you with regard to both; you want only that which it is unlawful for you to have. this equalization, says the rich matron, is the very thing that i cannot endure. why do i not make a figure, distinguished with gold and purple? why is the poverty of others concealed under this cover of law, so that it should be thought that, if the law permitted, they would have such things as they are not now able to procure? romans, do you wish to excite among your wives an emulation of this sort, that the rich should wish to have what no other can have; and that the poor, lest they should be despised as such, should extend their expenses beyond their abilities? be assured that when a woman once begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of, she will not be ashamed of what she ought. she who can, will purchase out of her own purse; she who cannot, will ask her husband. unhappy is the husband, both he who complies with the request and he who does not; for what he will not give himself, another will. now they openly solicit favors from other women's husbands: and, what is more, solicit a law and votes. from some they obtain them; although, with regard to you, your property, or your children, you would find it hard to obtain anything from them. if the law ceases to limit the expenses of your wife, you yourself will never be able to limit them. do not suppose that the matter will hereafter be in the same state in which it was before the law was made on the subject. it is safer that a wicked man should never be accused than he should be acquitted; and luxury, if it had never been meddled with, would be more tolerable than it will be, now, like a wild beast, irritated by having been chained and then let loose. my opinion is that the oppian law ought on no account to be repealed. whatever determination you may come to, i pray all the gods to prosper it. cato the younger marcus porcius cato, great-grandson of cato the censor, and distinguished from him by being called uticensis, from the city of utica, where he met his death, was born b.c., and died by his own hand in b.c. he resembled his great ancestor in the severity of his opposition to views entertained by others that differed from his own, yet this was somewhat softened by his greek training, which modified greatly the hard and stubborn spirit of the old latin race. he was a brave man, a lover of his country, and a great orator. _on the punishment of the catiline conspirators_ ( b.c.). my feelings, conscript fathers, are extremely different when i contemplate our circumstances and dangers, and when i revolve in my mind the sentiments of some who have spoken before me. those speakers, as it seems to me, have considered only how to punish the traitors who have raised war against their country, their parents, their altars, and their homes; but the state of affairs warns us rather to secure ourselves against them, than to take counsel as to what sentence we should pass upon them. other crimes you may punish after they have been committed; but as to this, unless you prevent its commission, you will, when it has once taken effect, in vain appeal to justice. when the city is taken, no power is left to the vanquished. but, in the name of the immortal gods, i call upon you who have always valued your mansions and villas, your statues and pictures, at a higher price than the welfare of your country, if you wish to preserve those possessions, of whatever kind they are, to which you are attached; if you wish to secure quiet for the enjoyment of your pleasures, arouse yourselves and act in defense of your country. we are not now debating on the revenues, or on injuries done to our allies, but our liberty and our life are at stake. often, conscript fathers, have i spoken at great length in this assembly; often have i complained of the luxury and avarice of our citizens, and, by that very means, have incurred the displeasure of many. i, who never excused to myself, or to my own conscience, the commission of any fault, could not easily pardon the misconduct, or indulge the licentiousness, of others. but though you little regarded my remonstrances, yet the republic remained secure; its own strength was proof against your remissness. the question, however, at present under discussion, is not whether we live in a good or bad state of morals; nor how great, nor how splendid, the empire of the roman people is; but whether these things around us, of whatever value they are, are to continue our own, or to fall, with ourselves, into the hands of the enemy. in such a case, does any one talk to me of gentleness and compassion? for some time past, it is true, we have lost the real names of things; for to lavish the property of others is called generosity, and audacity in wickedness is called heroism, and hence the state is reduced to the brink of ruin. but let those who thus misname things be liberal, since such is the practice, out of the property of our allies; let them be merciful to the robbers of the treasury; but let them not lavish our blood, and, while they spare a few criminals, bring destruction on all the guiltless. caius caesar, a short time ago, spoke in fair and elegant language, before this assembly, on the subject of life and death; considering as false, i suppose, what is told of the dead--that the bad, going a different way from the good, inhabit places gloomy, desolate, dreary, and full of horror. he accordingly proposes that the property of the conspirators should be confiscated, and themselves kept in custody in the municipal towns; fearing, it seems, that, if they remained at rome, they might be rescued either by their accomplices in the conspiracy, or by a hired mob; as if, forsooth, the mischievous and profligate were to be found only in the city, and not through the whole of italy, or as if desperate attempts would not be more likely to succeed where there is less power to resist them. his proposal, therefore, if he fears any danger from them, is absurd; but if, amid such universal terror, he alone is free from alarm, it the more concerns me to fear for you and myself.[ ] be assured, then, that when you decide on the fate of lentulus and the other prisoners, you at the same time determine that of the army of catiline, and of all the conspirators. the more spirit you display in your decision, the more will their confidence be diminished; but if they shall perceive you in the smallest degree irresolute, they will advance upon you with fury. do not suppose that our ancestors, from so small a commencement, raised the republic to greatness merely by force of arms. if such had been the case, we should enjoy it in a most excellent condition; for of allies and citizens, as well as arms and horses, we have a much greater abundance than they had. but there were other things which made them great, but which among us have no existence--such as industry at home, equitable government abroad, and minds impartial in council, uninfluenced by any immoral or improper feeling. instead of such virtues, we have luxury and avarice, public distress and private superfluity; we extol wealth, and yield to indolence; no distinction is made between good men and bad; and ambition usurps the honors due to virtue. nor is this wonderful; since you study each his individual interest, and since at home you are slaves to pleasure, and here to money or favor; and hence it happens that an attack is made on the defenseless state. but on these subjects i shall say no more. certain citizens of the highest rank, have conspired to ruin their country; they are engaging the gauls, the bitterest foes of the roman name, to join in a war against us; the leader of the enemy is ready to make a descent upon us; and do you hesitate, even in such circumstances, how to treat armed incendiaries arrested within your walls? i advise you to have mercy upon them; they are young men who have been led astray by ambition; send them away, even with arms in their hands. but such mercy, and such clemency, if they turn those arms against you, will end in misery to yourselves. the case is, assuredly, dangerous, but you do not fear it; yes, you fear it greatly, but you hesitate now to act, through weakness and want of spirit, waiting one for another, and trusting to the immortal gods, who have so often preserved your country in the greatest dangers. but the protection of the gods is not obtained by vows and effeminate supplications; it is by vigilance, activity, and prudent measures, that general welfare is secured. when you are once resigned to sloth and indolence, it is in vain that you implore the gods; for they are then indignant and threaten vengeance. in the days of our forefathers, titus manlius torquatus, during a war with the gauls, ordered his own son to be put to death because he had fought with an enemy contrary to orders. that noble youth suffered for excess of bravery; and do you hesitate what sentence to pass on the most inhuman of traitors? perhaps their former life is at variance with their present crime. spare, then, the dignity of lentulus, if he has ever spared his own honor or character, or had any regard for the gods or for men. pardon the youth of cethegus, unless this be the second time that he has made war upon his country. as to gabinius, statilius, coeparius, why should i make any remark upon them? had they ever possessed the smallest share of discretion they would never have engaged in such a plot against their country. in conclusion, conscript fathers, if there were time to amend an error, i might easily suffer you, since you disregard words, to be corrected by experience of consequences. but we are beset by dangers on all sides; catiline, with his army, is ready to devour us; while there are other enemies within the walls, and in the heart of the city; nor can any measures be taken, or any plans arranged, without their knowledge. the more necessary is it, therefore, to act with promptitude. what i advise, then, is this: that, since the state, by a treasonable combination of abandoned citizens, has been brought into the greatest peril; and since the conspirators have been convicted on the evidence of titus volturcius, and the deputies of the allobroges, and on their own confession, of having concerted massacres, conflagrations, and other horrible and cruel outrages, against their fellow citizen and their country, punishment be inflicted, according to the usage of our ancestors, on the prisoners who have confessed their guilt, as on the men convicted of capital crimes.[ ] julius caesar caius julius caesar was born about b.c., and died at the hands of brutus, cassius, and their fellow-conspirators in b.c. he was a marvellous man in every respect, achieving almost equal eminence as a solider, a statesman, a man of letters and an orator. he advised against putting to death those who were engaged with catiline in his conspiracy, and had cicero listened to his advice, and refrained from executing lentulus, cethegus, statilius, gabinius, and others, he would have escaped the humiliation of banishment on the charge of unlawfully putting to death a roman citizen. _speech delivered in the roman senate on the treatment of the catiline conspirators._ it becomes all men, conscript fathers, who deliberate on dubious matters, to be influenced neither by hatred, affection, anger, nor pity. the mind, when such feelings obstruct its view, cannot easily see what is right; nor has any human being consulted, at the same moment, his passions and his interest. when the mind is freely exerted, its reasoning is sound; but passion, if it gain possession of it, becomes its tyrant, and reason is powerless. i could easily mention, conscript fathers, numerous examples of kings and nations, who, swayed by resentment or compassion, have adopted injudicious courses of conduct; but i had rather speak of those instances in which our ancestors, in opposition to the impulse of passion, acted with wisdom and sound policy. in the macedonian war, which we carried on against king perses, the great and powerful state of rhodes, which had risen by the aid of the roman people, was faithless and hostile to us; yet, when the war was ended, and the conduct of the rhodians was taken into consideration, our forefathers left them unmolested, lest any should say that war was made upon them for the sake of seizing their wealth, rather than of punishing their faithlessness. throughout the punic wars, too, through the carthaginians, both during peace and in suspension of arms, were guilty of many acts of injustice, yet our ancestors never took occasion to retaliate, but considered rather what was worthy of themselves than what might justly be inflicted on their enemies. similar caution, conscript fathers, is to be observed by yourselves, that the guilt of lentulus, and the other conspirators, may not have greater weight with you than your own dignity, and that you may not regard your indignation more than your character. if indeed, a punishment adequate to their crimes be discovered, i consent to extraordinary measures; but if the enormity of their crime exceeds whatever can be devised, i think that we should inflict only such penalties as the laws have provided. most of those who have given their opinions before me have deplored, in studied and impressive language, the sad fate that threatens the republic; they have recounted the barbarities of war, and the afflictions that would fall on the vanquished; they have told us that maidens would be dishonored, and youths abused; that children would be torn from the embraces of their parents; that matrons would be subjected to the pleasure of the conquerors; that temples and dwelling-houses would be plundered; that massacres and fires would follow; and that every place would be filled with arms, corpses, blood, and lamentations. but to what end, in the name of the eternal gods! was such eloquence directed? was it intended to render you indignant at the conspiracy? a speech, no doubt, will inflame him whom so frightful and monstrous a reality has not provoked! far from it: for to no man does evil, directly against himself, appear a light matter; many, on the contrary, have felt it more seriously than was right. but to different persons, conscript fathers, different degrees of license are allowed. if those who pass a life sunk in obscurity commit any error, through excessive anger, few become aware of it, for their fame is as limited as their fortune; but of those who live invested with extensive power, and in an exalted station, the whole world knows the proceedings. thus in the highest position there is the least liberty of action; and it becomes us to indulge neither partiality nor aversion, but least of all animosity; for what in others is called resentment is in the powerful termed violence and cruelty. i am, indeed, of opinion, conscript fathers, that the utmost degree of torture is inadequate to punish their crime; but the generality of mankind dwell on that which happens last, and, in the case of malefactors, forget their guilt, and talk of their punishment, should that punishment have been inordinately severe. i feel assured, too, that decimus silanus, a man of spirit and resolution, made the suggestions which he offered, from zeal for the state, and that he had no view, in so important a matter, to favor or to enmity; such i know to be his character, and such his discretion. yet his proposal appears to me, i will not say cruel (for what can be cruel that is directed against such characters?), but foreign to our policy. for, assuredly, silanus, either your fears, or their treason, must have induced you, a consul-elect, to propose this new kind of punishment. of fear it is unnecessary to speak, when, by the prompt activity of that distinguished man our consul, such numerous forces are under arms; and as to the punishment, we may say, what is, indeed, the truth, that in trouble and distress death is a relief from suffering, and not a torment; that it puts an end to all human woes; and that, beyond it, there is no place either for sorrow or joy. but why, in the name of the immortal gods, did you not add to your proposal, silanus, that, before they were put to death they should be punished with the scourge? was it because the porcian law forbids it? but other laws forbid condemned citizens to be deprived of life, and allow them to go into exile. or was it because scourging is a severer penalty than death? yet what can be too severe, or too harsh, toward men convicted of such an offence? but if scourging be a milder punishment than death, how is it consistent to observe the law as to the smaller point, when you disregard it as to the greater? but who, it may be asked, will blame any severity that shall be decreed against these parricides of their country? i answer that time, the course of events, and fortune, whose caprice governs nations, may blame it. whatever shall fall on the traitors, will fall on them justly; but it is for you, conscript fathers, to consider well what you resolve to inflict on others. all precedents productive of evil effects had their origin from what was good; but when a government passes into the hands of the ignorant and unprincipled, any new example of severity, inflicted on deserving and suitable objects, is extended to those that are improper and undeserving of it. the lacedaemonians, when they had conquered the athenians, appointed thirty men to govern their state. these thirty began their administration by putting to death, even without a trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the people rejoiced, and extolled their justice. but afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy penalty for its imprudent exultation. within our own memory, too, when the victorious sylla ordered damasippus, and others of similar character, who had risen by distressing their country, to be put to death, who did not commend the proceeding? all exclaimed that wicked and factious men, who had troubled the state with their seditious practices, had justly forfeited their lives. yet this proceeding was the commencement of great bloodshed. for whenever any one coveted the mansion or villa, or even the plate or apparel of another, he exerted his influence to have him numbered among the proscribed. thus they, to whom the death of damasippus had been a subject of joy, were soon after dragged to death themselves; nor was there any cessation of slaughter, until sylla had glutted all his partisans with riches. such excesses, indeed, i do not fear from marcus tullius, or in these times. but in a large state there arise many men of various dispositions. at some other period, and under another consul, who, like the present, may have an army at his command, some false accusation may be credited as true; and when, with our example for a precedent, the consul shall have drawn the sword on the authority of the senate, who shall stay its progress, or moderate its fury? our ancestors, conscript fathers, were never deficient in conduct or courage; nor did pride prevent them from imitating the customs of other nations, if they appeared deserving of regard. their armor, and weapons of war, they borrowed from the samnites; their ensigns of authority, for the most part, from the etrurians; and, in short, whatever appeared eligible to them, whether among allies or among enemies, they adopted at home with the greatest readiness, being more inclined to emulate merit than to be jealous of it. but at the same time, adopting a practice from greece, they punished their citizens with the scourge, and inflicted capital punishment on such as were condemned. when the republic, however, became powerful, and faction grew strong from the vast number of citizens, men began to involve the innocent in condemnation, and other like abuses were practiced; and it was then that the porcian and other laws were provided, by which condemned citizens were allowed to go into exile. this lenity of our ancestors, conscript fathers, i regard as a very strong reason why we should not adopt any new measures of severity. for assuredly there was greater merit and wisdom in those, who raised so mighty an empire from humble means than in us, who can scarcely preserve what they so honorably acquired. am i of opinion, then, you will ask, that the conspirators should be set free, and that the army of catiline should thus be increased? far from it; my recommendation is, that their property be confiscated, and that they themselves be kept in custody in such of the municipal towns as are best able to bear the expense; that no one hereafter bring their case before the senate, or speak on it to the people; and that the senate now give their opinion that he who shall act contrary to this, will act against the republic and general safety. catiline lucius sergius catilina (catiline), who is best known for his conspiracy against the government of rome, was born about the year b.c., and was killed in the battle of faesulae, italy, in b.c. he was a man of dissolute habits, devoid of any moral sense, a murderer, and a traitor, yet he was a brave soldier and an able orator. in catiline's time the lower classes were in a wretched state of poverty and had strong reasons for discontent with the government. this fact catiline seized upon with masterly effect, for through it a free pardon and large rewards were offered to all who would desert his cause and testify regarding the conspiracy, not one of catiline's followers betrayed him. catiline failed, not through the weakness of his cause, nor for his lack of ability, but because of the utter worthlessness of his character. _speech to the conspirators._ if your courage and fidelity has not been sufficiently proved by me, this favorable opportunity would have occurred to no purpose; mighty hopes, absolute power, would in vain be within our grasp; nor should i, depending on irresolution or fickle-mindedness, pursue contingencies instead of certainties. but as i have, on so many remarkable occasions, experienced your bravery and attachment to me, i have ventured to engage in a most important and glorious enterprise. i am aware, too, that whatever advantages or evils affect you, the same affect me; and to have the same desires and the same aversions is assuredly a firm bond of friendship. what i have been meditating you have already heard separately. but my ardor for action is daily more and more excited when i consider what our future condition of life must be unless we ourselves assert our claims to liberty. for, since the government has fallen under the power and jurisdiction of a few, kings and princes have constantly been their tributaries; nations and states have paid them taxes; but all the rest of us, however brave and worthy, whether noble or plebeian, have been regarded as a mere mob, without interest or authority, and subject to those to whom, if the state were in a sound condition, we should be a terror. hence all influence, power, honor, and wealth, are in their hands, or where they dispose of them; to us, they have left only insults, dangers, persecutions, and poverty. to such indignities, o bravest of men, how long will you submit? is it not better to die in a glorious attempt, than, after having been the derision of other men's insolence, to resign a wretched and degraded existence with ignominy? but success (i call gods and men to witness) is in our own hands. our years are fresh, our spirit is unbroken; among our oppressors, on the contrary, through age and wealth a general debility has been produced. we have, therefore, only to make a beginning; the course of events will accomplish the rest. who in the world, indeed, that has the feelings of a man, can endure that they should have a superfluity of riches, to squander in building over seas and levelling mountains, and that means should be wanting to us even for the necessaries of life; that they should join together two houses or more, and that we should not have a hearth to call our own? they, though they purchase pictures, statues, and embossed plate; though they pull down new buildings and erect others, and lavish and abuse their wealth in every possible method, yet cannot, with the utmost efforts of caprice, exhaust it. but for us there is poverty at home, debts abroad; our present circumstances are bad, our prospects much worse; and what, in a word, have we left, but a miserable existence? will you not, then, awake to action? behold that liberty, that liberty for which you have so often wished, with wealth, honor, and glory, are set before your eyes. all these prizes fortune offers to the victorious. let the enterprise itself, then, let the opportunity, let your property, your dangers, and the glorious spoils of war, animate you far more than my words. use me either as your leader or your fellow solider; neither my heart nor my hand shall be wanting to you. these objects i hope to effect, in concert with you, in the character of consul; unless, indeed, my expectation deceives me, and you prefer to be slaves rather than masters. _speech to his troops._ i am well aware, soldiers, that words cannot inspire courage, and that a spiritless army cannot be rendered active, or a timid army valiant, by the speech of its commander. whatever courage is in the heart of a man, whether from nature or from habit, so much will be shown by him in the field; and on him whom neither glory nor danger can move, exhortation is bestowed in vain; for the terror in his breast stops his ears. i have called you together, however, to give you a few instructions, and to explain to you, at the same time, my reasons for the course which i have adopted. you all know, soldiers, how severe a penalty the inactivity and cowardice of lentulus has brought upon himself and us; and how, while awaiting reinforcements from the city, i was unable to march into gaul. in what situation our affairs now are, you will understand as well as myself. two armies of the enemy, one on the side of rome and the other on that of gaul, oppose our progress; while the want of corn and of other necessaries prevents us from remaining, however strongly we may desire to remain, in our present position. whithersoever we would go, we must open a passage with our swords. i conjure you, therefore, to maintain a brave and resolute spirit; and to remember, when you advance to battle, that on your own right hands depend riches, honor, and glory, with the enjoyment of your liberty and of your country. if we conquer, all will be safe, we shall have possessions in abundance; and the colonies and corporate towns will open their gates to us. but if we lose the victory through want of courage, those same places will turn against us, for neither place nor friend will protect him whom his arms have not protected. besides, soldiers, the same exigency does not press upon our adversaries as presses upon us; we fight for our country, for our liberty, for our life; they contend for what but little concerns them, the power of a small party. attack them, therefore, with so much the greater confidence, and call to mind your achievements of old. we might, with the utmost ignominy, have passed the rest of our days in exile. some of you, after losing your property, might have waited at rome for assistance from others. but because such a life, to men of spirit, was disgusting and unendurable, you resolved upon your present course. if you wish to quit it, you must exert all your resolution, for none but conquerors have exchanged war for peace. to hope for safety in flight when you have turned away from the enemy the arms by which the body is defended is indeed madness. in battle those who are most afraid are always in most danger; but courage is equivalent to a rampart. when i contemplate you, soldiers, and when i consider your past exploits, a strong hope of victory animates me. your spirit, your age, your valor, give me confidence; to say nothing of necessity, which makes even cowards brave. to prevent the numbers of the enemy from surrounding us, our confined situation is sufficient. but should fortune be unjust to your valor, take care not to lose your lives unavenged; take care not to be taken and butchered like cattle, rather than, fighting like men, to leave to your enemies a bloody and mournful victory. cicero marcus tullius cicero, the greatest of the roman orators, and one of the foremost orators of all times, was born at arpinum, on the northern border of the volscian territory, b.c., and was killed by order of marc antony at the close of the year b.c. thus passed away, at the age of sixty-three, one of the most illustrious statesmen and the most eloquent orator that the vast empire of rome produced. cicero lived in a venal age, yet he escaped contamination. he was a politician, yet he rarely stooped to the trickery of the ancient politicians. only in two instances did he fall below the high standard of manliness up to which all must measure who would be esteemed patriots: once, when he combined with catiline, a notoriously corrupt and ruined character, for the consulship; and again, in turning from pompey and crooking "the pregnant hinges of the knee" to caesar when that warrior's star commenced to climb toward the zenith of his fame. a weak trait in cicero's character was shown in his behavior during banishment. instead of bearing up bravely against the injustice of his enemies, strong in the consciousness of his own rectitude, he cringingly besought clemency and begged to be permitted to return to rome, thus tacitly admitting that there had been just grounds for his banishment. despite these failings, he was a truly great man who did much for his country and the world. much of his spoken and written matter has come down to us and authentic information concerning his education, his style of oratory, the manner of his life, and his views of men and questions are to be had at first hand. he is not shrouded in mystery, as are many great men of a much nearer period, but he can be as clearly perceived by the student of today as he was by his contemporaries--in fact, clearer, because the picture is not now, as it was then, blurred by the excessive praise of friends nor the calumnies of enemies. all through his life cicero worked to fit himself for adequately filling such positions of honor and renown as he sought, and he finally became the most perfect specimen of the roman of the governing class. as a youth he was under the instruction of the famous orator crassus, and he read the poets and orators of greece under the guidance of the greek poet archias, then a teacher at rome, during the early period of his schooling. he studied the roman national law and ritual under the two scaevolas, as he desired a thorough knowledge of these things in order that he might become a successful advocate. he also studied under philo, the chief of the academics, diodotus the stoic, and milo the philosopher. he commenced his career as an advocate when twenty-six years of age by a civil cause in the speech _pro quinctio,_ and in the following year he undertook a criminal cause in the action brought against roscius amerinus. soon after this he went to athens and diligently studied the art of declamation under the best masters. some claim that cicero was not original in his matter nor his manner; that he spent too much time studying the works and methods of others; but be this as it may, he certainly became wonderfully proficient in gathering the matter and presenting it in a manner that was marvelously impressive and successful. he was undoubtedly the best prepared orator that the world has ever known; and as a speaker he was always master of himself, his subject, and his audience. _the first oration against verres_ ( b.c.). that which was above all things to be desired, o judges, and which above all things was calculated to have the greatest influence toward allaying the unpopularity of your order, and putting an end to the discredit into which your judicial decisions have fallen, appears to have been thrown in your way, and given to you not by any human contrivance, but almost by the interposition of the gods, at a most important crisis of the republic. for an opinion has now become established, pernicious to us and pernicious to the public, which has been the common talk of every one, not only at rome, but among foreign nations also--that in the courts of law as they exist at present, no wealthy man, however guilty he may be, can possibly be convicted. now at this time of peril to your order and to your tribunal, when men are ready to attempt by harangues, and by the proposal of new laws, to increase the existing unpopularity of the senate, caius verres is brought to trial as a criminal--a man condemned in the opinion of every one by his life and actions, but acquitted by the enormousness of his wealth according to his own hope and boast. i, o judges, have undertaken this cause as prosecutor with the greatest good wishes and expectation on the part of the roman people, not in order to increase the unpopularity of the senate, but to relieve it from the discredit which i share with it. for i have brought before you a man, by acting justly in whose case you have an opportunity of retrieving the lost credit of your judicial proceedings, of regaining your credit with the roman people, and of giving satisfaction to foreign nations; a man, the embezzler of public funds, the petty tyrant of asia and pamphylia, the robber who deprived the city of its rights, the disgrace and ruin of the province of sicily. and if you come to a decision about this man with severity and a due regard to your oaths, that authority which ought to remain in you will cling to you still; but if that man's vast riches shall break down the sanctity and honesty of the courts of justice, at least i shall achieve this, that it shall be plain that it was rather honest judgment that was wanting to the republic, than a criminal to the judges or an accuser to the criminal. i, indeed, that i may confess to you the truth about myself, o judges, though many snares were laid for me by caius verres, both by land and sea, which i partly avoided by my own vigilance, and partly warded off by the zeal and kindness of my friends, yet i never seemed to be incurring so much danger, and i never was in such a state of great apprehension as i am now in this very court of law. nor does the expectation which people have formed of my conduct of this prosecution, nor this concourse of so vast a magnitude as is here assembled, influence me (though indeed i am greatly agitated by these circumstances) so much as his nefarious plots which he is endeavoring to lay at one and the same time against me, against you, against marcus glabrio, the praetor, and against the allies, against foreign nations, against the senate, and even against the very name of senator; whose favorite saying it is that they have got to fear who have stolen only as much as is enough for themselves, but that he has stolen so much that it may easily be plenty for many; that nothing is so holy that it can not be corrupted, or so strongly fortified that it can not be stormed by money. but if he were as secret in acting as he is audacious in attempting; perhaps in some particular he might some time or other have escaped our notice. but it happens very fortunately that to his incredible audacity there is joined a most unexampled folly. for as he was unconcealed in committing his robberies of money, so in his hope of corrupting the judges he has made his intentions and endeavors visible to every one. he says that only once in his life has he felt fear at the time when he was first impeached as a criminal by me; because he was only lately arrived from his province, and was branded with unpopularity and infamy, not modern but ancient and of long standing; and, besides that, the time was unlucky, being very ill suited for corrupting the judges. therefore, when i had demanded a very short time to prosecute my inquiries in sicily, he found a man to ask for two days less to make investigations in achaia; not with any real intention of doing the same with his diligence and industry, that i have accomplished by my labor, and daily and nightly investigations. for the achaean inquisitor never even arrived at brundusium. i in fifty days so traveled over the whole of sicily that i examined into the records and injuries of all the tribes and of all private individuals, so that it was easily visible to every one that he had been seeking out a man not really for the purpose of bringing the defendant whom he accused to trial, but merely to occupy the time which ought to belong to me. now that most audacious and most senseless man thinks this. he is aware that i am come into court so thoroughly prepared and armed that i shall fix all his thefts and crimes not only in your ears, but in the very eyes of all men. he sees that many senators are witnesses of his audacity; he sees that many roman knights are so, too, and many citizens, and many of the allies besides to whom he has done unmistakable injuries. he sees also that very numerous and very important deputations have come here at the same time from friendly cities, armed with the public authority and evidence collected by their states. in truth, what genius is there so powerful, what faculty of speaking, what eloquence so mighty, as to be in any particular able to defend the life of that man convicted as it is of so many vices and crimes, and long since condemned by the inclinations and private sentiments of every one. and, to say nothing of the stains and disgraces of his youth, what other remarkable event is there in his questorship, that first step to honor, except that cnaeus carbo was robbed by his questor of the public money? that the consul was plundered and betrayed? his army deserted? his province abandoned? the holy nature and obligations imposed on him by lot violated? whose lieutenancy was the ruin of all asia and pamphylia, in which provinces he plundered many houses, very many cities, all the shrines and temples; when he renewed and repeated against cnaeus dolabella his ancient wicked tricks when he had been questor, and did not only in his danger desert, but even attack and betray the man to whom he had been lieutenant, and proquaestor, and whom he had brought into odium by his crimes; whose city praetorship was the destruction of the sacred temples and the public works, and, as to his legal decisions, was the adjudging and awarding of property contrary to all established rules and precedents. but now he has established great and numerous monuments and proofs of all his vices in the province of sicily, which he for three years so harassed and ruined that it can by no possibility be restored to its former condition, and appears scarcely able to be at all recovered after a long series of years, and a long succession of virtuous praetors. while this man was praetor the sicilians enjoyed neither their own laws nor the decrees of our senate, nor the common rights of every nation. every one in sicily has only so much left as either escaped the notice or was disregarded by the satiety of that most avaricious and licentious man. no legal decision for three years was given on any other ground but his will; no property was so secure to any man, even if it had descended to him from his father and grandfather, but he was deprived of it at his command; enormous sums of money were exacted from the property of the cultivators of the soil by a new and nefarious system. the most faithful of the allies were classed in the number of enemies. roman citizens were tortured and put to death like slaves; the greatest criminals were acquitted in the courts of justice through bribery; the most upright and honorable men, being prosecuted while absent, were condemned and banished without being heard in their own defense; the most fortified harbors, the greatest and strongest cities, were laid open to pirates and robbers; the sailors and soldiers of the sicilians, our own allies and friends, died of hunger; the best built fleets on the most important stations were lost and destroyed, to the great disgrace of the roman people. this same man while praetor plundered and stripped those most ancient monuments, some erected by wealthy monarchs and intended by them as ornaments for their cities; some, too, the work of our own generals, which they either gave or restored as conquerors to the different states in sicily. and he did this not only in the case of public statues and ornaments, but he also plundered all the temples consecrated in the deepest religious feelings of the people. he did not leave, in short, one god to the sicilians which appeared to him to be made in a tolerable workmanlike manner, and with any of the skill of the ancients. i am prevented by actual shame from speaking of his nefarious licentiousness as shown in rapes and other such enormities; and i am unwilling also to increase the distress of those men who have been unable to preserve their children and their wives unpolluted by his wanton lust. but, you will say, these things were done by him in such a manner as not to be notorious to all men. i think there is no man who has heard his name who cannot also relate wicked actions of his; so that i ought rather to be afraid of being thought to omit many of his crimes, than to invent any charges against him. and, indeed, i do not think that this multitude which has collected to listen to me wishes so much to learn of me what the facts of the case are, as to go over it with me, refreshing its recollection of what it knows already. and as this is the case, that senseless and profligate man attempts to combat me in another manner. he does not seek to oppose the eloquence of any one else to me; he does not rely on the popularity, or influence, or authority, of any one. he pretends that he trusts to those things; but i see what he is really aiming at (and indeed he is not acting with any concealment). he sets before me empty titles of nobility--that is to say, the names of arrogant men, who do not hinder me so much by being noble, as assist me by being notorious; he pretends to rely on their protection, when he has in reality been contriving something else this long time. what hope he now has, and what he is endeavoring to do, i will now briefly explain to you, o judges. but first of all, remark, i beg you, how the matter has been arranged by him from the beginning. when he first returned from the province he endeavored to get rid of his prosecution by corrupting the judges at a great expense; and this object he continued to keep in view till the conclusion of the appointment of the judges. after the judges were appointed, because in drawing lots for them the fortune of the roman people had defeated his hopes, and in the rejecting some my diligence had defeated his impudence, the whole attempt at bribery was abandoned. the affair was now going on admirably; lists of your names and of the whole tribunal were in every one's hands. it did not seem possible to mark the votes of these men with any distinguishing mark or color or spot of dirt; and that fellow, from having been brisk and in high spirits, became on a sudden so downcast and humbled that he seemed to be condemned not only by the roman people but even by himself. but lo! all of a sudden, within these few days, since the consular comitia have taken place, he has gone back to his original plan with more money, and the same plots are now laid against your reputation and against the fortunes of every one, by the instrumentality of the same people; which fact at first, o judges, was pointed out by me by a very slight hint and indication; but afterward, when my suspicions were once aroused, i arrived at the knowledge of all the most secret counsels of that party without any mistake. for as hortensius, the consul-elect, was being attended home again from the campus by a great concourse and multitude of people, caius curio fell in with that multitude by chance--a man whom i wish to name by way of honor rather than disparagement. i will tell you what if he had been unwilling to have it mentioned, he would not have spoken of in so large an assembly so openly and undisguisedly; which, however, shall be mentioned by me deliberately and cautiously, that it may be seen that i pay due regard to our friendship and to his dignity. he sees verres in the crowd by the arch of fabius,[ ] he speaks to the man, and with a loud voice congratulates him on his victory. he does not say a word to hortensius himself, who had been made consul, or to his friends and relations who were present attending on him; but he stops to speak to this man, embraces him, and bids him cast off all anxiety. "i give you notice," said he, "that you have been acquitted by this day's comitia." and as many most honorable men heard this, it is immediately reported to me the first thing. to some it appeared scandalous, to others, again, ridiculous--ridiculous to those who thought that this case depended on the credibility of the witnesses, on the importance of the charges, and on the power of the judges, and not on the consular comitia; scandalous to those who looked deeper, and who thought and this congratulation had reference to the corruption of the judges. in truth, they argued in this manner--the most honorable men spoke to one another and to me in this manner--that there were now manifestly and undeniably no courts of justice at all. the very criminal who the day before thought that he was already condemned, is acquitted, now that his defender has been made consul. what are we to think then? will it avail nothing at all sicily, all the sicilians, that all the merchants who have business in that country, that if the consul-elect wills it otherwise. what! will not the judges be influenced by the accusation, by the evidence, by the universal opinion of the roman people? no. everything will be governed by the power and authority of one man. in the meantime my comitia began to be held; of which that fellow thought himself the master, as he had been of all the other comitia this year. he began to run about, that influential man, with his son, a youth of engaging and popular manners, among the tribes. the son began to address and to call on all the friends of his father--that is to say, all his agents--for bribery; and when this was noticed and perceived, the roman people took care with the most earnest good will that i should not be deprived of my honor through the money of that man, whose riches had not been able to make me violate my good faith. after that i was released from the great anxiety about my canvass, i began, with a mind much more unoccupied and much more at ease, to think of nothing and to do nothing except what related to this trial. i find, o judges, these plans formed and begun to be put in execution by them to protract the matter, whatever steps it might be necessary to take in order to do so, so that the cause might be pleaded before marcus metellus as praetor. that by doing so they would have these advantages: firstly, that marcus metellus was most friendly to them; secondly, that not only would hortensius be consul, but quintus metellus also; and listen while i show you how a great a friend he is to them. for he gave him a token of his good will of such a sort that he seemed to be giving it as a return for the suffrages of the tribes which he had secured to him. did you think that i would say nothing of such serious matters as these? and that, at a crisis of such danger to the republic and my own character, i would consult anything rather than my duty and my dignity? the other consul-elect sent for the sicilians; some came, because lucius metellus was praetor in sicily. to them he speaks in this manner: that he is the consul; that one of his brothers has sicily for a province; that the other is to be judge in all prosecutions for extortion; and that care had been taken in many ways that there should be no possibility of verres being injured. i ask you, metellus, what is corrupting the course of justice, if this is not--to seek to frighten witnesses, and especially sicilians, timid and oppressed men, not only by your own private influence, but by their fear of the consul, and by the power of two praetors? what could you do for an innocent man or for a relation, when for the sake of a most guilty one, entirely unconnected with you, you depart from your duty and your dignity, and allow what he is constantly saying to appear true to any one who is not acquainted with you? for they said that verres said that you had not been made consul by destiny, as the rest of your family had been, but by his assistance. two consuls, therefore, and the judge are to be such because of his will. we shall not only, says he, avoid having a man too scrupulous in investigating, too subservient to the opinion of the people, marcus glabrio, but we shall have this advantage also: marcus caesonius is the judge, the colleague of your accuser, a man of tried and proved experience in the decision of actions. it will never do for us to have such a man as that on the bench, which we are endeavoring to corrupt by some means or other; for before, when he was one of the judges on the tribunal of which junius was president, he was not only very indignant at the shameful transaction, but he even betrayed and denounced it. but as for what i had begun to say--namely, that the contest is between you and me, this is it--i, when i had undertaken this cause at the request of the sicilians, and had thought it a very honorable and glorious thing for me that they were willing to make experiment of my integrity and diligence, who already knew by experience my innocence and temperance: then, when i had undertaken this business, i proposed to myself some greater action also by which the roman people should be able to see my good will toward the republic. for that seemed to me to be by no means worthy of my industry and efforts, for that man to be brought to trial by me who had already condemned by the judgment of all men, unless that intolerable influence of yours, and that grasping nature which you have displayed for some years in many trials, were interposed also in the case of that desperate man. but now, since all this dominion and sovereignty of yours over the courts of justice delights you so much, and since there are some men who are neither ashamed of their licentiousness and their infamy, nor weary of it, and who, as if on purpose, seem to wish to encounter hatred and unpopularity from the roman people, i profess that i have undertaken this, a great burden perhaps, and one dangerous to myself, but still worthy of my applying myself to it with all the vigor of my age, and all diligence. and since the whole order of the senate is weighed down by the discredit brought on it by the wickedness and audacity of a few, and is overwhelmed by the infamy of the tribunals, i profess myself an enemy to this race of men, an accuser worthy of their hatred, a persevering, a bitter adversary. i arrogate this to myself, i claim this for myself, and i will carry out this enmity in my magistracy, and from that post in which the roman people have willed that from the next first of january i shall act in concert with it in matters concerning the republic, and concerning wicked men. i promise the roman people that this shall be the most honorable and the fairest employment of my aedileship. i warn, i forewarn, i give notice beforehand to those men who are wont either to put money down, to undertake for others, to receive money, or to promise money, or to act as agents in bribery, or as go-betweens in corrupting the seat of judgment, and who have promised their influence or their impudence in aid of such a business, in this trial to keep their hands and inclination from this nefarious wickedness. and what do you suppose will be my thoughts, if i find in this very trial any violation of the laws committed in any similar manner? especially when i can prove by many witnesses that caius verres often said in sicily, in the hearing of many persons, "that he had a powerful friend, in confidence with whom he was plundering the province; and that he had so distributed the three years of his sicilian praetorship that should say he did exceedingly well, if he appropriated the gains of one year to the augmentation of his own property, those of the second year to his patrons and defenders, and reserved the whole of the third year, the most productive and gainful of all, for the judges." from which it came into my mind to say that which, when i had said lately before marcus glabrio at the time of striking the list of judges, i perceived the roman people greatly moved by: that i thought that foreign nations would send ambassadors to the roman people to procure the abrogation of the law, and of all trials, about extortion; for if there were no trials, they think that each man would only plunder them of as much as he would think sufficient for himself and his children; but now, because there are trials of that sort, every one carries off as much as it will take to satisfy himself, his patrons, his advocates, the praetor, and the judges; and that this is an enormous sum; that they may be able to satisfy the cupidity of one most avaricious man, but are quite unable to incur the expense of his most guilty victory over the laws. o trials worthy of being recorded! o splendid reputation of our order! when the allies of the roman people are unwilling that trials for extortion should take place, which were instituted by our ancestors for the sake of all allies. would that man ever have had a favorable hope of his own safety, if he had not conceived in his mind a bad opinion of you? on which account, he ought, if possible, to be still more hated by you than he is by the roman people, because he considers you like himself in avarice and wickedness and perjury. and i beg you, in the name of the immortal gods, o judges, think of and guard against this; i warn you, i give notice to you of what i am well assured, that this most seasonable opportunity has been given to you by the favor of the gods, for the purpose of delivering your whole order from hatred, from unpopularity, from infamy, and from disgrace. there is no severity believed to exist in the tribunals, nor any scruples with regard to religion; in short, there are not believed to be any tribunals at all. therefore we are despised and scorned by the roman people; we are branded with a heavy and now long standing infamy. nor, in fact, is there any other reason for which the roman people has with so much earnestness sought the restoration of the tribunician power: but when it was demanding that in words, it seemed to be asking for that, but in reality it was asking for tribunals which it could trust. but now men on the watch-towers; they observe how every one of you behaves himself in respecting religion and observing the laws. they see that, ever since the passing of the law for restoring the power of the tribunes, only one senator, and he, too, a very insignificant one, has been condemned. and though they do not blame this, yet they have nothing which they can very much command. for there is no credit in being upright in a case where there is no one who is either able or who endeavors to corrupt one. this is a trial in which you will be deciding about the defendant, the roman people about you; by the example of what happens to this man it will be determined whether, when senators are the judges, a very guilty and a very rich man can be condemned. on which account, in the first place, i beg this of the immortal gods, which i seem to myself to have hopes of, too--that in this trial no one may be found to be wicked except he who has long since been found to be such; secondly, if there are many wicked men, i promise this to you, o judges, i promise this to the roman people, that my life shall fail rather than my vigor and perseverance in prosecuting their iniquity. but that iniquity, which if it should be committed, i promise to prosecute severely, with however much trouble and danger to myself, and whatever enmities i may bring on myself by doing so, you, o marcus glabrio, can guard against ever taking place by your wisdom, and authority, and diligence. do you undertake the cause of the tribunals? do you undertake the cause of impartiality, of integrity, of good faith and religion? do you undertake the cause of the senate, that, being proved worthy by its conduct in this trial, it may come into favor and popularity with the roman people? think who you are and in what a situation you are placed; what you ought to give to the roman people and what you ought to repay to your ancestors. let the recollection of the acilian law passed by your father occur to your mind, owing to which law the roman people has had this advantage of most admirable decisions and very strict judges in cases of extortion. i am resolved not to permit the praetor or the judges to be changed in this cause. i will not permit the matter to be delayed till the lictors of the consuls can go and summon the sicilians, whom the servants of the consuls-elect did not influence before, when by an unprecedented course of proceeding they sent for them all; i will not permit these miserable men, formerly the allies and friends of the roman people, now their slaves and supplicants, to lose not only their rights and fortunes by their tyranny, but to be deprived of even the power of bewailing their condition; i will not, i say, when the cause has been summed up by me, permit them after a delay of forty days has intervened, then at last to reply to me when my accusation has already fallen into oblivion through lapse of time; i will not permit the decision to be given when this crowd collected from all italy has departed from rome, which has assembled from all quarters at the same time on account of the comitia, of the games, and of the census. the reward of the credit gained by your decision, or the danger arising from the unpopularity which will accrue to you if you decide unjustly, i think ought to belong to you; the labor and anxiety to me; the knowledge of what is done and the recollection of what has been said by every one, to all. i will adopt this course, not an unprecedented one, but one that has been adopted before, by this who are now the chief men of our state--the course, i mean, of at once producing the witnesses. what you will find novel, o judges, is this, that i will so marshal my witnesses as to unfold the whole of my accusation; that when i have established it by examining my witnesses, by arguments, and by my speech, then i shall show the agreement of the evidence with my accusation: so that there shall be no difference between the established mode of prosecuting, and this new one, except that, according to the established mode, when everything has been said which is to be said, then the witnesses are produced; here they shall be produced as each count is brought forward, so that the other side shall have the same opportunity of examining them, of arguing and making speeches on their evidence. if there be any one who prefers an uninterrupted speech and the old mode of conducting a prosecution without any break, he shall have it in some other trial. but for this time let him understand that what we do is done by us on compulsion (for we only do it with the design of opposing the artifice of the opposite party by our prudence). this will be the first part of the prosecution. we say that caius verres has not only done many licentious acts, many cruel ones, toward roman citizens, and toward some of the allies, many wicked acts against both gods and man; but especially that he has taken away four hundred thousand sesterces out of sicily contrary to the laws. we will make this so plain to you by witnesses, by private documents, and by public records, that you shall decide that, even if we had abundant space and leisure days for making a long speech without any inconvenience, still there was no need at all of a long speech in this matter. footnotes: [ ] this is the famous passage in which cato intimated that caesar was in some manner allied with the conspirators. [ ] a decree of the senate was made in accordance with this advice. [ ] this arch, as explained in a note to mr. yonge's translation, had been erected to commemorate the victory obtained by fabius over the allobroges; and it was erected in the via sacra, as cicero mentions in his speech _pro plancio._ chapter ix the modern orators the need of orators is as great today as when john hampden spoke against the exactions of charles i, james otis argued against writs of assistance, or daniel webster expounded the constitution of his country. the need is here, but where are the orators? questions of great moment now confront america and the world, but there is no demosthenes to arouse men to the necessity of action, no cicero to drive out the traitor injustice, no patrick henry to consolidate the forces of liberty. the power of the newspaper is great, and today it is doing noble work for progress; but this power can be used, and is being used, for evil as well as for good. a subsidized press is as dangerous as a catiline or an aeschines, and government by newspapers is as tyrannous as was the rule of nero, louis xi, or george iii. the questions of the tariff, the trusts, finance, religion, education, and civic justice are burning, vital ones that closely affect the well-being of man on earth and his preparation for a larger existence in a hopeful spiritual future, and they should be plainly and honestly presented, clearly discussed, and justly settled. these results cannot be reached through papers that are owned by the great financiers and trust magnates, and where the complaints and demands of the people receive scant consideration. wherein, then, lie the hopes of the masses? in the power of the spoken word. all great reforms, through all ages, have been brought about by the voiced thoughts of men who not only knew their rights but had the courage that gave them the ability to enforce them. a band of noble missionaries should be created, composed of men and women who not only have ideas concerning the questions of today but who know how to express those ideas by word of mouth. the eighteenth century produced oratorical giants that were undoubtedly equal in many cases to the orators of greece and rome in their palmiest days. such men as the earl of chatham, charles james fox, henry grattan, lord brougham, thomas erskine, and william c. plunket of great britain, and james otis, samuel adams, alexander hamilton, patrick henry, and richard henry lee of america, compare favorably with any group of ancient orators existing within a like period of time; while in behalf of the nineteenth century, america boasts of pinckney, prentiss, wirt, clay, calhoun, everett, choate, phillips, lincoln, and webster, and great britain points to gladstone, cobden, curran, o'connell, and bright. the great rhetorician burke is not placed among the foremost orators for the reason that he was a great constructor of speeches but not equally great in the art of delivery. his speeches are masterpieces of composition, and live today as such, but he was a poor speaker, and consequently should not be called an orator, because an orator, in the true sense of the word, is primarily a speaker, whereas burke's genius consisted of his masterly logic and his marvellous power of composition. today, america has many beautiful writers and clever constructors of speeches, but not one really great orator. theodore roosevelt and william j. bryan are two representatives of the best this country can offer in the way of orators, but neither of them measures up to the standard of edward everett, wendell phillips, or daniel webster. the main reason for the dearth of real orators is the lack of training in the art of delivery. much attention is given to gaining a knowledge of the matter that is to be spoken, but little consideration is given to the delivery of that matter to the listener after once it has been gathered by the speaker. it is unfortunate that men like john mitchell and dr. washington gladden, who are standing up so nobly for the rights of labor, should be poorly equipped as speakers. both these men possess noble thoughts which read impressively, but, when spoken, lack much force and power, on account of the poor delivery. this point can be illustrated further by citing the manner and delivery of two men well known to the public of today--andrew carnegie and john h. finley. both have done considerable public speaking, and one is the president of a college. on a night in , the members of the young men's bible class of the fifth avenue baptist church of new york were addressed by these gentlemen. both were at a considerable disadvantage from the fact that they had been invited to address a "young men's bible class," and as they naturally concluded the class would be composed of young men, they arranged their speeches accordingly; consequently, their plans of address were upset on finding that the majority of the class was composed of men close to the half-century mark, and many beyond it; or, as mr. carnegie wittily stated it, "with parts in their hair a lot wider than my own." however, no exception could be taken to the matter of either speaker, although both changed their themes on finding the audience more matured in years than they had expected, and both had to pocket their notes on the subjects upon which they had intended to talk, and to speak extemporaneously. both speakers cleverly switched to matters upon which they were thoroughly informed--mr. carnegie narrating events in his busy and influential life, and dr. finley discussing how to get the most benefit out of a twenty-four hour day. the matter of both was good, but the manner was unsatisfactory. mr. carnegie talked in a pleasant, conversational way which would have been most enjoyable had it not been that his delivery was slow. his utterance was often so slow as to mar the expressive force of his good language. he also leaned on the reading desk in front of him, not because he needed physical support, he looked strong and rugged on the eve of his seventy-sixth birthday, but from the force of a bad habit. he was perfectly at home before the audience, spoke in clear tones, at times with considerable force, particularly when quoting from rev. john home's tragedy of "douglas," was winning in manner, took immediate hold of his audience, was witty in appropriate places, and would have been altogether delightful but for length and attitude. mr. carnegie was perfectly at home while facing the audience, and had his delivery equaled his matter, the speech would have been a most happy and effective one. from dr. finley, because of his being president of the college of the city of new york, one might reasonably expect much in the way of delivery, but on this occasion the assembly received less than from the other speaker. he stood on the platform awkwardly, hands in pockets most of the time, and seldom did he utter a really smooth sentence, but separated his words in a manner to irritate the audience. he would say, for instance, "we--have--been--progressing--upward--and--onward--for--millions--of--years--," as though he had only one word in his mind at a time, whereas the learned president's head was full of grand and glorious thoughts that only needed to be spoken in phrases and sentences, instead of single words, in order to make him a most instructive and entertaining speaker. dr. finley's matter was well arranged, his diction excellent, but his delivery was unfortunate. the orators of old, with few exceptions, studied the art of delivery as faithfully as they studied rhetoric, as did the british and american orators of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the public speakers of the twentieth century sadly neglect this most important part of the speaker's art. dr. arthur t. hadley, president of yale university, is an able and learned man whose compositions are chaste and effective but whose delivery mars the force of his matter. he looks down on the floor immediately in front of him, instead of sweeping his glance over his audience, awkwardly swings his arms, and speaks his lines as though he were wound up and compelled to utter his matter within the given time. this is said with all respect to the famous educator, but his style of delivery should be avoided. educators, more than most professional men, should be entertaining and convincing speakers, but, as a rule, they are woefully deficient in the qualities necessary to the making of orators. they, of all men, should set an example to the generation that is soon to take up the duties of life, and if college presidents improved their delivery, a long step would be taken toward making them oratorical beacons for the guidance of their students. william j. bryan, one of the best orators, if not the best, of today, owes his success mainly to his delivery. it is not so much what he says but how he says it that makes him a successful speaker. he possesses a rich, strong, and flexible voice that adds greatly to the effectiveness of his matter, and his speeches invariably sound better than they read. he will hold an audience absolutely in hand, sway it at his will, and force it against its inclination momentarily to agree with him, even though, after mature deliberation, his reasoning may be disputed and his conclusions rejected. mr. bryan's power lies not in the beauty or force of his composition but in his mastery over the spoken word. theodore roosevelt, contrary to the views of many, is, in the opinion of the author, an orator. he is not merely a speaker, because his speeches possess him as much as he possesses his speeches. he impresses an audience by his sincerity, convinces it by his reasoning, and persuades it by his earnestness. his matter reads as well as it sounds, thus demonstrating his ability as a rhetorician, his manner is graceful and forceful, and the general feeling, after listening to one of his addresses, is that a master has spoken. the author has heard mr. roosevelt many times during the past twenty years, and the improvement in his delivery is marked. there was a time when everything was sacrificed to force, he would snap his jaws and try to drive the voice through his clenched teeth, but now his enunciation is clear, and his entire delivery delightful. this shows the good that is to be derived from a speaker considering his manner as well as his matter. joseph h. choate and w. bourke cockran are excellent examples of effective speakers of a decade or so ago, the former having been the most alluring and convincing in both his matter and his manner, and the latter entrancing and powerful in diction and delivery. forensic oratory has almost ceased to exist, while pulpit oratory is rarely to be found. this is a sad state of affairs, and requires immediate attention if the art of all arts is to be saved from extinction. the two essentials most missing in our public speakers are constructive skill and effective delivery--some lacking in one and some in the other--and the author asserts that great orators will not arise until both these essentials are found in the one man. two thousand years ago cicero, discoursing on oratory, said: and why need i add any remarks of delivery itself, which is to be ordered by action of body, by gesture, by look, and by modulation and variation of the voice, the great power of which, alone and in itself, the comparatively trivial art of actors and the stage proves; on which though all bestow their utmost labor to form their look, voice, and gesture, who knows not how few there are, and have ever been, to whom we can attend with patience? . . . in those arts in which it is not indispensable usefulness that is sought, but liberal amusement for the mind, how nicely, how almost fastidiously, do we judge? for there are no suits or controversies which can force men, though they may tolerate indifferent orators in the forum, to endure also bad actors upon the stage. the orator, therefore, must take the most studious precaution not merely to satisfy those whom he necessarily must satisfy, but to seem worthy of admiration to those who are at liberty to judge disinterestedly. how many modern orators measure up to this standard set by the ancient master? the author knows of none. _how is one to obtain an effective delivery?_ by close observation, hard study, and diligent practice. the student should observe his delivery, note the defects in breathing, voice production, articulation, inflection, and emphasis, and correct them; he should be sure to understand all he aims to explain, see all he desires others to see, and believe all he aims to make others believe. no speaker whose delivery is poor will be able to hold, convince, and persuade an audience, and unless he can do these three things he should refrain from speaking, as no man possesses a valid commission publicly to address his fellows unless he has a message to communicate and knows how to deliver it. examples of modern oratory patrick henry liberty or death[ ] ( ) no man thinks more highly than i do of patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. but different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, i hope it will not be thought disrespectful of those gentlemen, if, entertaining as i do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, i shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. this is no time for ceremony. the question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. for my own part, i consider it as nothing less than the question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. it is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to god and our country. should i keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, i should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which i revere above all earthly kings. mr. president, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, i am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. i have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. i know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. and judging by the past, i wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the british ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house. is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? let us not deceive ourselves, sir. these are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. i ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? has great britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? no, sir, she has none. they are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. they are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the british ministry have been so long forging. and, what have we to oppose to them? shall we try argument? sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. have we anything new to offer upon the subject? nothing. we have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? what terms shall we find, which have not already been exhausted? let us not, i beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. we have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. our petitions have been slighted: our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! in vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. there is no longer any room for hope. if we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! i repeat it, sir, we must fight! an appeal to arms and to the god of hosts is all that is left us! they tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. but when shall we be stronger? will it be the next week, or the next year? will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a british guard shall be stationed in every home? shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the god of nature hath placed in our power. three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. there is a just god who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. besides, sir, we have no election. if we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. there is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! our chains are forged! their clanking may be heard on the plains of boston! the war is inevitable--and let it come! i repeat it, sir, let it come. it is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. gentlemen may cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. the war is actually begun! the next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! our brethren are already in the field! why stand we here idle? what is it that gentlemen wish? what would they have? is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god! i know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! daniel webster on the clay compromise[ ] (known as "the seventh of march speech," ) slavery did exist in the states before the adoption of this constitution, and at that time. let us, therefore, consider for a moment what was the state of sentiment, north and south, in regard to slavery--in regard to slavery at the time this constitution was adopted. a remarkable change has taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery then? in what estimation did they hold it at the time when this constitution was adopted? it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no diversity of opinion between the north and the south upon the subject of slavery. it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. it will not be found that, either at the north or at the south, there was much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. the great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men of the time and clearest expression of their opinion that slavery is an evil. they ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. the whole interest of the south became connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. if we look back to the history of the commerce of this country in the early years of this government, what were our exports? cotton was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. in the first parcel of cotton of the growth of the united states was exported, and amounted only to , pounds. it has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to a hundred millions of dollars. in the years i have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export from the south, than of cotton. when mr. jay negotiated the treaty of with england, it is evident from the twelfth article of the treaty, which was suspended by the senate, that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from the united states. mr. president, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the north and the south. there are lists of grievances produced by each; and these grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. i shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon those various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. i begin with complaints of the south. i will not answer, further than i have, the general statements of the honorable senator from south carolina, that the north has prospered at the expense of the south in consequence of the manner of administering the government, in the collection of its revenues, and so forth. these are disputed topics, and i have no inclination to enter into them. but i will allude to other complaints of the south, and especially to one which has, in my opinion, just foundation, and that is, that there has been found at the north, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free states. in that respect, the south, in my judgment, is right, and the north is wrong. every member of every northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the constitution of the united states; and the article of the constitution which says to these states that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. no man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. i have always thought that the constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the states or the states themselves. it says that those persons escaping to other states "shall be delivered up," and i confess i have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the states themselves. when it is said that a person escaping into another state, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that state, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the state itself, in obedience to the constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. that is my judgment. i have always entertained that opinion, and i entertain it now. then, sir, there are abolition societies, of which i am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which i have very clear notions and opinions. i do not think them useful. i think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. at the same time, i believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. they have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an abolition press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. i do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but i am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. i can not but see what mischief their interference with the south has produced. and is it not plain to every man? let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point, recur to the debates in the virginia house of delegates in , and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by mr. jefferson randolph, for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. every one spoke of slavery, as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. the debates in the house of delegates on that occasion, i believe were all published. they were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. at that time virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as they could learn. that was in . as has been said by the honorable member from south carolina, these abolition societies commenced their course of action in . it is said, i do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave states; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the north against southern slavery. well, what was the result? the bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before; their rivets were more strongly fastened. public opinion, which in virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. i wish to know whether anybody in virginia can now talk openly, as mr. randolph, governor mcdowell, and others talked in , and sent their remarks to the press. we all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and everything that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to act free, but to bind faster, the slave population of the south. mr. president, i should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody, that in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. i hear with distress and anguish the word "secession" especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world for their political services. secession! peaceable secession! sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. the dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! the breaking up of the foundations of the great deep without ruffling the surface! who is so foolish--i beg everybody's pardon--as to expect to see any such thing? sir, he who sees these states now revolving in harmony around a common center, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the crush of the universe. there can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. is the great constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountains melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? no, sir! no, sir! i will not state what might produce the disruption of the union; but sir, i see, as plainly as i see the sun in heaven, what the disruption itself must produce; i see that it must produce war, and such a war as i will not describe, _in its twofold character._ peaceable secession! peaceable secession! the concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! a voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. why, what would be the result? where is the line to be drawn? what states are to secede? what is to remain american? what am i to be? an american no longer? am i to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of congress? heaven forbid! where is the flag of the republic to remain? where is the eagle still to tower?--or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? why, sir, our ancestors--our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living among us, with prolonged lives--would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we, of this generation, would dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that union, which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. what is to become of the army? what is to become of the navy? what is to become of the public lands? how is any one of the thirty states to defend itself? sir, we could not sit down here today, and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. there are natural causes that would keep and tie us together; and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could. sir, nobody can look over the face of this country, at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that ere long the strength of america will be in the valley of the mississippi. well, now, sir, i beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free states at its source and on its branches, and slave states down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their consideration. here, sir, are five millions of freemen in the free states north of the river ohio. can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and alien government, down somewhere, the lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the mississippi? what would become of missouri? will she join the _arrondissement_ of the slave states? shall the man from the yellowstone and the platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the cape of florida? sir, i am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. i dislike it; i have an utter disgust for it. i would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. to break up this great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish europe with an act of folly such as europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government or any people! no, sir! no, sir! there will be no secession! gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. and now, mr. president, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this constitution, and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain, which is destined, i fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this constitution for ages to come. we have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the whole affections of the people. no monarchic throne presses these states together; no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand upon a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last forever. in all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. large before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. this republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. the two great seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. we realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental edging of the buckler of achilles-- now the broad shield complete, the artist crowned with his last hand, and poured the ocean round: in living silver seemed the waves to roll, and beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole. robert young hayne on the foote revolution[ ] ( ) when the gentleman from massachusetts adopts and reiterates the old charge of weakness as resulting from slavery, i must be permitted to call for the proof of those blighting effects which he ascribes to its influence. i suspect that when the subject is closely examined, it will be found that there is not much force even in the plausible objection of the want of physical power in slave-holding states. the power of a country is compounded of its population and its wealth, and in modern times, where, from the very form and structure of society, by far the greater portion of the people must, even during the continuance of the most desolating wars, be employed in the cultivation of the soil and other peaceful pursuits, it may be well doubted whether slave-holding states, by reason of the superior value of their productions, are not able to maintain a number of troops in the field fully equal to what could be supported by states with a larger white population, but not possessed of equal resources. * * * * * * * there is a spirit which, like the father of evil, is constantly "walking to and fro." it is the spirit of false philanthropy. the persons whom it possesses do not indeed throw themselves into the flames, but they are employed in lighting up the torches of discord throughout the community. their first principle of action is to leave their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to regulate the affairs and duties of others. theirs is the task to feed the hungry and clothe the naked of other lands, while they thrust the naked, famished, and shivering beggar from their own doors--to instruct the heathen while their own children want the bread of life. when this spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a statesman (if one so possessed can be called a statesman), it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast. then it is that he indulges in golden dreams of national greatness and prosperity. he discovers that "liberty is power," and, not content with vast schemes of improvement at home which it would bankrupt the treasury of the world to execute, he flies to foreign lands to fulfil obligations to "the human race," by inculcating the principles of "political and religious liberty," and promoting the "general welfare" of the whole human race. it is a spirit which has long been busy with the slaves of the south and is even now displaying itself in vain efforts to drive the government from its wise policy in relation to the indians. it is this spirit which has filled the land with thousands of wild and visionary projects which can have no effect but to waste the energies and dissipate the resources of the country. it is the spirit of which the aspiring politician dexterously avails himself when, by inscribing on his banner the magical words, liberty and philanthropy, he draws to his support that class of persons who are ready to bow down at the very name of their idols. but, sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the effect of slavery on national wealth and prosperity, if we may trust to experience, there can be no doubt that it has never yet produced any injurious effect on individual or national character. look through the whole history of the country from the commencement of the revolution down to the present hour; where are there to be found brighter examples of intellectual and moral greatness than have been exhibited by the sons of the south? from the father of his country down to the distinguished chieftain who has been elevated by a grateful people to the highest office in their gift, the interval is filled up by a long line of orators, of statesmen, and of heroes, justly entitled to rank among the ornaments of their country, and the benefactors of mankind. look at "the old dominion," great and magnanimous virginia, "whose jewels are her sons." is there any state in this union which has contributed so much to the honor and welfare of the country? sir, i will yield the whole question--i will acknowledge the fatal effects of slavery upon character, if any one can say that for noble disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue, and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the southern states have ever been surpassed by any in the world. the senator from massachusetts tells us that the tariff is not an eastern measure, and treats it as if the east had no interest in it. the senator from missouri insists it is not a western measure, and that it has done no good to the west. the south comes in, and in the most earnest manner represents to you that this measure, which we are told "is of no value to the east or the west" is "utterly destructive of our interests." we represent to you that it has spread ruin and devastation through the land and prostrated our hopes in the dust. we solemnly declare that we believe the system to be wholly unconstitutional and a violation of the compact between the states and the union; and our brethren turn a deaf ear to our complaints, and refuse to relieve us from a system "which not enriches them, but makes us poor indeed." good god! mr. president, has it come to this? do gentlemen hold the feelings and wishes of their brethren at so cheap a rate that they refuse to gratify them at so small a price? do gentlemen value so lightly the peace and harmony of the country that they will not yield a measure of this description to the affectionate entreaties and earnest remonstrances of their friends? do gentlemen estimate the value of the union at so low a price that they will not even make one effort to bind the states together with the cords of affection? and has it come to this? is this the spirit in which this government is to be administered? if so, let me tell, gentlemen, the seeds of dissolution are already sown, and our children will reap the bitter fruit. what, sir, was the conduct of the south during the revolution? sir, i honor new england for her conduct in that glorious struggle. but great as is the praise which belongs to her i think at least equal honor is due to the south. they espoused the quarrel of their brethren with a generous zeal which did not suffer them to stop to calculate their interest in the dispute. favorites of the mother country, possessed of neither ships nor seamen to create a commercial rivalship, they might have found in their situation a guaranty that their trade would be forever fostered and protected by great britain. but trampling on all consideration either of interest or of safety, they rushed into the conflict and fighting for principle, periled all in the sacred cause of freedom. never was there exhibited in the history of the world higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering, and heroic endurance than by the whigs of carolina during the revolution. the whole state, from the mountains to the sea, was overrun by an overwhelming force of the enemy. the fruits of industry perished on the spot where they were produced, or were consumed by the foe. the "plains of carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her citizens! black and smoking ruins marked the places which had been the habitations of her children! driven from their homes into the gloomy and almost impenetrable swamps, even there the spirit of liberty survived, and south carolina (sustained by the example of her sumpters and her marions) proved by her conduct that though the soil might be overrun, the spirit of her people was invincible. abraham lincoln the "house divided against itself" speech[ ] ( ) if we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it, we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. under the operation of that policy, that agitation not only has not ceased, but has constantly augmented. in my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "a house divided against itself can not stand." i believe this government can not endure permanently half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved; i do not expect the house to fall; but i do expect that it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing, or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. have we no tendency to the latter condition? let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination-piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the nebraska doctrine and the dred scott decision. put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another supreme court decision, declaring that the constitution of the united states does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits. and this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. we shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the supreme court has made illinois a slave state. to meet and overthrow that dynasty is the work before all those who would prevent that consummation. that is what we have to do. how can we best do it? there are those who denounce us openly to their own friends and yet whisper to us softly that senator douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. they wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. they remind us that he is a great man and that the largest of us are very small ones. let this be granted. "but a living dog is better than a dead lion." judge douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. how can he oppose the advance of slavery? he does not care anything about it. his avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. a leading douglas democratic newspaper thinks douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the african slave-trade. does douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? he has not said so. does he really think so? but if it is, how can he resist it? for years he has labored to prove it is a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? and unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in africa than in virginia. he has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to the home production? and as the home producers will probably ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. senator douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today than he was yesterday--that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. but can we, for that reason run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? now, as ever, i wish not to misrepresent judge douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, i hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. but, clearly, he is not now with us--he does not pretend to be, he does not promise ever to be. our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work--who do care for the result. two years ago the republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. we did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger. with every external circumstance against us, of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. did we brave all then, to falter now?--now, when that same energy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent! the result is not doubtful. we shall not fail--if we stand firm, we shall not fail. wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it; but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. on leaving springfield[ ] my friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. to this place and the kindness of this people i owe everything. here i have lived a quarter of a century and have passed from a young to an old man. here my children have been born and one is buried. i now leave, not knowing when or whether ever i may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon washington. without the assistance of that divine being who ever attended him i can not succeed. with that assistance i can not fail. trusting in him who can go with me and remain with you and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. to his care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, i bid you an affectionate farewell. wendell phillips on the murder of lovejoy[ ] ( ) a comparison has been drawn between the events of the revolution and the tragedy at alton. we have heard it stated here in faneuil hall, that great britain had a right to tax the colonies; and we have heard the mob at alton, the drunken murderers of lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw the tea overboard! fellow citizens, is this faneuil hall doctrine? the mob at alton were met to wrest from a citizen his just rights--met to resist the laws. we have been told that our fathers did the same; and the glorious mantle of revolutionary precedent has been thrown over the mobs of our day. to make out their title to such defense the gentleman says that the british parliament had a right to tax these colonies. it is manifest that, without this, his parallel falls to the ground; for lovejoy had stationed himself within constitutional bulwarks. he was not only defending the freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in arms with the sanction of the civil authority. the men who assailed him went against and over the laws. the mob, as the gentleman terms it--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvelously patient generation!--the "orderly mob" which assembled in the old south to destroy the tea were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal exactions! shame on the american who calls the tea tax and stamp act laws! our fathers resisted not the king's prerogative, but the king's usurpation. to find any other account, you must read our revolutionary history upside down. our state archives are loaded with arguments of john adams to prove the taxes laid by the british parliament unconstitutional--beyond its power. it was not till this was made out that the men of new england rushed to arms. the arguments of the council-chamber and the house of representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest. to draw the conduct of our ancestors into a precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted, is an insult to their memory. the difference between the excitements of those days and our own, which the gentleman in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this: the men of that day went for the right, as secured by the laws. they were the people rising to sustain the laws and constitution of the province. the rioters of our day go for their own wills, right or wrong. sir, when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of alton side by side with otis and hancock, with quincy and adams, i thought those pictured lips [pointing to the portraits in the hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american--the slanderer of the dead. the gentleman said that he should sink into insignificance if he dared not gainsay the principles of these resolutions. sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on soil consecrated by the prayers of puritans and the blood of patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him up. fellow citizens, i can not take back my words. surely, the attorney-general, so long and well known here, needs not the aid of your hisses against one so young as i am--my voice never before heard within these walls! another ground has been taken to excuse the mob, and throw doubt and discredit on the conduct of lovejoy and his associates. allusion has been made to what lawyers understand very well--the "conduct of laws." we are told that nothing but the mississippi river rolls between st. louis and alton; and the conflict of laws somehow or other give the citizens of the former a right to find fault with the defender of the press for publishing his opinions so near their limits. will the gentleman venture that argument before lawyers? how the laws of the two states could be said to come into conflict in such circumstances i question whether any lawyer in this audience can explain or understand. no matter whether the line that divides one sovereign state from another be an imaginary one or ocean-wide, the moment you cross it, the state you leave is blotted out of existence, so far as you are concerned. the czar might as well claim to control the deliberations of faneuil hall, as the laws of missouri demand reverence, or the shadow of obedience, from an inhabitant of illinois. i must find some fault with the statement which has been made of the events at alton. it has been asked why lovejoy and his friends did not appeal to the executive--trust their defenses to the police of the city. it has been hinted that, from hasty and ill-judged excitement, the men within the building provoked a quarrel, and that he fell in the course of it--one mob resisting another. recollect, sir, that they did act with approbation and sanction of the mayor. in strict truth there was no executive to appeal to for protection. the mayor acknowledged that he could not protect them. they asked him if it was lawful for them to defend themselves. he told them it was, and sanctioned their assembling in arms to do so. they were not, then, a mob, they were not merely citizens defending their own property; they were in some sense the _posse comitatus,_ adopted for the occasion into the police of the city, acting under the order of a magistrate. it was civil authority resisting lawless violence. where, then, was the imprudence? is the doctrine to be sustained here that it is imprudent for men to aid magistrates in executing the laws? men are continually asking each other, had lovejoy a right to resist? sir, i protest against the question instead of answering it. lovejoy did not resist, in the sense they mean. he did not throw himself back on the natural right of self-defense. he did not cry anarchy, and let slip the dogs of civil war, careless of the horrors which would follow. sir, as i understand this affair, it was not an individual protecting his property; it was not one body of armed men resisting another, and making the streets of a peaceful city run blood with their contentions. it did not bring back the scenes to old indian cities, where family met family, and faction met faction, and mutually trampled the laws under foot. no! the men in that house were regularly enrolled under the sanction of the mayor. there being no militia in alton, about seventy men were enrolled, with the approbation of the mayor. these relieved each other every other night. about thirty men were in arms on the night of the sixth, when the press was landed. the next evening it was not thought necessary to summon more than half that number; among these was lovejoy. it was, therefore, you perceive, sir, the police of the city resisting rioters--civil government breasting itself to the shock of lawless men. here is no question about the right of self-defense. it is in fact simply this: has the civil magistrate a right to put down a riot? it has been stated, perhaps inadvertently, that lovejoy or his comrades fired first. this is denied by those who have the best means of knowing. guns were first fired by the mob. after being twice fired on, those within the building consulted together and deliberately returned the fire. but suppose they did fire first. they had a right so to do--not only the right which every citizen has to defend himself, but the further right which every civil officer has to resist violence. even if lovejoy fired the first gun, it would not lessen his claim to our sympathy or destroy his title to be considered a martyr in defense of a free press. the question now is, did he act within the constitution and the laws? the men who fell in state street on the th of march, , did more than lovejoy is charged with. they were the first assailants. upon some slight quarrel they pelted the troops with every missile within reach. did this bate one jot of the eulogy with which hancock and warren hallowed their memory, hailing them as the first martyrs in the cause of american liberty? if, sir, i had adopted what are called peace principles, i might lament the circumstances of this case. but all you who believe, as i do, in the right and duty of magistrates to execute the laws, join with me and brand as base hypocrisy the conduct of those who assemble year after year on the fourth of july to fight over the battles of the revolution, and yet "damn with faint praise" or load with obloquy the memory of this man who shed his blood in defense of life, liberty, property, and the freedom of the press! imagine yourself present when the first news of bunker hill battle reached a new england town. the tale would have run thus: "the patriots are routed--the redcoats victorious--warren lies dead upon the field." with what scorn would that tory have been received who should have charged warren with imprudence! who should have said that, bred a physician, he was "out of place" in that battle, and "died as a fool dieth!" how would the intimation have been received that warren and his associations should have waited a better time? but, if success be indeed the only criterion of prudence, _respice finem_--wait till the end. mr. chairman, from the bottom of my heart i thank that brave band at alton for resisting. we must remember that lovejoy had fled from city to city; suffered the destruction of three presses patiently. at length he took counsel with friends; men of character, of tried integrity, of wide views, of christian principle. they thought the crisis had come. it was full time to assert the laws. they saw around them, not a community like our own, of fixed habits, of character molded and settled, but one "in the gristle, not yet hardened into the bone of manhood." the people there, children of our older states, seem to have forgotten the blood-tried principles of their fathers the moment they lost sight of our new england hills. something was to be done to show them the priceless value of the freedom of the press, to bring back and set right their wandering and confused ideas. he and his advisers looked out on a community staggering like a drunken man, indifferent to their rights, and confused in their feelings. deaf to argument, haply they might be stunned into sobriety. they saw that of which we can not judge: the necessity of resistance. insulted law called for it. public opinion, fast hastening on the downward course, must be arrested. does not the event show they judged rightly? absorbed in a thousand trifles, how has the nation all at once come to a stand! men begin, as in and , to discuss principles, to weigh characters, to find out where they are. haply we may awake before we are borne over the precipice. i am glad, sir, to see this crowded house. it is good for us to be here. when liberty is in danger, faneuil hall has the right, it is her duty, to strike the keynote for these united states. i am glad, for one reason, that remarks such as those to which i have alluded have been uttered here. the passage of these resolutions, in spite of this oppression, led by the attorney-general of the commonwealth, will show more clearly, more decisively, the deep indignation with which boston regards this outrage. jefferson davis on withdrawing from the union[ ] ( ) i rise, mr. president, for the purpose of announcing to the senate that i have satisfactory evidence that the state of mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the united states. under these circumstances, of course, my functions are terminated here. it has seemed to me proper, however, that i should appear in the senate to announce that fact to my associates, and i will say but very little more. the occasion does not invite me to go into argument, and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the state i here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this. it is known to senators who have served with me here that i have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the union. therefore, if i had not believed there was justifiable cause; if i had thought that mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, i should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the state of which i am a citizen, have been bound by her action. i, however, may be permitted to say that i do think she has justifiable cause, and i approve of her act. i conferred with her people before the act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted. i hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a state to remain in the union, and to disregard the constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. such is not my theory. nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the union, and against the agent of the states. it is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a state, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the union for a decision; but when the states themselves, and when the people of the states, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application. a great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the union, advocated the doctrine of nullification because it preserved the union. it was because of his deep seated attachment to the union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound south carolina to the other states, that mr. calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of state power, not to disturb the union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the states for their judgment. secession belongs to a different class of remedies. it is to be justified upon the basis that the states are sovereign. there was a time when none denied it. i hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the states, will prevent any one from denying that each state is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever. i therefore say i concur in the action of the people of mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which i wish on this last occasion to present to the senate. it is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of the great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded state. the phrase "to execute the laws" was an expression which general jackson applied to the case of a state refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the union. that is not the case which is now presented. the laws are to be executed over the united states, and upon the people of the united states. they have no relation to any foreign country. it is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a state which has withdrawn from the union. you may make war on a foreign state. if it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a state which has withdrawn from the union; but there are no laws of the united states to be executed within the limits of a seceded state. a state finding itself in the condition in which mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (they are known to be great), severs all ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the united states within her limits. i well remember an occasion when massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in boston. my opinion then was the same that it is now. not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that i am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, i refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which i then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. i then said, if massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the union, it is her right to go, and i will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, godspeed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other states. it has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought mississippi into her present decision. she has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred declaration of independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. that declaration of independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. the communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born--to use the language of mr. jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. these were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. they have no reference to the slave, else how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against george iii was that he endeavored to do just what the north had been endeavoring of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves? had the declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? and how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? when our constitution was formed the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provisions made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. then, senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive to our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. i find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours, i am sure i feel no hostility to you, senators from the north. i am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom i can not now say, in the presence of my god, i wish you well; and such, i am sure, is the feeling of the people whom i represent toward those whom you represent. i therefore feel that i but express their desire when i say i hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. they may be mutually beneficial to use in the future as they have been in the past, if you so will it. the reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the god of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in god, and in our firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the rights as best we may. in the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of senators, i see now around me some with whom i have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, i leave here; i carry with me no hostile remembrance. whatever offense i have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, i have, senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, i have inflicted. i go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered. mr. president and senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu. robert toombs on resigning from the senate[ ] ( ) the success of the abolitionists and their allies, under the name of the republican party, has produced its logical results already. they have for long years been sowing dragons' teeth and have finally got a crop of armed men. the union, sir, is dissolved. that is an accomplished fact in the path of this discussion that men may as well heed. one of your confederates has already, wisely, bravely, boldly confronted public danger, she is only ahead of many of her sisters because of her greater facility for speedy action. the greater majority of those sister states, under the circumstances, consider her cause as their cause; and i charge you in their name today: "touch not saguntum."[ ] it is not only their cause, but it is a cause which receives the sympathy and will receive the support of tens and hundreds of thousands of honest patriot men in the non-slaveholding states who have hitherto maintained constitutional rights, and who respect their oaths, abide by compacts, and love justice. and while this congress, this senate, and this house of representatives are debating the constitutionality and the expediency of seceding from the union, and while the perfidious authors of this mischief are showering down denunciations upon a large portion of the patriotic men of this country, those brave men are coolly and calmly voting what you call revolution--aye, sir, doing better than that: arming to defend it. they appealed to the constitution, they appealed to justice, they appealed to fraternity, until the constitution, justice, and fraternity were no longer listened to in the legislative halls of their country, and then, sir, they prepared for the arbitrament of the sword; and now you see the glittering bayonet, and you hear the tramp of armed men from your capital to the rio grande. it is a sight that gladdens the eyes and cheers the hearts of other millions ready to second them. inasmuch, sir, as i have labored earnestly, honestly, sincerely, with these men to avert this necessity so long as i deemed it possible, and inasmuch as i heartily approve their present conduct of resistance, i deem it my duty to state their case to the senate, to the country, and to the civilized world. senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government; they have demanded no new constitution. look to their records at home and here from the beginning of this national strife until its consummation in the disruption of the empire, and they have not demanded a single thing except that you shall abide by the constitution of the united states; that constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done. sirs, they have stood by your constitution; they have stood by all its requirements, they have performed all its duties unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly, until a party sprang up in this country which endangered their social system--a party which they arraign, and which they charge before the american people and all mankind with having made proclamation of outlawry against four thousand millions of their property in the territories of the united states; with having put them under the ban of the empire in all the states in which their institutions exist outside the protection of federal laws; with having aided and abetted insurrection from within and invasion from without with the view of subverting their institutions, and desolating their homes and their firesides. for these causes they have taken up arms. i have stated that the discontented states of this union have demanded nothing by clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowledged constitutional rights--rights affirmed by the highest judicial tribunals of their country; rights older than the constitution; rights which are planted upon the immutable principles of natural justice; rights which have been affirmed by the good and the wise of all countries, and of all centuries. we demand no power to injure any man. we demand no right to injure our confederate states. we demand no right to interfere with their institutions, either by word or deed. we have no right to disturb their peace, their tranquility, their security. we have demanded of them simply, solely--nothing else--to give us equality, security and tranquility. give us these, and peace restores itself. refuse them, and take what you can get. what do the rebels demand? first, "that the people of the united states shall have an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present and any future acquired territories, with whatever property they may possess (including slaves), and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment until such territory may be admitted as a state into the union, with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with all existing states." this is our territorial demand. we have fought for this territory when blood was its price. we have paid for it when gold was its price. we have not proposed to exclude you, though you have contributed very little of blood or money. i refer especially to new england. we demand only to go into those territories upon terms of equality with you, as equals in this great confederacy, to enjoy the common property of the whole union, and receive the protection of the common government, until the territory is capable of coming into the union as a sovereign state, when it may fix its own institutions to suit itself. the second proposition is, "that property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the united states, in all its departments, everywhere, which the constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property, providing nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now belonging to every state to prohibit, abolish, or establish and protect slavery within its limits." we demand of the common government to use its granted powers to protect our property as well as yours. for this protection we pay as much as you do. this very property is subject to taxation. it has been taxed by you and sold by you for taxes. the title to thousands and tens of thousands of slaves is derived from the united states. we claim that the government, while the constitution recognizes our property for the purposes of taxation, shall give it the same protection that it gives yours. ought it not to be so? you say no. every one of you upon the committee said no. your senators say no. your house of representatives says no. throughout the length and breadth of your conspiracy against the constitution there is but one shout of no! this recognition of this right is the price of my allegiance. withhold it, and you do not get my obedience. this is the philosophy of the armed men who have sprung up in this country. do you ask me to support a government that will tax my property; that will plunder me; that will demand my blood, and will not protect me? i would rather see the population of my native state laid six feet beneath her sod than they should support for one hour such a government. protection is the price of obedience everywhere, in all countries. it is the only thing that makes government respectable. deny it and you can not have free subjects or citizens; you may have slaves. we demand, in the next place, "that persons committing crimes against slave property in one state, and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same manner as persons committing crimes against other property, and that the laws of the state from which such persons flee shall be the test of criminality." that is another one of the demands of an extremist and rebel. but the non-slaveholding states, treacherous to their oaths and compacts, have steadily refused, if the criminal only stole a negro and that negro was a slave, to deliver him up. it was refused twice on the requisition of my own state as long as twenty-two years ago. it was refused by kent and by fairfield, governors of maine, and representing, i believe, each of the then friendly parties. we appealed then to fraternity, but we submitted; and this constitutional right has been practically a dead letter from that day to this. the next case came up between us and the state of new york, when the present senior senator (mr. seward) was the governor of that state; and he refused it. why? he said it was not against the laws of new york to steal a negro, and therefore he would not comply with the demand. he made a similar refusal to virginia. yet these are our confederates; these are our sister states! there is the bargain; there is the compact. you have sworn to it. both these governors swore to it. the senator from new york swore to it. the governor of ohio swore to it when he was inaugurated. you can not bind them by oaths. yet they talk to us of treason; and i suppose they expect to whip freemen into loving such brethren! they will have a good time in doing it! it is natural we should want this provision of the constitution carried out. the constitution says slaves are property; the supreme court says so; the constitution says so. the theft of slaves is a crime; they are a subject-matter of felonious asportation. by the text and letter of the constitution you agreed to give them up. you have sworn to do it, and you have broken your oaths. of course, those who have done so look out for pretexts. nobody expected them to do otherwise. i do not think i ever saw a perjurer, however bald and naked, who could not invent some pretext to palliate his crime, or who could not, for fifteen shillings, hire an old bailey lawyer to invent some for him. yet this requirement of the constitution is another one of the extreme demands of an extremist and a rebel. the next stipulation is that fugitive slaves shall be surrendered under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of , without being entitled either to a writ of habeas corpus, or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of legislation, in the state to which he may flee: here is the constitution: "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such services or labor may be due." this language is plain, and everybody understood it the same way for the first forty years of your government. in , in washington's time, an act was passed to carry out this provision. it was adopted unanimously in the senate of the united states, and nearly so in the house of representatives. nobody then had invented pretexts to show that the constitution did not mean a negro slave. it was clear; it was plain. not only the federal courts, but all the local courts in all the states, decided that it was a constitutional obligation. how is it now? the north sought to evade it; following the instincts of their natural character, they commenced with the fraudulent fiction that fugitives were entitled to habeas corpus, entitled to trial by jury in the state to which they fled. they pretended to believe that our fugitive slaves were entitled to more rights than their white citizens; perhaps they were right, they know one another better than i do. you may charge a white man with treason, or felony, or other crime, and you do not require any trial by jury before he is given up; there is nothing to determine but that he is legally charged with a crime and that he fled, and then he is to be delivered up upon demand. white people are delivered up every day in this way; but not slaves. slaves, black people, you say, are entitled to trial by jury; and in this way schemes have been invented to defeat your plain constitutional obligations. senators, the constitution is a compact. it contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. i am content and have ever been content to sustain it. while i doubt its perfection, while i do not believe it was a good compact, and while i never saw the day that i would have voted for it as a proposition _de novo,_ yet i am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. i have given to it, and intend to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance, but i choose to put that allegiance on the true ground, not on the false idea that anybody's blood was shed for it. i say that the constitution is the whole compact. all its obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that "the powers not granted by the constitution to the united states, or forbidden by it to the states, belong to the states respectively or the people." now i will try it by that standard; i will subject it to that test. the law of nature, the law of justice, would say--and it is so expounded by the publicists--that equal rights in the common property shall be enjoyed. even in a monarchy the king can not prevent the subjects from enjoying equality in the disposition of the public property. even in a despotic government this principle is recognized. it was the blood and the money of the whole people (says the learned grotius, and say all the publicists) which acquired the public property, and therefore it is not the property of the sovereign. this right of equality being, then, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all states, when did we give it up? you say congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the united states. very well. does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? does "dispose of" mean to rob the rightful owners? you must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have. what, then, will you take? you will take nothing but your own judgment; that is, you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our construction, discard the practice of the government, but you will drive us out, simply because you will it. come and do it! you have sapped the foundations of society; you have destroyed almost all hope of peace. in a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. your party says that you will not take the decision of the supreme court. you said so at chicago; you said so in committee; every man of you in both houses says so. what are you going to do? you say we shall submit to your construction. we shall do it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. that is settled. you may call it secession, or you may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing before you--that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands. rufus choate eulogy of webster[ ] ( ) webster possessed the element of an impressive character, inspiring regard, trust and admiration, not unmingled with love. it had, i think, intrinsically a charm such as belongs only to a good, noble, and beautiful nature. in its combination with so much fame, so much force of will, and so much intellect, it filled and fascinated the imagination and heart. it was affectionate in childhood and youth, and it was more than ever so in the few last months of his long life. it is the universal testimony that he gave to his parents, in largest measure, honor, love, obedience; that he eagerly appropriated the first means which he could command to relieve the father from his debts contracted to educate his brother and himself; that he selected his first place of professional practice that he might soothe the coming on of his old age. equally beautiful was his love of all his kindred and of all his friends. when i hear him accused of selfishness, and a cold, bad nature, i recall him lying sleepless all night, not without tears of boyhood, conferring with ezekiel how the darling desire of both hearts should be compassed, and he, too, admitted to the precious privileges of education; courageously pleading the cause of both brothers in the morning; prevailing by the wise and discerning affection of the mother; suspending his studies of the law, and registering deeds and teaching school to earn the means, for both, of availing themselves of the opportunity which the parental self-sacrifice had placed within their reach; loving him through life, mourning him when dead, with a love and a sorrow very wonderful, passing the sorrow of woman; i recall the husband, the father of the living and of the early departed, the friend, the counselor of many years, and my heart grows too full and liquid for the refutation of words. his affectionate nature, craving ever friendship, as well as the presence of kindred blood, diffused itself through all his private life, gave sincerity to all his hospitalities, kindness to his eye, warmth to the pressure of his hand, made his greatness and genius unbend themselves to the playfulness of childhood, flowed out in graceful memories indulged of the past or of the dead, of incidents when life was young and promised to be happy,--gave generous sketches of his rivals,--the high contention now hidden by the handful of earth,--hours passed fifty years ago with great authors, recalled for the vernal emotions which they then made to live and revel in the soul. and from these conversations of friendship, no man--no man, old or young--went away to remember one word of profaneness, one allusion of indelicacy, one impure thought, one unbelieving suggestion, one doubt cast on the reality of virtue, of patriotism, of enthusiasm, of the progress of man,--one doubt cast on righteousness, or temperance, or judgment to come. i have learned by evidence the most direct and satisfactory that in the last months of his life, the whole affectionateness of his nature--his consideration of others, his gentleness, his desire to make them happy and to see them happy--seemed to come out in more and more beautiful and habitual expressions than ever before. the long day's public tasks were felt to be done; the cares, the uncertainties, the mental conflicts of high place, were ended; and he came home to recover himself for the few years which he might still expect would be his before he should go hence to be here no more. and there, i am assured and duly believe, no unbecoming regrets pursued him; no discontent, as for injustice suffered or expectations unfulfilled; no self-reproach for anything done or anything omitted by himself; no irritation, no peevishness unworthy of his noble nature; but instead, love and hope for his country, when she became the subject of conversation, and for all around him, the dearest and most indifferent, for all breathing things about him, the overflow of the kindest heart growing in gentleness and benevolence--paternal, patriarchal affections, seeming to become more natural, warm, and communicative every hour. softer and yet brighter grew the tints on the sky of parting day; and the last lingering rays, more even than the glories of noon, announced how divine was the source from which they proceeded; how incapable to be quenched; how certain to rise on a morning which no night should follow. such a character was made to be loved. it was loved. those who know and saw it in its hour of calm--those who could repose on that soft grass--loved him. his plain neighbors loved him; and one said, when he was laid in his grave, "how lonesome the world seems!" educated young men loved him. the ministers of the gospel, the general intelligence of the country, the masses afar off, loved him. true, they had not found in his speeches, read by millions, so much adulation of the people; so much of the music which robs the public reason of itself; so many phrases of humanity and philanthropy; and some had told them he was lofty and cold--solitary in his greatness; but every year they came nearer and nearer to him, and as they came nearer, they loved him better; they heard how tender the son had been, the husband, the brother, the father, the friend, and neighbor; that he was plain, simple, natural, generous, hospitable--the heart larger than the brain; that he loved little children and reverenced god, the scriptures, the sabbath day, the constitution, and the law--and their hearts clave unto him. more truly of him than even of the great naval darling of england might it be said that "his presence would set the church bells ringing, and give schoolboys a holiday, would bring children from school and old men from the chimney-corner, to gaze on him ere he died." the great and unavailing lamentations first revealed the deep place he had in the hearts of his countrymen. you are now to add to his extraordinary power of influencing the convictions of others by speech, and you have completed the survey of the means of his greatness. and here, again, i begin, by admiring an aggregate made up of excellences and triumphs, ordinarily deemed incompatible. he spoke with consummate ability to the bench, and yet exactly as, according to every sound canon of taste and ethics, the bench ought to be addressed. he spoke with consummate ability to the jury, and yet exactly as, according to every sound canon, that totally different tribunal ought to be addressed. in the halls of congress, before the people assembled for political discussion in masses, before audiences smaller and more select, assembled for some solemn commemoration of the past or of the dead--in each of these, again, his speech, of the first form of ability, was exactly adapted, also, to the critical proprieties of the place; each achieved, when delivered, the most instant and specific success of eloquence--some of them in a splendid and remarkable degree; and yet, stranger still, when reduced to writing, as they fell from his lips, they compose a body of reading in many volumes--solid, clear, rich, and full of harmony--a classical and permanent political literature. and yet all these modes of his eloquence, exactly adapted each to its stage and its end, were stamped with his image and superscription, identified by characteristics incapable to be counterfeited and impossible to be mistaken. the same high power of reason, intent in every one to explore and display some truth; some truth of judicial, or historical, or biographical fact; some truth of law, deducted by construction, perhaps, or by illation; some truth of policy, for want whereof a nation, generations, may be worse--reason seeking and unfolding truth; the same tone, in all, of deep earnestness, expressive of strong desire that which he felt to be important should be accepted as true, and spring up to action; the same transparent, plain, forcible, and direct speech, conveying his exact thought to the mind--not something less or more; the same sovereignty of form, of brow, and eye, and tone, and manner--everywhere the intellectual king of men, standing before you--that same marvelousness of qualities and results, residing, i know not where, in words, in pictures, in the ordering of ideas, in felicities indescribable, by means whereof, coming from his tongue, all things seemed mended--truth seemed more true, probability more plausible, greatness more great, goodness more awful, every affection more tender than when coming from other tongues--these are, in all, his eloquence. but sometimes it became individualized and discriminated even from itself; sometimes place and circumstance, great interests at stake, a stage, an audience fitted for the highest historic action, a crisis, personal or national, upon him, stirred the depths of that emotional nature, as the anger of the goddess stirs the sea on which the great epic is beginning; strong passions, themselves kindled to intensity, quickened every faculty to a new life; the stimulated associations of ideas brought all treasures of thought and knowledge within command; the spell, which often held his imagination fast, dissolved, and she arose and gave him to choose of her urn of gold; earnestness became vehemence, the simple, perspicuous, measured and direct language became a headlong, full, and burning tide of speech; the discourse of reason, wisdom, gravity, and beauty changed to that superhuman, that rarest consummate eloquence--grand, rapid, pathetic, terrible; the _aliquid immensum infinitumque_ that cicero might have recognized; the master triumph of man in the rarest opportunity of his noble power. such elevation above himself, in congressional debate, was most uncommon. some such there were in the great discussions of executive power following the removal of the deposits, which they who heard them will never forget, and some which rest in the tradition of hearers only. but there were other fields of oratory on which, under the influence of more uncommon strings of inspiration, he exemplified, in still other forms, an eloquence in which i do not know that he has had a superior among men. addressing masses by tens of thousands in the open air, on the urgent political questions of the day, or designed to lead the meditations of an hour devoted to the remembrance of some national era, or of some incident marking the progress of the nation, and lifting him up to a view of what is, and what is past, and some indistinct revelation of the glory that lies in the future, or of some great historical name, just borne by the nation to his tomb--we have learned that then and there, at the base of bunker hill, before the corner-stone was laid, and again when the finished column the centuries looked on him; in faneuil hall, mourning for those with whom spoken or written eloquence of freedom its arches had so often resounded; on the rock of plymouth; before the capitol, of which there shall not be one stone left on another before his memory shall have ceased to live--in such scenes, unfettered by the laws of forensic or parliamentary debate, multitudes uncounted lifting up their eyes to him; some great historical scenes of america around; all symbols of her glory and art and power and fortune there; voices of the past, not unheard; shapes beckoning from the future, not unseen--sometimes that mighty intellect, borne upward to a height and kindled to an illumination which we shall see no more, wrought out, as it were, in an instant a picture of vision, warning, prediction; the progress of the nation; the contrasts of its eras; the heroic deaths; the motives to patriotism; the maxims and arts imperial by which the glory has been gathered and may be heightened--wrought out, in an instant, a picture to fade only when all record of our mind shall die. in looking over the public remains of his oratory, it is striking to remark how, even in that most sober and massive understanding and nature, you see gathered and expressed the characteristic sentiments and the passing time of our america. it is the strong old oak which ascends before you; yet our soil, our heaven, are attested in it as perfectly as if it were a flower that could grow in no other climate and in no other hour of the year or day. let me instance in one thing only. it is a peculiarity of some schools of eloquence that they embody and utter, not merely the individual genius and character of the speaker, but a national consciousness--a national era, a mood, a hope, a dread, a despair--in which you listen to the spoken history of the time. there is an eloquence of an expiring nation, such as seems to sadden the glorious speech of demosthenes; such as breathes grand and gloomy from the visions of the prophets of the last days of israel and judah; such as gave a spell to the expression of grattan and of kossuth--the sweetest, most mournful, most awful of the words which man may utter, or which man may hear--the eloquence of a perishing nation. there is another eloquence, in which the national consciousness of a young or renewed and vast strength, of trust in a dazzling certain and limitless future, an inward glorying in victories yet to be won, sounds out as by voice of clarion, challenging to contest for the highest prize of earth; such as that in which the leader of israel in the first days holds up to the new nation the land of promise; such as that which in the well-imagined speeches scattered by livy over the history of the "majestic series of victories" speaks the roman consciousness of growing aggrandizement which should subject the world; such as that through which, at the tribunes of her revolution, in the bulletins of her rising soldiers, france told the world her dream of glory. and of this king somewhat is ours--cheerful, hopeful, trusting, as befits youth and spring; the eloquence of a state beginning to ascend to the first class of power, eminence, and consideration, and conscious of itself. it is to no purpose that they tell you it is in bad taste; that it partakes of arrogance and vanity; that a true national good breeding would not know, or seem to know, whether the nation is old or young; whether the tides of being are in their flow or ebb; whether these coursers of the sun are sinking slowly to rest, wearied with a journey of a thousand years, or just bounding from the orient unbreathed. higher laws than those of taste determine the consciousness of nations. higher laws than those of taste determine the general forms of the expression of that consciousness. let the downward age of america find its orators and poets and artists to erect its spirit, or grace, and soothe its dying; be it ours to go up with webster, to the rock, the monument, the capitol, and bid "the distant generations hail!" until the seventh day of march, , i think it would have been accorded to him by an almost universal acclaim, as general and as expressive of profound and intelligent conviction and of enthusiasm, love, and trust, as ever saluted conspicuous statesmanship, tried by many crises of affairs in a great nation, agitated ever by parties, and wholly free. john bright the strength of the american government ( ) will anybody deny that the government at washington as regards its own people is the strongest government in the world at this hour? and for this simple reason: because it is based on the will, and the good will, of an instructed people. look at its power! i am not now discussing why it is, or the cause which is developing this power; but power is the thing which men regard in these old countries, and which they ascribe mainly to european institutions; but look at the power which the united states have developed! they have brought more men into the field, they have built more ships for their navy, they have shown greater resources, than any nation in europe at this moment is capable of. look at the order which has prevailed at their elections, at which, as you see by the papers, fifty thousand, or one hundred thousand, or two hundred and fifty thousand persons voting in a given state, with less disorder than you have seen lately in three of the smallest boroughs in england. look at their industry. notwithstanding this terrible struggle, their agriculture, their manufactures and commerce proceed with an uninterrupted success. they are ruled by a president, chosen, it is true, not from some worn-out royal or noble blood, but from the people, and the one whose truthfulness and spotless honor have claimed him universal praise; and now the country that has been vilified through half the organs of the press in england during the last three years, and was pointed out, too, as an example to be shunned by many of your statesmen, that country, now in mortal strife, affords a haven and a home for multitudes flying from the burdens and the neglect of the old governments of europe; and, when this mortal strife is over--when peace is restored, when slavery is destroyed, when the union is cemented afresh--for i would say, in the language of one of our own poets addressing his country, the grave's not dug where traitor hands shall lay in fearful haste thy murdered corse away-- then europe and england may learn that an instructed democracy is the surest foundation of government, and that education and freedom are the only sources of true greatness and true happiness among any people. george william curtis robert burns[ ] ( ) burns died at the same age with raphael; and mozart, who was his contemporary, died only four years before him. raphael and mozart are the two men of lyrical genius in kindred arts who impress us and the most exquisitely refined by careful cultivation; and, although burns was of all great poets the most unschooled, he belongs with raphael in painting and mozart in music, and there is no fourth. an indescribable richness and flower-like quality, a melodious grace and completeness and delicacy, belong to them all. looking upon a beautiful human madonna of raphael, we seem to hear the rippling cadence of mozart and the tender and true song of burns. they are all voices of the whole world speaking in this accent of a native land. here are italy and germany and scotland, distinct, individual, perfectly recognizable, but the sun that reveals and illuminates their separate charms, that is not italian or german or scotch, it is the sun of universal nature. this is the singer whom this statue commemorates, the singer of songs immortal as love; pure as the dew of the morning, and sweet as its breath; songs with which the lover wooes his bride, and the mother soothes her child, and the heart of a people beats with patriotic exultation; songs that cheer human endeavors, and console human sorrow, and exalt human life. we cannot find out the secret of their power until we know why the rose is sweet, or the dew-drop pure, or the rainbow beautiful, we cannot know why the poet is the best benefactor of humanity. whether because he reveals us to ourselves, or because he touches the soul with the fervor of divine aspiration, whether because in a world of sordid and restless anxiety he fills us with serene joy, or puts into rythmic and permanent form the best thoughts and hopes of man--who shall say? but none the less is the heart's instinctive loyalty to the poet the proof of its consciousness that he does all these things, that he is the harmonizer, strengthener, and consoler. how the faith of christendom has been stayed for centuries upon the mighty words of the old hebrew bards and prophets, and how the vast and inexpressible mystery of divine love and power and purpose has been breathed into parable and poem! if we were forced to surrender every expression of human genius but one, surely we should retain poetry; and if we were called upon to lose from the vast accumulation of literature all but a score of books, among that choice, and perfect remainder would be the songs of burns. how fitly, then, among the memorials of those who in different countries and times and ways have been leaders of mankind, we raise this statue of the poet whose genius is an unconscious but sweet and elevating influence in our national life. it is not a power dramatic, obvious, imposing, immediate, like that of the statesman, the warrior, and the inventor, but it is as deep and strong and abiding. the soldier fights for his native land, but the poet touches that land with the charm that makes it worth fighting for, and fires the warrior's heart with the fierce energy that makes his blow invincible. the statesman enlarges and orders liberty in the state, but the poet fosters the love of liberty in the heart of the citizen. the inventor multiplies the facilities of life, but the poet makes life better worth living. here, then, among trees and flowers and waters; here upon the greensward and under the open sky; here where birds carol, and children play, and lovers whisper, and the various stream of human life flows by--we raise the statue of robert burns. while the human heart beats, that name will be music in human ears. he knew better than we the pathos of human life. we know better than he the infinite pathos of his own. ah! robert burns, robert burns! whoever lingers here as he passes and muses upon your statue will see in imagination a solitary mountain in your own beautiful scotland, heaven-soaring, wrapped in impenetrable clouds. suddenly the mists part, and there are the heather, the brier-rose, and the gowan fine; there are the burnies, wimplin' down your glens wi' toddling' din, or foaming strang wi' hasty stens frae lin to lin;[ ] the cushat is moaning; the curlew is calling; the plover is singing; the red dear is bounding; and look! the clouds roll utterly away, and the clear summit is touched with the tender glory of sunshine, heaven's own benediction! l. q. c. lamar sumner and the south[ ] ( ) it was certainly a gracious act on the part of charles sumner toward the south, though unhappily it jarred on the sensibilities of the people at the other extreme of the union, to propose to erase from the banners of the national army the mementos of the bloody internal struggle which might be regarded as assailing the pride or wounding the sensibilities of the southern people. the proposal will never be forgotten by that people so long as the name of charles sumner lives in the memory of man. but while it touched the heart and elicited her profound gratitude, her people would not have asked of the north such an act of self-renunciation. conscious that they themselves were animated by devotion to constitutional liberty, and that the brightest pages of history are replete with evidences of the depth and sincerity of that devotion, they can but cherish the recollection of the battles fought and the victories won in defense of their hopeless cause; and respecting, as all true and brave men must respect, the martial spirit with which the men of the north vindicated the integrity of the union, and their devotion to the principles of human freedom, they do not ask, they do not wish the north to strike the mementos of heroism and victory from either records or monuments or battle-flags. they would rather that both sections should gather up the glories won by each section, not envious, but proud of each other, and regard them as a common heritage of american valor. let us hope that future generations, when they remember the deeds of heroism and devotion done on both sides, will speak, not of northern prowess or southern courage, but of the heroism, courage and fortitude of the americans in a war of ideas--a war in which each section signalized its consecration to the principles, as each understood them, of american liberty and of the constitution received from their fathers. charles sumner in life believed that all occasion for strife and distrust between the north and south had passed away, and there no longer remained any cause for continued estrangement between these two sections of our common country. are there not many of us who believe the same thing? is not the common sentiment, or if not, ought it not to be, of the great mass of our people, north and south? bound to each other by a common constitution, destined to life together under a common government, forming unitedly but a single member of a great family of nations, shall we not now at least endeavor to grow toward each other once more in heart, as we are indissolubly linked to each other in fortunes? shall we not, while honoring the memory of this great champion of liberty, this feeling sympathizer with human sorrow, this earnest pleader for the exercise of human tenderness and heavenly charity, lay aside the concealments which serve only to perpetuate misunderstandings and distrust, and frankly confess that on both sides we most earnestly desire to be one--one not merely in political organization; one not merely in community of language, and literature, and traditions, and country; but more and better than all that, one also in feeling and in heart? am i mistaken in this? do the concealments of which i speak still cover animosities, which neither time nor reflection nor the march of events have yet suffered to subdue? i can not believe it. since i have been here i have scrutinized your sentiments, as expressed not merely in public debate, but in the abandon of personal confidence. i know well the sentiments of these by my southern friends, whose hearts are so infolded that the feeling of each is the feeling of all; and i am on both sides only the seeming of a constraint which each apparently hesitates to dismiss. the south--prostrate, exhausted, drained of her life-blood as well as her material resources, yet still honorable and true--accepts the bitter award of the bloody arbitrament without reservation, resolutely determined to abide the result with chivalrous fidelity. yet, as if struck dumb by the magnitude of her reverses, she suffers on in silence. the north, exultant in her triumph and elevated by success, still cherishes, as we are assured, a heart full of magnanimous emotions toward her disarmed and discomfited antagonist; and yet, as if under some mysterious spell, her words and acts are words and acts of suspicion and distrust. would that the spirit of the illustrious dead, whom we lament today, could speak from the grave to both parties to this deplorable discord, in tones which would reach each and every heart throughout this broad territory: my country-men! know one another and you will love one another. robert ingersoll at his brother's grave[ ] ( ) my friends: i am going to do that which the dead oft promised he would do for me. the loved and loving brother, husband, father, friend, dies where manhood's morning almost touches noon, and while the shadows were still falling toward the west. he had not passed on life's highway the stone that marks the highest point, but, being weary for a moment, lay down by the wayside, and, using his burden for a pillow, fell into that dreamless sleep that kisses down his eyelids still. while yet in love with life and raptured with the world, he passed to silence and pathetic dust. yet, after all, it may be best, just in the happiest, sunniest hour of all the voyage, while eager winds are kissing every sail, to task against the unseen rock, and in an instant hear the billows roar above a sunken ship. for, whether in mid-sea or 'mong the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck at last must mark the end of each and all. and every life, no matter if its every house is rich with love and every moment jeweled with a joy, will, at its close, become a tragedy as sad and deep and dark as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death. this brave and tender man in every storm of life was oak and rock, but in the sunshine he was vine and flower. he was the friend of all heroic souls. he climbed the heights and left all superstitions far below, while on his forehead fell the golden dawning of the grander day. he loved the beautiful, and was with color, form, and music touched to tears. he sided with the weak, and with a willing hand gave alms; with loyal heart and with purest hands he faithfully discharged all public trusts. he was a worshiper of liberty, a friend of the oppressed. a thousand times i have heard him quite these words: "for justice, all place a temple; and all seasons, summer." he believed that happiness was the only good, reason the only torch, justice the only worship, humanity the only religion, and love the only priest. he added to the sum of human joy; and were every one to whom he did some loving service to bring a blossom to his grave, he would sleep tonight beneath a wilderness of flowers. life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. we strive in vain to look beyond the heights. we cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of our wailing cry. from the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of death hope sees a star, and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing. he who sleeps here, when dying, mistaking the approach of death for the return of health, whispered with his last breath: "i am better now." let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas, and tears and fears, that these dear words are true of all the countless dead. and now to you who have been chosen, from among the many men he loved, to do the last sad office for the dead, we give his sacred dust. speech can not contain our love. there was, there is, no greater, stronger, manlier man. william gladstone against the tory government[ ] ( ) to those gentlemen who talk of the great vigor and determination and success of the tory government, i ask you to compare the case of bulgaria and turkey. try them by principles, or try them by results, i care not which; we knew what we were about and what was to be done when we had integrity and independence to support. when they had integrity and independence to protect they talked indeed loud enough about supporting turkey, and you would suppose they were prepared to spend their resources upon it; but all their measures have ended in nothing except that they have reduced turkey to a state of greater weakness than at any portion of her history, whereas, on the other hand, in regard to the twelve or thirteen millions of slavs and roumanian population, they have made the name of england odious throughout the whole population, and done everything in their power to throw that population into the arms of russia, to be the tool of russia in its plans and schemes, unless, indeed, as i hope and am inclined to believe, the virtue of free institutions that they have obtained will make them too wise to become the tools of any foreign power whatever, will make them intent upon maintaining their own liberties, as becomes a free people playing a noble part in the history of europe. i have detained you too long, and i will not, though i would, pursue this subject further. i have shown you what i think the miserable failure of the policy of the government. remember, we have a fixed point from which to draw our measurements. remember what in the proposal of those who approved of the bulgarian agitation and who were denounced as the enemies of turkey, remember what the proposal would have done. it would have given autonomy to bulgaria, which has not got autonomy; but it would have saved all the remainder at less detriment to the rest of the turkish empire. turkey would have had a fair chance. turkey would not have suffered the territorial losses which she has elsewhere suffered, and which she has suffered, i must say, in consequence of her being betrayed into the false and mischievous, the tempting and seductive, but unreal and unwise policy of the present administration. there are other matters which must be reserved for other times. we are told about the crimean war. sir stafford northcote tells us the crimean war, made by the liberal government, cost the country forty millions of debt, and an income tax of one shilling and four pence per pound. now what is the use of telling us that? i will discuss the crimean war on some future occasion, but not now. if the liberal government were so clever that they contrived to burden the country with forty millions of debt for this crimean war, why does he not go back to the war before that and tell us what the tory government did with the revolutionary war, when they left a debt on the country of some nine hundred millions, of which six hundred and fifty millions then had made in the revolutionary war, and not only so, but left the blessing and legacy of the corn laws, and of a high protective system, an impoverished country, and a discontented population--so much so that for years that followed the great revolutionary war, no man could say whether the constitution of this country was or was not worth five years' purchase. they might even go further back than the revolutionary war. they have been talking loudly of the colonies, and say that, forsooth, the liberal party do nothing for the colonies. what did the tory party do for the colonies? i can tell you. go to the war that preceded the revolutionary war. they made war against the american continent. they added to the debt of the country two hundred millions in order to destroy freedom in america. they alienated it and drove it from this country. they were compelled to bring this country to make an ignominious peace; and, as far as i know, that attempt to put down freedom in america, with its results to this country, is the only one great fact which has ever distinguished the relations between a tory government and the colonies. but gentlemen, these must be matters postponed for another occasion. i thank you very cordially, both friends and opponents, if opponents you be, for the extreme kindness with which you have heard me. i have spoken, and i must speak in very strong terms of the acts done by my opponents. i will never say that they did it from vindictiveness, i will never say that they did it from passion, i will never say that they did it from a sordid love of office; i have no right to use such words; i have no right to entertain such sentiments; i repudiate and abjure them. i give them credit for patriotic motives--i give them credit for those patriotic motives which are incessantly and gratuitously denied to us. i believe we are all united in a fond attachment to the great country to which we belong, to the great empire which has committed to it a trust and function from providence, as special and remarkable as was ever entrusted to any portion of the family of man. when i speak of that trust and that function i feel that words fail. i cannot tell you what i think of the nobleness of the inheritance which has descended upon us, of the sacredness of the duty of maintaining it. i will not condescend to make it a part of controversial politics. it is a part of my being, of my flesh and blood, of my heart and soul. for those ends i have labored through my youth and manhood, and, more than that, till my hairs are gray. in that faith and practice i have lived, and in that faith and practice i shall die. james g. blaine eulogy of president garfield[ ] ( ) his terrible fate was upon him in an instant. one moment he stood erect, strong, confident in the years stretching peacefully out before him. the next he lay wounded, bleeding, helpless; doomed to weary weeks of torture, to silence, and the grave. great in life, garfield was surpassingly great in death. for no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness, by the red hand of murder, he was thrust from the full tide of this world's interest, from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories, into the visible presence of death--and he did not quail. not alone for the one short moment in which, stunned and dazed, he could give up life, hardly aware of its relinquishment, but through days of deadly languor, through weeks of agony, that was not less agony because silently borne, with clear sight and calm courage, he looked into his open grave. what blight and ruin met his anguished eyes, whose lips may tell--what brilliant broken plans, what baffled high ambitions, what sundering of warm, strong, manhood's friendships, what bitter rending of sweet household ties! behind him a proud, expectant nation, a great host of sustaining friends, a cherished and happy mother, wearing the full, rich honors of her early toil and tears; the wife of his youth, whose whole life lay in his; the little boys not yet emerged from childhood's days of frolic; the fair, young daughter; the sturdy sons just springing into closest companionship, claiming every day and every day rewarding a father's love and care, and in his heart the eager rejoicing power to meet all demands! before him desolation and great darkness! and his soul was not shaken. his countrymen were thrilled with instant, profound, and universal sympathy. masterful in his mortal weakness, he became the centre of a nation's love, enshrined in the prayers of a world; but all the love and all the sympathy could not share with him his suffering. he trod the wine-press alone. with unfaltering front he faced death. with unfailing tenderness he took leave of life. above the demoniac hiss of the assassin's bullet, he heard the voice of god. with simple resignation, he bowed to the divine decree. as the end drew near his early craving for the sea returned. the stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and hopelessness. gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the longed-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as god should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of its manifold voices. with wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing wonders; on its far sails whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening arching low to the horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. let us think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt and parting soul may know. let us believe that in the silence of the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a farther shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning. william j. bryan "the cross of gold" speech[ ] ( ) mr. chairman and gentlemen of the convention: i would be presumptuous indeed to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. the humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. i come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty--the cause of humanity. when this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration, and also the resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. we object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. the individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle. never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. never before in the history of american politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. on the fourth of march, , a few democrats, most of them members of congress, issued an address to the democrats of the nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring that a majority of the democratic party had the right to control the action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request that the believers in the free coinage of silver in the democratic party should organize, take charge of, and control the policy of the democratic party. three months later, at memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into a platform the declaration which they had made. then began the conflict. with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed peter the hermit, our silver democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country. in this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. the warmest ties of love, acquaintance, and association have been disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression unto the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people. we do not come as individuals. as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from new york (senator hill), but we know that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the democratic party. i say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. the gentleman who preceded me (ex-governor russell) spoke of the state of massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of massachusetts, but we stand here representing the people who are the equals, before the law, of the greatest citizens in the state of massachusetts. when you [turning to the gold delegates] come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course. we say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its applications. the man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of new york; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, who begins in spring and toils all summer, and who by the application of brains and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. we come to speak of this broader class of business men. ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose--the pioneers away out there [pointing to the west], who rear their children near to nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds--out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead--these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. it is for these that we speak. we do not come as aggressors. our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. we have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. we beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. we defy them! the gentleman from wisconsin has said that he fears a robespierre. my friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up from among the people. what we need is an andrew jackson to stand, as jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth. they tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. we reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. they tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. they criticize us for our criticism of the supreme court of the united states. my friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called attention to what you already know. if you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. there you will find criticisms. they say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. the income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went before the supreme court for the first time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. the income tax is just. it simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. i am in favor of an income tax. when i find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, i find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours. they say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. if you will read what thomas benton said, you will find he said that, in searching history, he could find but one parallel to andrew jackson; that was cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of catiline and saved rome. benton said that cicero only did for rome what jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved america. we say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. we believe it. we believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. mr. jefferson, who was once regarded as good democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. i stand with jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business. they complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in office. they have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. what we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is built up in washington, and which excludes from participation in official benefits the humble members of society. let me call your attention to two or three important things. the gentleman from new york says that he will propose an amendment to the platform providing that the proposed change in our monetary system shall not affect contracts already made. let me remind you that there is no intention of affecting these contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold; but if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, i desire to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find justification for not protecting the debtors when the act of was passed, if he now insists that we must protect the creditors. he says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the suspension of free coinage if we fail to maintain a parity within a year. we reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. i ask him, if he would apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. he says he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. why does he not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to secure an international agreement? there is more reason for him to do that than there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity. our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want it at all. and now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. if they ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, i reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. if they ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the constitution all other necessary reforms will be possible; but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished. why is it that within three months such a change has come over the country? three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a president. and they had good reason for their doubt, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard which is not in the absolute control of the republican party. but note the change. mr. mckinley was nominated at st. louis upon a platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. mr. mckinley was the most popular man among the republicans, and three months ago everybody in the republican party prophesied his election. how is it today? why, the man who was once pleased to think that he looked like napoleon--that man shudders today when he remembers that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of waterloo. not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of st. helena. why this change? ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change evident to any one who will look at the matter? no private character, however, pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates and powers. we go forth confident that we shall win. why? because upon the paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we shall point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard and substitute bimetallism. if the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? i call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism--thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of bimetallism is better--these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the world. if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing why should we wait until other nations are willing to help us to let go? here is the line of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the fight; we are prepared to meet them on either side or on both. if they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard and that both the great parties this year are declaring against it. if the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? if they come to meet us on that issue we can present the history of our nation. more than that; we can tell them that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance where the common people of any land have ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. they can find where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but not where the masses have. mr. carlisle said in that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country"; and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: upon which side will the democratic party fight, upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses"? that is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. the sympathies of the democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the democratic party. there are two ideas of government. there are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. the democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through ever class which rests upon them. you come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country. my friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question, without waiting for the aid and consent of any other nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every state in the union. i shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair state of massachusetts, nor the inhabitants of the state of new york, by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. it is the issue of over again. our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? no, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. if they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because england has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let england have bimetallism because the united states has it. if they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. john haynes holmes the birth of an orator[ ] ( ) on the th day of december, , there was held in faneuil hall, in the city of boston, a great public meeting in protest against the recent murder, in alton, illinois, of the rev. elijah p. lovejoy. the historic old edifice was filled upon this momentous occasion to suffocation, as feeling was running very high upon both sides of the slavery question; and the audience was about equally divided between the friends and enemies of the cause. the meeting was opened with a brief and impressive address by dr. channing. resolutions denouncing the murder of lovejoy were then read and formally seconded. everything seemed to be moving smoothly, when a man was seen making his way through the excited crowd to the great gilded eagle in the front of the gallery. he was instantly recognized as james t. austin, a parishioner of dr. channing, a popular politician, and at that time the attorney-general of the commonwealth. gaining his position, he began a harangue, calculated to fire the crowd and break up the meeting. he compared the slaves of the south to a menagerie, and likened lovejoy to one who should "break the bars and let loose the caravan to prowl about the streets." he talked of the rioters of alton as akin to the "orderly mob" which threw the tea into boston harbor in ; and, in direct allusion to his minister, dr. channing, he closed by asserting that a clergyman with a gun in his hand, or one "mingling in the debates of a popular assembly, was marvellously out of place." no sooner were these words spoken than the chairman lost all control of the meeting. the attorney-general had captured his audience, and friends and foes seemed to vie with one another in calling for the resolutions that they might vote them down, and then turn the protest of the occasion into an endorsement. at this wild moment, when all hope of saving the meeting seemed to be lost, a young man with pale face and close-pressed lips, was seen pushing his way to the platform through the frenzied mob. a few persons recognized wendell phillips, a son of one of the richest and most conservative families of boston, a graduate of harvard college and harvard law school, and now just entered upon the practice of his profession. leaping upon the stage, this unknown stripling faced the crowd, as tall and fair and beautiful as an apollo, and, raising his hand, spoke two or three words in those marvellous silvery tones which were destined ultimately to chant their music in so many halls and before so many popular assemblies. instantly the wild "tumult and shouting" was hushed, while men leaned forward curiously to hear what this foolish youth could find to say in answer to the attorney-general. "mr. chairman," he began, "we are here met for the freest discussion of these resolutions, and the events which gave rise to them. i hope i shall be permitted to express my surprise as to the sentiments of the last speaker--surprise not only at such sentiments from such a man, but at the applause which they received within these walls. . . . sir, when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murders of lovejoy side by side with otis and hancock, quincy and adams, i thought [pointing to the portraits of the revolutionary heroes in the hall] those pictured lips would have broken into voice to rebuke this recreant american--this slanderer of the dead." instantly, with this utterance of magic eloquence, the tide of popular feeling was turned. sentence after sentence fell from the speaker's lips like thunderbolts from the land of jove, until at last his words were swept away in the wild tumult of applause; and with a mighty shout the resolutions were put and carried. thus was the day unexpectedly saved, and from that moment on faneuil hall was identified with the name of wendell phillips as it had previously been identified with the names of james otis and samuel adams, and was dedicated to the cause of anti-slavery, as it had hitherto been dedicated to the cause of political independence. peace between labor and capital[ ] ( ) first of all, let me tell you that nothing will be gained by crushing unions and destroying organizations of labor. the time has passed by forever for that course of procedure. labor is learning its power; and, what is more important still, society has itself learned the value of organized labor as a bulwark against the aggressions of militant capitalism. the man who thinks that labor can be permanently repressed and exploited is mad, and his madness is a menace to the future peace of the country. neither can we solve this problem by talking about the interests of capital and labor being identical under the present system of industry, and by bringing capital and labor together into any such "moonshine" organization as the civic federation. we might as well recognize the fact once for all that, just as long as higher wages mean lower dividends, and shortened hours mean lessened output, the interests of capital and labor are not identical but opposite, not mutual but antagonistic. the only way to bring peace into the present turmoil and confusion of industry is first, for the sake of ordinary decency and order, to make some laws to meet the situation--laws which will oblige two warring classes to bring their dispute before some impartial tribunal for peaceful settlement, as two warring individuals are obliged to do; and then, going straight to the heart of the matter, to recognize that our whole system of capital and labor, employer and employee, master and servant, is a form of feudalism, and that this feudalism must give way to democracy in the world of industry as it has long since given way to democracy in the world of politics. the social war will be over and peace established, when the man who invests his labor in an industry is given the same degree of ownership in that industry, as the man who invests his money--when the laborer with his hands, like the laborer with his brains, is given the full product of his labor--when the laborer becomes a capitalist and the capitalist becomes a laborer--when one man counts for one man in the organization of industry, whatever his class or station or wealth, just as one man is now counted for one man in the organization of government. in other words, when competition is succeeded by coÃ�¶peration, private ownership and control by social ownership and control, feudalism by democracy, despotism by liberty, inequality by equality, antagonism by fraternity, hatred by good-will. and you and i can speed the coming of this happy day, by solemnly resolving in the sight of god, that, so far as we are concerned, we shall seek the enjoyment of no privilege which is not universal, demand the exercise of no right for ourselves which is denied to one of the least of these our brethren, and cherish no sentiment within our hearts save that of good-will for all the sons of men. i have spoken upon this burning question this morning, my friends, with a freedom which makes misinterpretation inevitable and misquotation certain. i have spoken thus for two reasons! first, that you, as my people, may know, beyond all doubt, just where i, your minister, stand on this burning question. i want you to know that, in this present fight, i am on the side of labor. i excuse none of its crimes--i pardon none of its criminals; but no crime and no criminal can ever shake my faith in the justice of its cause. and, in the second place, i have thus spoken, that i may shake you out of that opinion which has been forced upon your minds by the public discussions of the last two weeks, and set your thinking upon this question all anew. if you go out of this place, and denounce me as a dynamiter, i shall have failed in my purpose; and the fault will be mine, that i cannot express clearly what i want to say. if you go out of this place, and, without accepting any of my opinions, think the whole problem through again, in prayer to god that you may find the truth and may do injustice to no living soul, i shall have succeeded; and the credit will be yours, that you have the open mind. but whether i succeed or fail, matters little, perhaps; for, in spite of you and in spite of me, "it is god who reigneth over all the earth--he will judge the world in righteousness and minister judgment to the people. he will not fail nor faint till he have set justice in the earth--till he have burst the yoke asunder and given liberty to all them that are oppressed." richard brinsley sheridan the perfect orator imagine to yourself a demosthenes, addressing the most illustrious assembly in the world, upon a point whereon the fate of the most illustrious of nations depended. how awful such a meeting! how fast the subject! is man possessed of talents adequate to the great occasion? adequate! yes, superior. by the power of eloquence, the augustness of the assembly is lost in the dignity of the orator; and the importance of the subject, for a while superseded, by the admiration of his talents. with what strength of argument, with what powers of the fancy, with what emotions of the heart, doth he assault and subjugate the whole man; and at once, captivate his reason, his imagination, and his passions. to effect this, must be the utmost effort of the most improved state of human nature. not a faculty that he possesses is here unemployed; not a faculty that he possesses but is here exerted to its highest pitch. all his internal powers are at work; all his external, testify their energies. within, the memory, the fancy, the judgment, the passions, are all busy. without, every muscle, every nerve, is exerted; not a feature, not a limb, but speaks. the organs of the body, attuned to the exertions of the mind, through the kindred organs of the hearers, instantaneously vibrate those energies from soul to soul. notwithstanding the diversity of minds in such a multitude, by the lightning of eloquence, they are melted into one mass; the whole assembly, actuated in one and the same way, become, as it were, but one man, and have but one voice. the universal cry is--"_let us move against philip_--let us fight for our liberties--+let us conquer or die!+" theodore roosevelt inaugural address[ ] ( ) my fellow citizens: no people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with gratitude to the giver of good, who has blessed us with the conditions which have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and happiness. to us as a people it has been granted to lay the foundations of our natural life in a new continent. we are the heirs of the ages, and yet we have had to pay few of the penalties which in old countries are exacted by the dead hand of a bygone civilization. we have not been obliged to fight for our existence against any alien race; and yet our life has called for the vigor and effort without which the manlier and hardier virtues wither away. under such conditions it would be our own fault if we failed, and the success which we have had in the past, the success which we confidently believe the future will bring, should cause in us no feeling of vainglory, but rather a deep and abiding realization of all that life has offered us; a full acknowledgment of the responsibility which is ours; and a fixed determination to show that under a free government a mighty people can thrive best, alike as regard the things of the body and the things of the soul. much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. we have duties to others and duties to ourselves--and we can shirk neither. we have become a great nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relation to the other nations of the earth, and we must behave as becomes a people with such responsibilities. toward all other nations, large and small, our attitude must be one of cordial and sincere friendship. we must show not only in our words but in our deeds that we are earnestly desirous of securing their good will by acting toward them in a spirit of just and generous recognition of all their rights. but justice and generosity in a nation, as in an individual, count most when shown not by the weak but by the strong. while ever careful to refrain from wronging others, we must be no less insistent that we are not wronged ourselves. we wish peace; but we wish the peace of justice, the peace of righteousness. we wish it because we think it right, and not because we are afraid. no weak nation that acts rightly and justly should ever have cause to fear, and no strong power should ever be able to single us out as a subject for insolent aggression. our relations with the other powers of the world are important; but still more important are our relations among ourselves. such growth in wealth, in population, and in power, as a nation has seen during a century and a quarter of its national life, is inevitably accompanied by a like growth in the problems which are ever before every nation that rises to greatness. power invariably means both responsibility and danger. our forefathers faced certain perils which we have outgrown. we now face other perils the very existence of which it was impossible that they should foresee. modern life is both complex and intense, and the tremendous changes wrought by the extraordinary industrial development of the half century are felt in every fiber of our social and political being. never before have men tried so vast and formidable an experiment as that of administering the affairs of a continent under the forms of a democratic republic. the conditions which have told for our marvelous material well-being, which have developed to a very high degree our energy, self-reliance, and individual initiative, also have brought the care and anxiety inseparable from the accumulation of great wealth in industrial centers. upon the success of our experiment much depends--not only as regards our own welfare, but as regards the welfare of mankind. if we fail, the cause of free self-government throughout the world will rock to its foundations, and therefore our responsibility is heavy, to ourselves, to the world as it is today, and to the generations yet unborn. there is no good reason why we should fear the future, but there is every reason why we should face it seriously, neither hiding from ourselves the gravity of the problems before us, nor fearing to approach these problems with the unbending, unflinching purpose to solve them aright. yet, after all, though the problems are new, though the tasks set before us differ from the tasks set before our fathers, who founded and preserved this republic, the spirit in which these tasks must be undertaken and these problems faced, if our duty is to be well done, remains essentially unchanged. we know that self-government is difficult. we know that no people needs such high traits of character as that people which seeks to govern its affairs aright through the freely expressed will of the free men who compose it. but we have faith that we shall not prove false to memories of the men of the mighty past. they did their work; they left us the splendid heritage we now enjoy. we in our turn have an assured confidence that we shall be able to leave this heritage unwasted and enlarged for our children's children. to do so we must show, not merely in great crisis, but in every-day affairs of life, the qualities of practical intelligence, of course, of hardihood, and endurance, and, above all, the power of devotion to a lofty ideal, which made great the men who founded this republic in the days of washington; which made great the men who preserved this republic in the days of abraham lincoln. edwin g. lawrence our country[ ] ( ) mr. toastmaster, ladies and gentlemen: in that long ago, that age just following the period when darkness covered the face of the earth, that age when god dispelled that darkness by issuing his fiat, "let there be light," we are told in the good book that god followed the birth of the light with the creation of man, that he breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and that man became thereby a living soul. with the entrance of divine breath into the senseless clay, with the awakening of the soul of man, there came the realization of three spiritual facts: the belief in god, the love of home, and the devotion to country. nowhere in this vast universe does a conscious being exist who does not, in his heart, believe in god. traverse the wilds of darkest africa, enter the densest jungles of that great continent, and you will find that all its human inhabitants have some conception of god. in the remotest isles of the pacific, among the cannibals who devour the flesh of their victims, is found evidence of the belief in the existence of god, although the evidence may be nothing more than the setting up of a symbol of wood or stone that typifies to the poor savage the being he worships. even the blasphemer, who, with the words of his mouth, denies the almighty who created him, will, in his secret soul, hear the still small voice, the reflex of that great creator, whisper unto him, "i am the lord thy god." the love of home is universal. be that home a hovel or a palace, if the heart be there, happiness will be its companion. love of home often exists where the home is only in the fancy, only in the heart that longs and hungers for its blessings. that sweet singer who sang of "home, sweet home" was a wanderer on the face of the earth, and possessed that home only in his dreams. no matter how pomp and power may elevate us, no matter how our erring feet may carry us astray, still in our hearts will echo the refrain: 'mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam, be it ever so humble, there's no place like home. as we are gathered within this palatial building, around these well-laden tables, under the splendor of these electric lamps, how many of you at the sound of the word "home" think of the little cottage perched upon the hill, or nestling down in the valley, where, seated at the plain wooden table, the room faintly lighted by a tallow candle, you have eaten your humble meal, blessed by the spirit that ever sanctifies the home? how many of you at this moment are, in fancy, back in the dear old county of greene? how many of you trace the winding brook climb the hills, till the fields, or sit within the holy confines of the house of god, humble in its man-made structure but magnificent with the glory of his presence? home is a thought, a dream, a wish, the longing of the soul for the attainment of the heaven upon earth; and because man keeps before him the vision of what he would have his home, and sees not the materiality of its reality, he conceives his home, no matter where it may be placed, to be the best on earth. that beautiful writer, weak man, and luckless wanderer, oliver goldsmith, thus expresses the idea i would convey to you: but where to find that happiest spot below who can direct, when all pretend to know? the shudd'ring tenant of the frigid zone boldly proclaims that happiest spot his own. extols the treasures of his stormy seas, and his long nights of revelry and ease: the naked negro, panting at the line, boasts of his golden sands and palmy wine, basks in their glare, or stems the tepid wave, and thanks his gods for all the good they gave. such is the patriot's boast where'er he roam, his first, best country, ever is at home. what does the word country signify? it means the same to the russian on the frozen volga; the german on the castled rhine; the irish on the shores of the river lee, listening to "those bells of shandon"; to the english on the thames, that little stream pregnant with the history of a world; and to the american by the shores of the hudson, the columbia or the mississippi. to all men, in all climes, "my country" means the land of my fathers, or the land of my choice; the place of sacred memories, of strong endeavors and of fervent hopes. be that country the rock-ribbed land of scotland, the sands of africa, the vine-clad hills of france, the plains, the valleys and the mountains of america, it is "my country" to her sons and daughters. no matter what may be the language spoken, no matter what may the natural formation of the landscape, be it holland with her dykes and ditches or switzerland with her home in the clouds, no matter what may be the color of her children, be they white, yellow, black or brown, to them she is their mother, and they adore her. all this and more "our country" means to us americans. she means more to us than most lands can mean to their children, because she offers us greater opportunities for advancement in education, more religious, social and political liberty, and instills into us an appreciation of the necessity of working for the uplifting of mankind. while laboring to uplift ourselves and our fellows, we should keep ever in mind the first tenth of that decalogue given to the children of israel for their guidance and government, and which is as necessary to our national preservation as it was to their national formation. that commandment states "thou shalt have no other gods before me"; and wherever that divine order was broken, the peoples so breaking it, went down to destruction. when athens turned from her high ideals of progress and liberty she became the vassal of macedonia and passed out of existence as an independent state. when the emperor augustus mounted the throne of the world-power of rome, the people of that vast empire were slaves to sensuality and luxury, and from that moment, when her greatness appeared fixed for all times, her decline began. let america pause and ponder as she stands on the brink of that gulf wherein lie buried israel, assyria, carthage, greece, and rome, for unless she turns from the false god mammon, and returns to the worship of the lord god, she will as surely be plunged into the bottomless pit as were the nations that preceded her in wealth and power and which she is imitating by bowing down to and worshiping the golden calf. let us keep before our country the lights of truth and justice that they may guide her from this threatening peril on to that upward and onward path leading to the holy of holies wherein sits enthroned the one true god--the god of equality and of love. it is well to blend god, home and country, because the belief in all three makes the believer, man or woman, the patriot and the child of god. take god out of the home and what have we? a shelter for the body, perhaps, but a wilderness for the spirit. take god out of the country and what have we? a ship of state without a compass whereby to direct its course. therefore, if either love of god or love of home fails to exist in the hearts of the citizens of any land, that part of the earth's surface will be their habitation but it will fail to be their country. when the patriot thinks of the nation he loves he does not picture it as so much land, so much water, so many mountains or so many plains. no, he sees it as he sees his flag, symbolical of all that is dear, holy and true. it is the spirit of our flag that we love. it is the spirit of god and the spirit of home that make us love our country. let us look to hear as our mother, let us be to her faithful and loving children, and may she be the better for having nurtured us in her arms. ladies and gentlemen: our country. god grant she may always stand for the fulfillment of his word. footnotes: [ ] delivered in the virginia convention, on a resolution to put the commonwealth into a state of defense, march , . [ ] delivered in the united states senate, march , , in support of clay's compromise resolutions. abridged. [ ] delivered in the senate of the united states, january , . abridged. [ ] delivered at the illinois republican state convention at springfield, june , . [ ] delivered on february , . [ ] delivered in faneuil hall, boston, december , . [ ] delivered in the united states senate, january , . [ ] delivered in the united states senate, january , . [ ] a city of iberia (spain). captured by hannibal in b.c., in spite of rome's warning. hannibal's action caused the war between rome and carthage. [ ] delivered at dartmouth college, july , . [ ] extract from an address delivered at the unveiling of the statue of the poet, in central park, new york, october , . [ ] from robert burns' elegy on captain matthew henderson. [ ] delivered in the house of representatives, april , . extract. [ ] delivered in washington, d. c., june , . [ ] delivered in edinburgh, scotland, march , . [ ] extract from an oration delivered before the president and both houses of congress in the house of representatives at washington, d. c., february , . [ ] delivered in the national democratic convention at chicago in . [ ] from a sermon delivered in the church of the messiah, new york city. [ ] from a sermon on "capital vs. labor," delivered in the church of the messiah, new york city. [ ] delivered at washington, d. c., march , . [ ] delivered at the hotel astor, new york city, on the occasion of the eighth annual dinner of the greene county society, jan. , . chapter x lesson talks these lesson talks will be of value to students only after they have diligently studied the contents of this book, particularly the first, second, and sixth chapters, which treat of the means of speech construction and the forms of delivery. it is absolutely necessary that students should have a thorough understanding of inflection, emphasis, apposition, opposition, and the series, in order that they may understand and appreciate the work of this chapter. these talks are intended to exemplify the application of the rules laid down in this book for the guidance of those who seek proficiency in the art of public speaking, but they will help little unless the student has prepared himself to receive them by thoroughly mastering the technique of the art as expounded in the different chapters. it will be well for the student to mark the speeches given in this chapter according to the instructions given in the lesson talks, as then he will have an object lesson before him that will enable him more readily to grasp the written instructions regarding the series, emphasis, and inflection. _cuba must be free._ on march , , senator john m. thurston of nebraska delivered a speech "on the affairs of cuba," from which this extract is taken. while it is but a portion of a speech, being the peroration only, still it is a complete speech in itself, as it conforms to all the requirements of speech construction. its opening, or statement, consists of the laying down of the facts upon which the argument is to be based, these facts being the legal rights of individuals and states as opposed to the moral rights. the statement ends with the second paragraph. the body, or argument, closes with the fifth paragraph and consists in showing that nations, like individuals, should be governed by high moral motives and not shrink from obligations because they have the legal right to do so; and that in the performance of these obligations force is the only means that can bring about the desired end. the balance of the speech forms the conclusion, and it consists of a summing up of the great events of the world's history wherein progress was made in man's struggle for liberty only by the exercise of force. the opening sentence states the claims of those who oppose intervention in behalf of cuba by the united states, and sets forth their claims. this forms the base of senator thurston's argument. the second sentence is a qualified acknowledgment of the legal right of the united states to refrain from interfering. in other words, he frankly confesses that there is no legal power that can compel the united states to interfere between spain and her colony, but clearly shows that he intends to uphold the moral right of that country to intervene, the construction of this sentence, "it may be the naked legal right of the united states to stand thus idly by," plainly denoting the senator's opinion. the second paragraph is devoted to illustrating the legal rights of the individual; the third paragraph, the effects that would flow from an exercise of those rights; the fourth paragraph, an application of the principle to nations that has previously been applied to individuals, and an explanation as to the senator's conception of the religious doctrine as taught by christ; the fifth paragraph states the meaning of intervention, force, and war, defines the force that should be used, and makes two strong assertions in the form of indirect questions; the sixth paragraph is devoted to the production of cumulative evidence as to the efficacy of force, and a stirring appeal that this force be exercised. the quotation from "the battle hymn of the republic" is used to emphasize this last point; the seventh paragraph states the position that the senator takes on the question. "cuba" and "united states" are contrasted, consequently both require emphasis as well as different inflections, and as the former is affirmative it should be given the falling inflection, and the latter, because it is negative, should be given the rising inflection. the balance of the sentence consists of a concluding series that is out of the ordinary for the reason that the last member of the series forms a series by itself, and it is therefore termed a series within a series. the last sentence of the opening paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is an affirmative statement. the opening sentence of the second paragraph requires the falling inflection because it is a positive statement. the word "legal" should be emphasized for the reason that it qualifies the word "right," and by means of emphasis placed on the word "legal" a contrast is immediately suggested with the "moral" right. in the next sentence the word "my" is the important word because it qualifies the word "dog," and as it states that "it is not my dog," the word "my" should be given the rising inflection to show its negative quality. if the emphasis and inflection should be placed on the word "dog," it would then be indicated that the "dog" is not mine but the cat or the horse is. care must be exercised to place properly both the inflection and the emphasis in order that a correct interpretation may be given. "mine," in the next sentence, should be given the rising inflection for the same reason that governs the inflection on the word "dog," the meaning being that it may be the policeman's duty to interfere but it is not the speaker's. the word "my," in the next phrase, requires the rising inflection for the same reason, the occurrence taking place on premises but not on "my" premises. the conclusion of the paragraph should be given the falling inflection because it is assertive. "but if i do" is conditional and therefore requires the rising inflection; "i am a coward and a cur" being the concluding clause to the conditional, and being positive, it should have the falling inflection; "live" is contrasted with "die," and "god knows" is parenthetical. "dog," "woman," and "force" all require the rising inflection because they are negatived, the statement being that "i cannot protect the dog," "i cannot save the woman," "without [not employing] force." the reverse of the form used in the speech, the positive, would be: i can protect the dog, i can save the woman, by exercising force. "we cannot intervene and save cuba without the exercise of force" requires the rising inflection because it is a negative statement, "and force means war; war means blood" requires the falling inflection because they are positive. the next sentence requires a like inflection for a like reason. "liberty" and "humanity" are negatived, and therefore should be giving the rising inflection. the next sentence is a negative one, and all its members require the rising inflection. the sentence that follows is positive, and requires the falling inflection. the phrase "i believe in the doctrine of peace," is also positive, but as it is qualified by "men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace," it requires the rising inflection, the qualifying phrase taking the falling inflection because it is assertive. the three short opening sentences of the fifth paragraph require the falling inflection because they are positive. "god's" requires emphasis for the reason that it qualifies "force." the two questions that follow, being indirect questions, should be given falling inflections. the sixth paragraph represents a masterly arrangement of concluding series. the first series enumerates three great charters: magna carta, the declaration of independence, and the emancipation proclamation; the second, three instances where the people struggled against oppression: the storming of the bastille, the battle of bunker hill, and the suffering of the american army at valley forge; the third, three battles of the war between the states; the fourth, three federal generals; the fifth, the results that followed the civil war. all these are concluding series; therefore, in each series, the first member should be given the falling inflection, the second member the rising inflection, and the third member the falling inflection. if these directions are not clear, review the section on series, in the second chapter. the two sentences that follow the series are positive and require falling inflections. in the first sentence the word "again" requires emphasis because it is important, while in the second, "once more" should be given emphasis for the same reason. in the quotation, "you" and "me" are contrasted, and there is a double contrast between "he" and "us," "holy" and "free." "god," in the last line of the quotation, requires emphasis because of its importance. in the last paragraph there is a double opposition between "others," each time the word is used, and "me," "hesitate," "procrastinate" and "negotiation" with "act now," while "which means delay" is parenthetical. the speech ends with a concluding series. [transcriber's note: the sixth paragraph of the following oration includes a term that many find offensive.] cuba must be free[ ] john m. thurston mr. president, there are those who say that the affairs of cuba are not the affairs of the united states, who insist that we can stand idly by and see that island devastated and depopulated, its business interests destroyed, its commercial intercourse with us cut off, its people starved, degraded, and enslaved. it may be the naked legal right of the united states to stand thus idly by. i have the legal right to pass along the street and see a helpless dog stamped into the earth under the heels of a ruffian. i can pass by and say that is not my dog. i can sit in my comfortable parlor with my loved ones gathered about me, and through my plate glass window see a fiend outraging a helpless woman nearby, and i can legally say this is no affair of mine--it is not happening on my premises; and i can turn away and take my little ones in my arms, and, with the memory of their sainted mother in my heart, look up to the motto on the wall and read, "god bless our home." but if i do, i am a coward and a cur unfit to live, and, god knows, unfit to die. and yet i cannot protect the dog nor save the woman without the exercise of force. we cannot intervene and save cuba without the exercise of force, and force means war; war means blood. the lowly nazarene on the shores of galilee preached the divine doctrine of love, "peace on earth, good will toward men." not peace on earth at the expense of liberty and humanity. not good will toward men who despoil, enslave, degrade, and starve to death their fellow men. i believe in the doctrine of christ. i believe in the doctrine of peace; but, mr. president, men must have liberty before there can come abiding peace. intervention means force. force means war. war means blood. but it will be god's force. when has a battle for humanity and liberty ever been won except by force? what barricade of wrong, injustice, and oppression has ever been carried except by force? force compelled the signature of unwilling royalty to the great magna carta; force put life into the declaration of independence and made effective the emancipation proclamation; force beat with naked hands upon the iron gateway of the bastille and made reprisal in one awful hour for centuries of kingly crime; force waved the flag of revolution over bunker hill and marked the snows of valley forge with blood-stained feet; force held the broken line at shiloh, climbed the flame-swept hill at chattanooga, and stormed the clouds on lookout heights; force marched with sherman to the sea, rode with sheridan in the valley of the shenandoah, and gave grant victory at appomattox; force saved the union, kept the stars in the flag, made "niggers" men. the time for god's force has come again. let the impassioned lips of american patriots once more take up the song: in the beauty of the lilies christ was born across the sea, with a glory in his bosom that transfigured you and me; as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, for god is marching on. others may hesitate, others may procrastinate, others may plead for further diplomatic negotiation, which means delay, but for me, i am ready to act now, and for my action i am ready to answer to my conscience, my country, and my god. _evidence and precedents in law._ here is an example of argumentative oratory, an extract from a speech by thomas erskine, that will repay careful consideration. the opening statement, "before you can adjudge a fact, you must believe it," is positive, and demands the falling inflection; "not suspect it, or imagine it, or fancy it" are all negatived and require the rising inflection; "but believe it" is positive and must be given the falling inflection, and the balance of the sentence is negative and requires the rising inflection throughout. the question that follows is an indirect one and should be given the falling inflection. "neither more nor less" are negatived and therefore both "more" and "less" require the rising inflection; "justice" should be given the falling inflection because it completes a positive statement; the balance of the sentence should receive the same inflection for the same reason. "as they are settled by law, and adopted in its general administration" is parenthetical; the main idea, "the rules of evidence are not to be overruled or tampered with" is negative, consequently the negatived words "overruled" and "tampered" should receive the rising inflection. the passage that follows, ending with the word "life," is a concluding series of four members, and all members except the next to the last, "in the truth of history," receive the falling inflection, the exception requiring the rising inflection; "and whoever ventures rashly to depart from them" is, in its spirit, conditional, and for that reason should be given the rising inflection; the balance is assertive and requires the falling inflection; a contrast should be shown between "god" and "man." let the student work out the balance of the speech. evidence and precedents in law thomas erskine before you can adjudge a fact, you must believe it--not suspect it, or imagine it, or fancy it, but believe it--and it is impossible to impress the human mind with such a reasonable and certain belief, as is necessary to be impressed, before a christian man can adjudge his neighbor to the smallest penalty, much less to the pains of death, without having such evidence as a reasonable mind will accept of as the infallible test of truth. and what is that evidence? neither more nor less than that which the constitution has established in the courts for the general administration of justice; namely, that the evidence convince the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the criminal intention, constituting the crime, existed in the mind of the man upon trial, and was the mainspring of his conduct. the rules of evidence, as they are settled by law, and adopted in its general administration, are not to be overruled or tampered with. they are found in the charities of religion--in the philosophy of nature--in the truth of history--and in the experience of common life; and whoever ventures rashly to depart from them, let him remember that it will be meted to him in the same measure, and that both god and man will judge him according. these are arguments addressed to your reasons and your consciences; not to be shaken in upright minds by any precedent--for no precedents can sanctify injustice; if they could, every human right would long ago have been extinct upon the earth. if the state trials in bad times are to be searched for precedents, what murders may you not commit--what law of humanity may you not trample upon--what rule of justice may you not violate--and what maxim of wise policy may you not abrogate and confound? if precedents in bad times are to be implicitly followed, why should we have heard any evidence at all? you might have convicted without any evidence; for many have been so convicted--and, in this manner, murdered--even by acts of parliament. if precedents in bad times are to be followed, why should the lords and commons have investigated these charges, and the crown have put them into this course of judicial trial? since, without such a trial, and even after an acquittal upon me, they might have attained all the prisoners by act of parliament: they did so in the case of lord strafford. there are precedents, therefore, for all such things, but such precedents as could not for a moment survive the times of madness and distraction which gave them birth: but which, as soon as the spurs of the occasion were blunted, were repealed and execrated even by parliaments which (little as i may think of the present) ought not be compared with it--parliaments sitting in the darkness of former times--in the night of freedom--before the principles of government were developed, and before the constitution became fixed. the last of these precedents, and all the proceedings upon it, were ordered to be taken off the file and burnt, so the intent that the same might no longer be visible to after ages; an order dictated, no doubt, by a pious tenderness for national honor, and meant as a charitable covering for the crimes of our fathers. but it was a sin against posterity--it was a treason against society; for, instead of commanding them to be burnt, they should rather have directed them to be blazoned in large characters upon the walls of our courts of justice, that, like the characters deciphered by the prophet of god to the eastern tyrant, they might enlarge and blacken in your sights, to terrify you from acts of injustice. _the permanency of empire._ this extract opens with an earnest appeal which requires the falling inflection. the question that follows it is a direct one, consequently all its members require the rising inflection. from the exclamation "alas" to the end of the sentence, all is positive, therefore the falling inflection should be used throughout. the next question is an indirect one and requires the falling inflection. "so thought the countries of demosthenes and the spartan" is a positive thought and should be given the falling inflection. then comes a triple opposition, "leonidas" being contrasted with "athens," "trampled" with "insulted," and "slave" with "ottoman." the three words qualifying "ottoman" constitute a commencing series, and for this reason "servile" and "mindless" should be given the falling inflection, and "enervate" the rising. the next sentence is a positive one and the falling inflection should be given the word "footsteps," which closes it; "from the palace to the tomb" and "with their ruins" are both parenthetical, and there is a contrast between "palace" and "tomb." the phrase ending with "as if they had never been" is conditional and requires the rising inflection; the balance of the sentence contains a parenthetical clause, "rude and neglected in the barren ocean," and a double contrast, the last of the four members of which is a concluding series, the contrasts being "then" with "now," "speck" with the concluding series "the ubiquity of their commerce, the glory of their arms, the fame of their philosophy, the eloquence of their senate and the inspiration of their bards." there is a double opposition between "england" and "america," and "athens is" with "athens was"; "contemplating the past," "proud and potent as she appears," "then," and "one day" are parenthetical; the conclusion of the extract consists of a parenthesis, "for its time," and a double contrast, "europe" being contrasted with "that mighty continent" (america), and "shall have mouldered, and the night of barbarism obscured its very ruins" with "emerge from the horizon to rule sovereign of the ascendant." the permanency of empire wendell phillips i appeal to history! tell me, thou reverend chronicler of the grave, can all the wealth of a universal commerce, can all the achievements of successful heroisms, or all the establishments of this world's wisdom, secure to empire the permanency of its possessions? alas! troy thought so once; yet the land of priam lives only in song! thebes thought so once; yet her hundred gates have crumbled, and her very tombs are but as the dust they were vainly intended to commemorate. so thought palmyra--where is she? so thought the countries of demosthenes and the spartan; yet leonidas is trampled by the timid slave, and athens insulted by the servile, mindless, and enervate ottoman. in his hurried march, time has but looked at their imagined immortality, and all its vanities, from the palace to the tomb, have, with their ruins, erased the very impression of his footsteps. the days of their glory are as if they had never been; and the island that was then a speck, rude and neglected in the barren ocean, now rivals the ubiquity of their commerce, the glory of their arms, the fame of their philosophy, the eloquence of their senate, and the inspiration of their bards. who shall say, then, contemplating the past, that england, proud and potent as she appears, may not, one day, be what athens is, and the young america yet soar to be what athens was! who shall say that, when the european column shall have mouldered, and the night of barbarism obscured its very ruins, that mighty continent may not emerge from the horizon to rule, for its time, sovereign of the ascendant! _judicial injustices._ the next extract, from a powerful speech delivered by senator charles sumner in september, , is an excellent example of cumulative oratory. he asserts that he has no superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings, and then states his reasons, which he piles one upon another until the sum reaches such proportions as to utterly disarm any successful opposition to his statement, or even an attempt at opposition. this form of delivery is wonderfully effective, just as the opinion of a counselor-at-law would be when re-enforced by numerous decisions of the highest courts in the land. only two means of attacking this style of oratory remain to the opposition, one being to impeach the authorities, the other to attack the application of them. both these modes, however, are exceedingly dangerous to the objector when his opponent is a keen lawyer, an able speaker, and a learned man, such as was charles sumner. the word "judges" takes the rising inflection because of the incompleteness of the thought, "in much respect" being necessary to complete the sense, and this takes the falling inflection because of the completeness, and the intervening thought "and especially the supreme court of the country" must be given parenthetically on account of its being an interjected remark; the words "judicial proceedings" take the falling inflection because they finish a positive thought, and "superstitious reverence" the rising, as the senator means to express this thought negatively, as he does not possess any superstitious reverence for judicial proceedings. "judges" and "men" are in apposition and for that reason take the same inflection, and as the statement is positive, the falling inflection must be used. the "worst crimes" and "sanction" require emphasis because they are important, and the sentence takes the falling inflection because it is positive. "martyrs" and "patriots" require the rising inflection because they depend on "summons them to judgment" to complete the sense, and "crying from the ground" must be given parenthetically for the reason that it is interjected. "judicial tribunal" being the thing arraigned, requires emphasis whenever used in the speech. "socrates" requires emphasis, and "hemlock" takes the falling inflection on account of the completion of the thought, "saviour" is emphatic, and "jerusalem" and "cross" take the falling inflection on account of completion of thought. the next line commences a concluding series which continues to the end of the paragraph. "against the testimony and entreaties of her father," "in the name of the old religion," "amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims," "in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed," are all interjected remarks and therefore must be rendered parenthetically. all these parenthetical thoughts are complete in themselves, and consequently require the falling inflection. "not" is emphatic, and the falling inflection is given "sun" because it expresses a contradiction. the first phrase of the next paragraph requires the falling inflection, and the words "hesitate" and "unpitying," being negatived, require the rising. the close of the paragraph requires the falling inflection. the next paragraph is a concluding series. "surrounded by all the forms of law," "after deliberate argument," "in defiance of justice and humanity," "with jeffreys on the bench," are all interjected remarks, complete in themselves, and require the falling inflection and parenthetical expression to each. "queen" and "sir thomas more" require opposite inflections for the reason they are used to mark two distinct points in the despotic career of henry the eighth, just as one would say "from the first to the last," "latimer, ridley, and john rogers" constitute a concluding series. "justice" and "humanity" in the parenthetical clause are contrasted, and consequently given the opposite inflections, and "even" and "innocent women" require emphasis on account of their importance. the last paragraph is a concluding series, "surrounded by all the forms of law" is an interjected complete thought, and therefore must be expressed parenthetically and given the falling inflection, and "our," in both instances when used in this paragraph, requires emphasis and the falling inflection; while "unutterable" should take the rising inflection on account of its negative quality; the voice falling in conclusion on "fugitive slave bill," because the final thought is a positive one. judicial injustices charles sumner i hold judges, and especially the supreme court of the country, in much respect, but i am too familiar with the history of judicial proceedings to regard them with any superstitious reverence. judges are but men, and in all ages have shown a full share of human frailty. alas! alas! the worst crimes of history have been perpetrated under their sanction. the blood of martyrs and of patriots, crying from the ground, summons them to judgment. it was a judicial tribunal which condemned socrates to drink the fatal hemlock, and which pushed the saviour barefoot over the pavements of jerusalem, bending beneath his cross. it was a judicial tribunal which, against the testimony and entreaties of her father, surrendered the fair virginia as a slave; which arrested the teachings of the great apostle to the gentiles and sent him in bonds from judea to rome; which, in the name of the old religion, adjudged the saints and fathers of the christian church to death in all its most dreadful forms; and which afterwards, in the name of the new religion, enforced the tortures of the inquisition, amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims, while it compelled galileo to declare, in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed, that the earth did not move round the sun. it was a judicial tribunal which in france during the long reign of her monarchs lent itself to be the instrument of every tyranny, as during the brief reign of terror it did not hesitate to stand forth the unpitying accessory of the unpitying guillotine. it was a judicial tribunal in england, surrounded by all the forms of law, which sanctioned every despotic caprice of henry the eighth, from the unjust divorce of his queen to the beheading of sir thomas more; which lighted the fires of persecution that glowed at oxford and smithfield over the cinders of latimer, ridley, and john rogers; which, after deliberate argument, upheld the fatal tyranny of ship-money, against the patriot resistance of hampden; which, in defiance of justice and humanity, sent sidney and russell to the block; which persistently enforced the laws of conformity that our puritan fathers persistently refused to obey; and which afterwards, with jeffreys on the bench, crimsoned the page of english history with massacre and murder--even with the blood of innocent women. ay, sir, and it was a judicial tribunal, in our country, surrounded by all the forms of law, which hung the witches at salem; which affirmed the constitutionality of the stamp-act which it admonished "jurors and the people" to obey; and which now in our day, lent its sanction to the unutterable atrocity of the fugitive slave bill. footnotes: [ ] this extract is from a speech delivered in the united states senate, march , . afterword we have now reached the end of our journey; but before parting, let us discuss generally the course over which we have traveled in order that some necessary incidents that may not have impressed themselves strongly on our memories may be reÃ�«nforced, lest they otherwise be lost. the public speaker should leave nothing to chance. it is customary to speak of the spontaneous bursting forth of eloquence, but eloquence is not spontaneous--it is the culmination of stored-up knowledge which has reached the point when it is fully matured and ready to use, and its apparent bursting forth is nothing but the arrival of the opportunity for its making its presence known. it is the coming together of the fully prepared man and the occasion that produces the orator. it is an axiom that nothing comes of nothing, and unless the would-be orator is willing to give his best in the way of fitting himself by study, labor, reflection, and industry, in their highest and broadest sense, to be a medium through which eloquence may be conveyed, he will look in vain for its appearance--the seed must be planted before the fruit can be gathered. in the first place, the vocal mechanism must be thoroughly trained to stand the strain that is to be placed upon it, and to execute properly the manifold duties it will be called upon to perform. this necessitates careful and systematic practice in breathing, voice production, tone coloring, inflection, emphasis, and the many other sections of the vocal work which, when combined, comprise the vehicle which is to convey the thought. in the second place, the mind must be fed and cultivated so as to enable it to produce thought. it must be strengthened by exercise, fed by reading of good matter, and made active by use. time must be devoted to meditation, to thinking over the expressions of the ideas of the master minds that have gone before--weighing, refuting, and combining them, as well as receiving them and being influenced thereby--and to keeping the light of our own mind burning by thinking matters out in our own way and giving our thoughts the impress of our individuality. only by these means can we hope to be at the same time wise and original. originality that is foolish is worse than useless, and wisdom that is borrowed shines only with a reflected light; but that which is both original and wise will live through many ages and act as a beacon to light others to the attainment of originality and wisdom. in the third place, an effective delivery is absolutely essential. there can no more be such a thing as an orator without a delivery than there can be a newspaper without paper or some other substance on which to print the news. a publisher might as well print a newspaper and then indifferently circulate it as for a man to fill his mind with great thoughts and ineffectively deliver them. delivery is the soul of oratory; without it, there can be nothing but the form of speech; with it, there is the spirit that gives life to the words. the matter is the product, the delivery is the mode of conveyance; and each is necessary to the other if either is to be of value to the speaker. the only really effective form of delivery is the extempore; and, after once it has been acquired, it is the easiest of the many forms. in the opinion of the author, matter that is written out and then read, or matter that is written out, memorized, and then spoken, is in neither case a speech. speaking is conveying thought by word of mouth, and not by word of pen. the matter that is to form the speech should be diligently gathered, fully digested, and carefully arranged, but the words that are to clothe the thought should be spontaneous. unless the words are willing servants, well trained, springing instantly to the performance of their duty, coming, not through a conscious effort to recall what has been memorized, but in response to the sub-conscious action of the mind, the words will fail to possess that mentality that alone can give them the expression that is really their soul. only when the mind is released from all care concerning words can it be placed adequately upon the thought, and only by fully placing it upon the thought can the mentality enter the voice, thereby making the words convey by tone and general expression what they really stand for, and carry to the mind of the listener the thought which is in the mind of the speaker. in this manner is a connection brought about between listener and speaker, and by these means is generated that force which is commonly called magnetism but which is, in reality, the active mind of the speaker getting into communication with the mind of the listener through the mediumship of the vitalized spoken word. the language is but the wire which carries the message, or the atmosphere on which the message is sent; the thought is the electricity which produces the message. the language is material, the mentality is spiritual; the one being the body of expression, the other being the soul. finally, why are there so few orators in the world today? merely because there are so few persons who are willing to spend the time and employ the labor necessary to acquire the qualifications for the making of orators. no great achievement in any walk of life is accomplished without labor, no movement in behalf of man has ever progressed without labor, and nothing is worth having unless it is secured by labor. run your eye over the pages of history and try to find instances where chance has knocked with its golden wand on the door of man's existence; and for every one so found, at least a dozen will be discovered where man has cut through the rock of difficulties with the iron tools of industry and forged those tools in the fires of determination. not all men who achieved greatness were born poor in this world's goods. many of them, men like marcus aurelius, washington, lafayette, and roosevelt, won renown in spite of their wealth; while, on the other hand, men like moses, franklin, and lincoln gained their great eminence in the face of poverty. it matters not whether man be rich or whether man be poor, so far as his success in living a useful life is concerned, but it does signify much whether he is an idler or a laborer. make yourself worthy of success, and success--in its true and only valuable sense--will be yours. remember, that labor--proud, independent labor--is noble, and that it leads, not only to the making of orators, but to the formation of characters--the building of souls. a systematized study of "how to master the spoken word" _a guide to teachers and students_ students are advised to read the work as a book, commencing with the first page and continuing straight on to the end. they should skip nothing, not even the long speeches, as they are introduced for specific purposes; but they should also guard against tarrying on the way to study and particular passages that may strike their fancy. they are advised to first read the book carefully in order that they may the better understand its scope and purpose, and gain some idea regarding the general plan that underlies its construction. it will be noted that the first chapter does not contain instructions as to how the student of oratory is to breathe, or how he is to use the many other functions of body, voice, and mind that are necessary to the correct production of the spoken word; but it shows how famous speakers produced their effects, and it reveals to the student the means he must adopt if he is to produce like results, leaving to later chapters the task of revealing how the means are to be applied. this manner of arranging the matter was adapted in order to insure the student's interest being aroused in the subject at the start, thereby preventing an extinguishing of his enthusiasm by initiating him into the dry mysteries of the technical parts of speech before he had gained a fair idea regarding the means to employ in qualifying himself to become a public speaker. when, however, it is intended to use the work as a textbook, it should not be studied as it is read, but the lesson should be taken up in a natural sequence, beginning with breath and continuing through to the production of the finished speech or oration. here is given an outline of study, or syllabus, showing the order in which the different subjects treated in the book can be taken up to best advantage. syllabus lesson i breath - , - lesson ii voice - , - lesson iii inflection - lesson iv emphasis - lesson v combined use of emphasis and inflection, and parenthesis and pause - lesson vi series and modulation - lesson vii paraphrasing - lesson viii composition - lesson ix construction - lesson x the making of oratory - lesson xi delivery - lesson xii memory - lesson xiii lesson talks - lesson xiv grecian orators - lesson xv latin orators - lesson xvi modern orators - list of orations against crowning demosthenes _aeschines_ against eratosthenes _lysias_ against the tory government _william e. gladstone_ at his brother's grave _robert g. ingersoll_ cuba must be free _john m. thurston_ digging for the thought _john ruskin_ education _horace mann_ encomium on evagoras _isocrates_ eulogy of general grant _dean farrar_ eulogy of president garfield _james g. blaine_ eulogy of webster _rufus choate_ evidence and precedents in law _thomas erskine_ historical reading _arthur james balfour_ inaugural address _theodore roosevelt_ in favor of the peloponnesian war _pericles_ judicial injustices _charles sumner_ liberty or death _patrick henry_ menexenus and others against dicaeogenes and leochares _isaeus_ on leaving springfield _abraham lincoln_ on the foote resolution _robert young hayne_ on the murder of lovejoy _wendell phillips_ on resigning from the senate _robert toombs_ on the murder of herodes _antiphon_ on the punishment of the catiline conspirators _cato the younger_ on the treatment of the catiline conspirators _caesar_ on withdrawing from the union _jefferson davis_ oration against leocrates _lycurgus_ oration on the crown _demosthenes_ our country _edwin g. lawrence_ peace between labor and capital _john haynes holmes_ robert burns _george william curtis_ speech against athenogenes _hyperides_ speech in support of the oppian law _cato the censor_ speech on the mysteries _andocides_ speech to his troops _catiline_ speech to the conspirators _catiline_ sumner and the south _l. q. c. lamar_ the birth of an orator _john haynes holmes_ the blind preacher _william wirt_ "the cross of gold" speech _william j. bryan_ the first olynthiac _demosthenes_ the first oration against veres _cicero_ the "house divided against itself" speech _abraham lincoln_ the perfect orator _richard b. sheridan_ the permanency of empire _wendell phillips_ "the seventh of march" speech _daniel webster_ the strength of the american government _john bright_ transcriber's notes. - the break between pages and is in the word "employs": em|ploys. in this and all other cases, the whole word was moved to the earlier page. - the break between pages and is in the word "contrary": con|trary. - on page , set the citation of a legal matter, _people vs. durant,_ in italic. - on page , two single line examples were set in body text. the transcriber has made them block quotes to match the other examples on that page. - on page , change "dryest" to "driest." - the break between pages and is in the word "language": lan|guage. - on page , the transcriber capitalized the word "christianity" in a daniel webster quotation. the word was capitalized correctly in the same text that is part of a longer quotation on page . - on page , the original text has a sentence that ends as follows: ". . . we must, in order to retain the concluding series, give 'ask' the rising inflection, 'knock' the falling, 'seek' the falling, 'find' the rising, 'knock' the falling, and 'opened' the falling." the transcriber corrected the first "knock" to "given" because the text under discussion is "ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened unto you." - on page , change "huzza" to "huzzah." - the break between pages and is in the word "attachment": attach|ment. - on page , change "deprived of his honor" to "honour" to correspond with "favour" in the same paragraph. - the break between pages and is in the word "besieged": be|sieged. - the break between pages and is in the word "considered": con|sidered. - on page , change "wittenagemote" to "witenagemot." - on page , change "huzzas" to "huzzahs." - the break between pages and is in the word "temporary": tem|porary. - the break between pages and is in the word "following": fol|lowing. - on page , change "immediately voice is produced . . ." to "immediately as voice is produced . . . ." - the break between pages and is in the word "magnificent": mag|nificent. - the break between pages and is in the word "audiences": audi|ences. - the break between pages and is in the word "carefully": care|fully. - on page , change the question mark after "i am sadly deficient" to a period. - on page , change "indicated me for homicide" to "indicted." - on page , change the question mark after "witness of his crimes" to a period. - on page , the word "betrothals" was misspelled "bethrothals" in the sentence "thus the law makes just betrothals valid, and unjust ones it declares invalid." - the break between pages and is in the word "menexenus": menexe|nus. - the break between pages and is in the word "leochares": leo|chares. - the break between pages and is in the word "dishonor": dis|honor. - the break between pages and is in the word "hallowed": hal|lowed. - on page , change "midias' anger" to "meidias' anger." - the break between pages and is in the word "descendants": descend|ants. - the break between pages and is in the word "overbearing": over|bearing. - on page , change "tribunitian" to "tribunician." - on page , change "uticeusis" to "uticensis." - in the oration of cato the younger, the term "conscript fathers" referring to the members of the roman senate, is not capitalized in the original on pages or . these have been made consistent with the initial-capped references on page and following. - on page , change "hesitate how to act" to "hesitate now to act." - on page , change "cathegus" to "cethegus." - the break between pages and is in the word "putting": put|ting. - on page , in the caesar oration, this sentence appears in the original: "but in a large state there arise may men of various dispositions." the word "may" has been corrected to "many." - the break between pages and is in the word "borrowed": bor|rowed. - the break between pages and is in the word "manner": man|ner. - on page , change "proquestor" to "proquaestor." - on page , change "edileship" to "aedileship." - on page , change the word "equalled" to "equaled." - on page , set "on the clay compromise" in title case small caps rather than lower case small caps. - the break between pages and is in the word "perfectly": per|fectly. - on page , change "mcdowel" to "mcdowell" and change the question mark after "remarks to the press" to a period. - the break between pages and is in the unit "slave-trade": slave-|trade. - on page , the period at the end of the final sentence of lincoln's "house divided" speech was missing from the original. - the break between pages and is in the word "principles": prin|ciples. - the break between pages and is in the word "colonies": col|onies. - the break between pages and is in the word "constitution": con|stitution. - the break between pages and is in the word "confederates": con|federates. - the break between pages and is in the word "courageously": coura|geously. - on page , change "memories indulged of the past or the dead" to "memories indulged of the past or of the dead" (_insert second "of"_). - on page , the original text of the robert burns eulogy uses the word "woos," spelled "wooes," and "rhythmic," spelled "rythmic." the transcriber modernized the spelling of both words. - the break between pages and is in the word "unreplying": unre|plying. - on page , change "crystalize" to "crystallize." - on page , there is a printing defect in the copy of the original available to the transcriber. one sentence reads: "all his internal powers are at wo__; all his external, testify their energies." the transcriber has inferred that the incomplete word is "work." confirmation from another copy of the original would be most appreciated. - on page , a reference to the decalogue, referring to the ten commandments of the bible, was not capitalized in the original. the transcriber capitalized it. - the break between pages and is in the word "opening": open|ing. - on page , in the "opening sentence" paragraph, second sentence, insert double quotes around first instance of the word "right." - the break between pages and is in the word "positive": posi|tive. - on page , change "magna charta" to "magna carta." - on page , insert a warning of a sensitive word in the sixth paragraph of the subsequent oration. - the break between pages and is in the word "president": presi|dent. - on page , change "magna charta" to "magna carta" and "bastile" to "bastille." - the break between pages and is in the word "instances": in|stances. - in the index, on page , change "dacaeogenes" to "dicaeogenes." - in the index, on page , change "roberts burns" to "robert burns." the training of a public speaker by grenville kleiser _formerly instructor in public speaking at yale divinity school, yale university. author of_ "_how to speak in public_," "_great speeches and how to make them_," "_complete guide to public speaking_," "_how to build mental power_," "_talks on talking_," _etc., etc._ [illustration: publisher's logo] funk & wagnalls company new york and london copyright, , by grenville kleiser [_printed in the united states of america_] published, february, copyright under the articles of the copyright convention of the pan-american republics and the united states, august , preface the power of eloquence to move and persuade men is universally recognized. to-day the public speaker plays a vital part in the solution of every great question and problem. oratory, in the true sense, is not a lost art, but a potent means of imparting information, instruction, and persuasion. eloquence is still "the appropriate organ of the highest personal energy." as one has well said, "the orator is not compelled to wait through long and weary years to reap the reward of his labors. his triumphs are instantaneous." and again, "to stand up before a vast assembly composed of men of the most various callings, views, passions, and prejudices, and mold them at will; to play upon their hearts and minds as a master upon the keys of a piano; to convince their understandings by the logic, and to thrill their feelings by the art of the orator; to see every eye watching his face, and every ear intent on the words that drop from his lips; to see indifference changed to breathless interest, and aversion to rapturous enthusiasm; to hear thunders of applause at the close of every period; to see the whole assembly animated by the feelings which in him are burning and struggling for utterance; and to think that all this is the creation of the moment, and has sprung instantaneously from his fiery brain and the inspiration imparted to it by the circumstances of the hour;--_this_, perhaps, is the greatest triumph of which the human mind is capable, and that in which its divinity is most signally revealed." the aims and purposes of speaking to-day have radically changed from former times. deliberative bodies, composed of busy men, meet now to discuss and dispose of grave and weighty business. there is little necessity nor scope for eloquence. time is too valuable to permit of prolonged speaking. men are tacitly expected to "get to the point," and to be reasonably brief in what they have to say. under these circumstances certain extravagant types of old-time oratory would be ineffectual to-day. the stentorian and dramatic tones, with hand inserted in the breast of the coat, with exaggerated facial expression, and studied posture, would make a speaker to-day an object of ridicule. this applies equally to speech in the law court, pulpit, on the lecture platform, and in other departments of public address. the implicit demand everywhere is that the speaker should say what he has to say naturally, simply, and concisely. this does not mean, however, that he must confine himself to plain statement of fact, with no manifestation of feeling or earnestness. men are still influenced and persuaded by impassioned speech. there is nothing incompatible between deep feeling and clear-cut speech. a man having profound convictions upon any subject of importance will always speak on it with fervor and sincerity. the widespread interest in the subject of public speaking has suggested this adaptation of quintilian's celebrated work on the education of the orator. this work has long been regarded as one of the most valuable treatises ever written on oratory, but in its original form it is ponderous and inaccessible to the average reader. in the present abridged and modernized form it may be read and studied with benefit by earnest students of the art of public speaking. a brief account of quintilian says: "quintilianus, m. fabius, was born at calagurris, in spain, a. d. . he completed his education at rome, and began to practise at the bar about . but he was chiefly distinguished as a teacher of eloquence, bearing away the palm in his department from all his rivals, and associating his name, even to a proverb, with preeminence in the art. by domitian he was invested with the insignia and title of consul, and is, moreover, celebrated as the first public instructor who, in virtue of the endowment by vespasian, received a regular salary from the imperial exchequer. he is supposed to have died about . the great work of quintilian is a complete system of rhetoric, in twelve books, entitled _de institutione oratoria libre xii_, or sometimes _institutiones oratoriæ_, dedicated to his friend marcellus victorius, himself a celebrated orator, and a favorite at court. this production bears throughout the impress of a clear, sound judgment, keen discrimination, and pure taste, improved by extensive reading, deep reflection, and long practise." the text used for this condensation is from the version of j. patsall, a.m., london, , according to the paris edition by professor rollin. many parts of the original work have been re-written or abridged, while several chapters have been entirely omitted. grenville kleiser. new york city, august, . contents page rhetoric and eloquence the exordium or introduction the narration division and argument the peroration passion and persuasion the study of words elegance and grace composition and style copiousness of words knowledge and self-confidence conclusion rhetoric and eloquence what rhetoric is rhetoric has been commonly defined as "the power of persuading." this opinion originated with isocrates, if the work ascribed to him be really his; not that he intended to dishonor his profession, tho he gives us a generous idea of rhetoric by calling it the workmanship of persuasion. we find almost the same thing in the gorgias of plato, but this is the opinion of that rhetorician, and not of plato. cicero has written in many places that the duty of an orator is to speak in "a manner proper to persuade"; and in his books of rhetoric, of which undoubtedly he does not approve himself, he makes the end of eloquence to consist in persuasion. but does not money likewise persuade? is not credit, the authority of the speaker, the dignity of a respectable person, attended with the same effect? even without speaking a word, the remembrance of past services, the appearance of distress, a beautiful aspect, make deep impressions on minds and are decisive in their favor. did antonius, pleading the cause of m. aquilius, trust to the force of his reasons when he abruptly tore open his garment and exposed to view the honorable wounds he received fighting for his country? this act of his forced streams of tears from the eyes of the roman people, who, not able to resist so moving a spectacle, acquitted the criminal. sergius galba escaped the severity of the laws by appearing in court with his own little children, and the son of gallus sulpitius, in his arms. the sight of so many wretched objects melted the judges into compassion. this we find equally attested by some of our historians and by a speech of cato. what shall i say of the example of phryne, whose beauty was of more service in her cause than all the eloquence of hyperides; for tho his pleading was admirable in her defense, yet perceiving it to be without effect, by suddenly laying open her tunic he disclosed the naked beauty of her bosom, and made the judges sensible that she had as many charms for them as for others. now, if all these instances persuade, persuasion, then, can not be the end of rhetoric. some, therefore, have seemed to themselves rather more exact who, in the main of the same way of thinking, define rhetoric as the "power of persuading by speaking." it is to this that gorgias, in the book above cited, is at last reduced by socrates. theodectes does not much differ from them, if the work ascribed to him be his, or aristotle's. in this book the end of rhetoric is supposed to be "the leading of men wherever one pleases by the faculty of speaking." but this definition is not sufficiently comprehensive. many others besides the orator persuade by their words and lead minds in whatever direction they please. some, therefore, as aristotle, setting aside the consideration of the end, have defined rhetoric to be "the power of inventing whatever is persuasive in a discourse." this definition is equally as faulty as that just mentioned, and is likewise defective in another respect, as including only invention, which, separate from elocution, can not constitute a speech. it appears from plato's gorgias that he was far from regarding rhetoric as an art of ill tendency, but that, rather it is, or ought to be, if we were to conceive an adequate idea of it inseparable from virtue. this he explains more clearly in his phædrus, where he says that "the art can never be perfect without an exact knowledge and strict observance of justice." i join him in this opinion, and if these were not his real sentiments, would he have written an apology for socrates and the eulogium of those brave citizens who lost their lives in the defense of their country? this is certainly acting the part of an orator, and if in any respect he attacks the profession, it is on account of those who make ill use of eloquence. socrates, animated with the same spirit, thought it unworthy of him to pronounce the speech lysias had composed for his defense, it being the custom of the orators of those times to write speeches for arraigned criminals, which the latter pronounced in their own defense; thus eluding the law that prohibited pleading for another. plato, likewise, in his phædrus, condemns the masters that separated rhetoric from justice, and preferred probabilities to truth. such are the definitions of rhetoric which have been principally set forth. to go through all of them is not my purpose, nor do i think it possible, as most writers on arts have shown a perverse dislike for defining things as others do or in the same terms as those who wrote before them. i am far from being influenced by a like spirit of ambition, and far from flattering myself with the glory of invention, and i shall rest content with that which seems most rational, that rhetoric is properly defined as "the science of speaking well." having found what is best, it is useless to seek further. accepting this definition, therefore, it will be no difficult matter to ascertain its end, for if it be "the science of speaking well," then "to speak well" will be the end it proposes to itself. the use of rhetoric the next question is on the utility of rhetoric, and from this point of view some direct the bitterest invectives against it, and what is very unbecoming, exert the force of eloquence against eloquence, saying that by it the wicked are freed from punishment, and the innocent opprest by its artifices; that it perverts good counsel, and enforces bad; that it foments troubles and seditions in states; that it arms nations against each other, and makes them irreconcilable enemies; and that its power is never more manifest than when error and lies triumph over truth. comic poets reproach socrates with teaching how to make a bad cause good, and plato represents lysias and gorgias boasting the same thing. to these may be added several examples of greeks and romans, and a long list of orators whose eloquence was not only the ruin of private persons, but even destructive to whole cities and republics; and for this reason it was that eloquence was banished from sparta and so restricted at athens that the orator was not allowed to make appeal to the passions. granting all this as sound argument, we must draw this necessary inference, that neither generals of armies, nor magistrates, nor medicine, nor philosophy, will be of any use. flaminius, an imprudent general, lost one of our armies. the gracchi saturninus, and glaucia, to raise themselves to dignity, put rome into an uproar. physicians often administer poisons, and among philosophers some have been found guilty of the most enormous crimes. let us not eat of the meats with which our tables are spread, for meats frequently have caused disease. let us never go into houses; they may fall and crush us to death. let not our soldiers be armed with swords; a robber may use the same weapon against us. in short, who does not know that the most necessary things in life, as air, fire, water, nay, even the celestial bodies, are sometimes very injurious to our well-being? but how many examples can be quoted in our favor? did not appius the blind, by the force of his eloquence dissuade the senate from making a shameful peace with pyrrhus? did not cicero's divine eloquence appear more popular than the agrarian law he attacked? did it not disconcert the audacious measures of cataline? and did not he, even in his civil capacity, obtain by it honors that are conferred on only the most illustrious conquerors? is it not the orator who strengthens the soldier's drooping courage, who animates him amidst the greatest dangers, and inspires him to choose a glorious death rather than a life of infamy? the example of the romans, among whom eloquence always has been held in the greatest veneration, shall have a higher place in my regard than that of the spartans and athenians. it is not to be supposed that the founders of cities could have made a united people of a vagabond multitude without the charms of persuasive words, nor that law-givers, without extraordinary talent for speaking, could have forced men to bend their necks to the yoke of the laws. even the precepts of moral life, tho engraved on our hearts by the finger of nature, are more efficacious to inspire our hearts with love for them when their beauty is displayed by the ornaments of eloquent speech. tho the arms of eloquence may harm and benefit equally, we must not, therefore, look on that as bad which may be put to a good use. doubts of this kind may well be entertained by such as make "the force persuasion the end of eloquence," but we who constitute it "the science of speaking well," resolved to acknowledge none but the good man an orator, must naturally judge that its advantage is very considerable. certainly, the gracious author of all beings and maker of the world, has distinguished us from the animals in no respect more than by the gift of speech. they surpass us in bulk, in strength, in the supporting of toil, in speed, and stand less in need of outside help. guided by nature only, they learn sooner to walk, to seek for their food, and to swim over rivers. they have on their bodies sufficient covering to guard them against cold; all of them have their natural weapons of defense; their food lies, in a manner, on all sides of them; and we, indigent beings! to what anxieties are we put in securing these things? but god, a beneficent parent, gave us reason for our portion, a gift which makes us partakers of a life of immortality. but this reason would be of little use to us, and we would be greatly perplexed to make it known, unless we could express by words our thoughts. this is what animals lack, more than thought and understanding, of which it can not be said they are entirely destitute. for to make themselves secure and commodious lodges, to interweave their nests with such art, to rear their young with such care, to teach them to shift for themselves when grown up, to hoard provisions for the winter, to produce such inimitable works as wax and honey, are instances perhaps of a glimmering of reason; but because destitute of speech, all the extraordinary things they do can not distinguish them from the brute part of creation. let us consider dumb persons: how does the heavenly soul, which takes form in their bodies, operate in them? we perceive, indeed, that its help is but weak, and its action but languid. the value of the gift of speech if, then, the beneficent creator of the world has not imparted to us a greater blessing than the gift of speech, what can we esteem more deserving of our labor and improvement, and what object is more worthy of our ambition than that of raising ourselves above other men by the same means by which they raise themselves above beasts, so much the more as no labor is attended with a more abundant harvest of glory? to be convinced of this we need only consider by what degrees eloquence has been brought to the perfection in which we now see it, and how far it might still be perfected. for, not to mention the advantage and pleasure a good man reaps from defending his friends, governing the senate by his counsels, seeing himself the oracle of the people, and master of armies, what can be more noble than by the faculty of speaking and thinking, which is common to all men, to erect for himself such a standard of praise and glory as to seem to the minds of men not so much to discourse and speak, but, like pericles, to make his words thunder and lightning. the art of speaking there would be no end were i to expatiate to the limit of my inclination on the subject of the gift of speech and its utility. i shall pass, therefore, to the following question, "whether rhetoric be an art?" those who wrote rules for eloquence doubted so little its being so, that they prefixt no other title to their books than "the art of speaking." cicero says that what we call rhetoric is only an artificial eloquence. if this were an opinion peculiar to orators, it might be thought that they intended it as a mark of dignity attached to their studies, but most philosophers, stoics as well as peripatetics, concur in this opinion. i must confess i had some doubt about discussing this matter, lest i might seem diffident of its truth; for who can be so devoid of sense and knowledge as to find art in architecture, in weaving, in pottery, and imagine that rhetoric, the excellence of which we have already shown, could arrive at its present state of grandeur and perfection without the direction of art? i am persuaded that those of the contrary opinion were so more for the sake of exercising their wit on the singularity of the subject than from any real conviction. is eloquence a gift of nature? some maintain that rhetoric is a gift of nature, yet admit that it may be helped by exercise. antonius, in cicero's books of the orator, calls it a sort of observation and not an art. but this opinion is not there asserted as truth, but only to keep up the character of antonius, who was a connoisseur at concealing art. lysias seems to be of the same opinion, which he defends by saying that the most simple and ignorant people possess a kind of rhetoric when they speak for themselves. they find something like an exordium, they make a narration, they prove, refute, and their prayers and entreaties have the force of a peroration. lysias and his adherents proceed afterward to vain subtleties. "that which is the effect of art," say they, "could not have existed before art. in all times men have known how to speak for themselves and against others, but masters of rhetoric have been only of a late date, first known about the time of tisias and corax; therefore oratorical speech was prior to art, consequently it could not be the result of art, and therefore, rhetoric is not an art." we shall not endeavor to enquire into the time when rhetoric began to be taught, but this we may say, that it is certain homer makes mention not only of phoenix, who was a master, skilled in both speaking and fighting, but also of many other orators. we may observe likewise from homer, that all the parts of a discourse are found in the speech of the three captains deputed to achilles, that several young men dispute for the prize of eloquence, and that among other ornaments of sculpture on the buckler of achilles, vulcan did not forget law-causes and the pleaders of them. it will be sufficient, however, to answer that "everything perfected by art has its source in nature." if it were not so, we should exclude medicine from the catalog of arts, the discovery of which was owing to observations made on things conducive or harmful to public health, and in the opinion of some it is wholly grounded on experiments. before it was reduced to an art, tents and bandages were applied to wounds, rest and abstinence cured fever; not that the reason of all this was then known, but the nature of the ailment indicated such curative methods and forced men to this regimen. in like manner architecture can not be an art, the first men having built their cottages without its direction. music must undergo the same charge, as every nation has its own peculiarities in dancing and singing. now, if by rhetoric be meant any kind of speech, i must own it prior to art; but if not everyone who speaks is an orator, and if in the primitive ages of the world men did not speak orator-like, the orator, consequently, must have been made so by art, and therefore could not exist before it. rhetoric and misrepresentation the next objection is not one so much in reality as it is a mere cavil; that "art never assents to false opinions, because it can not be constituted as such without precepts, which are always true; but rhetoric assents to what is false, therefore it is not an art." i admit that sometimes rhetoric says false things instead of true, but it does not follow that it assents to what is false. there is a wide difference between assenting to a falsehood, and making others assent to it. so it is that a general of an army often has recourse to stratagems. when hannibal perceived himself to be blocked up by fabius, he ordered faggots of brush-wood to be fastened about the horns of some oxen, and fire being set to the faggots, had the cattle driven up the mountains in the night, in order to make the enemy believe he was about to decamp. but this was only a false alarm, for he himself very well knew what his scheme was. when theopompus the spartan, by changing clothes with his wife, made his escape out of prison, the deception was not imposed upon himself, but upon his guards. thus, when an orator speaks falsehood instead of truth, he knows what he is about; he does not yield to it himself, his intention being to deceive others. when cicero boasted that he threw darkness on the minds of the judges, in the cause of cluentius, could it be said that he himself was unacquainted with all the intricacies of his method of confusing their understanding of the facts? or shall a painter who so disposes his objects that some seem to project from the canvas, others to sink in, be supposed not to know that they are all drawn on a plain surface? the object of a speech it is again objected that "every art proposes to itself an end; but rhetoric has no end, or does not put into execution the end it proposes to itself." this is false, as is shown from what already has been said concerning the end of rhetoric and in what it consists. the orator will never fail to obtain this end, for he always will speak well. this objection, therefore, can affect only those who make persuasion the end of rhetoric; but our orator, and our definition of art, are not restricted to events. an orator, indeed, strives to gain his cause; but suppose he loses it, as long as he has pleaded well he fulfils the injunctions of his art. a pilot desires to come safe into port, but if a storm sweeps away his ship, is he, on that account, a less experienced pilot? his keeping constantly to the helm is sufficient proof that he was not neglecting his duty. a physician tries to cure a sick person, but if his remedies are hindered in their operation by either the violence of the disease, the intemperance of the patient, or some unforeseen accident, he is not to be blamed, because he has satisfied all the directions of his art. so it is with the orator, whose end is to speak well; for it is in the act, and not in the effect, that art consists, as i shall soon make clear. therefore, it is false to say that "art knows when it has obtained its end, but rhetoric knows nothing of the matter," as if an orator could be ignorant of his speaking well and to the purpose. but it is said, further, that rhetoric, contrary to the custom of all other arts, adopts vice, because it countenances falsehood and moves the passions. neither of these are bad practises, and consequently not vicious, when grounded on substantial reasons. to disguise truth is sometimes allowable even in the sage, and if a judge can not be brought to do justice except by means of the passions, the orator must necessarily have recourse to them. very often the judges appointed to decide are ignorant, and there is necessity for changing their wrongly conceived opinions, to keep them from error. should there be a bench, a tribunal, an assembly of wise and learned judges whose hearts are inaccessible to hatred, envy, hope, fear, prejudice, and the impositions of false witnesses, there would be little occasion for the exertions of eloquence and all that might seem requisite would be only to amuse the ear with the harmony of cadence. but if the orator has to deal with light, inconstant, prejudiced, and corrupt judges, and if many embarrassments must be removed in order to throw light upon truth, then artful stratagem must fight the battle, and set all its engines to work, for he who is beaten out of the straight road can not get into it again except by another turnabout. eloquence acquired by study and practise these are the principal objections which have been made against rhetoric. there are others of less moment but derived from the same source. that rhetoric is an art is thus briefly demonstrated. if art, as cleanthes thinks, is a power which prepares a way and establishes an order, can it be doubted that we must keep to a certain way and a certain order for speaking well? and if, according to the most generally accepted opinion, we ought to call art, everything which by a combination of agreeing and co-exercised principles conducts to a useful end, have we not already shown that nothing of all this is lacking in rhetoric? has it not, likewise, the two constituent parts of other arts, theory and practise? again, if dialect be an art, as it is granted, for the same reason; so is rhetoric an art, the chief difference lying not so much in the genus as in the species. but we must not forget this observation, that art must be where a thing is done according to rule, and not at random; and art must be where he who has learned succeeds better than he who has not learned. but in matter of eloquence not only will the ignorant person be surpassed by the learned, but also the learned by the more learned; otherwise we should not have so many rules nor so many excellent masters. this ought to be acknowledged by all, but more especially by us who do not separate eloquence from the man of integrity. the exordium or introduction the exordium, or introduction, is that part of the discourse which is pronounced before the subject is entered upon. as musicians make a prelude for obtaining silence and attention before they play their selections, so orators, before they begin their cause, have specified by the same application that which they say by way of preface for securing for themselves a kindly feeling in the listeners. the purpose of the introduction the reason for an exordium is to dispose the auditors to be favorable to us in the other parts of the discourse. this, as most authors agree, is accomplished by making them friendly, attentive, and receptive, tho due regard should be paid to these three particulars throughout the whole of a speech. sometimes the exordium is applicable to the pleader of the cause, who, tho he ought to speak very little of himself, and always modestly, will find it of vast consequence to create a good opinion of himself and to make himself thought to be an honest man. so it is he will be regarded not so much as a zealous advocate, as a faithful and irreproachable witness. his motives for pleading must, therefore, appear to proceed not from tie of kindred, or friendship, but principally from a desire to promote the public good, if such motive can be urged, or any other important consideration. this conduct will befit plaintiffs in a much greater degree, that they may seem to have brought their action for just and weighty reasons, or were even compelled to do it from necessity. as nothing else gives so great a sanction to the authority of the speaker as to be free from all suspicion of avarice, hatred, and ambition, so, also, there is a sort of tacit recommendation of ourselves if we profess our weak state and inability for contending with the superior genius and talents of the advocate of the other side. we are naturally disposed to favor the weak and opprest, and a conscientious judge hears an orator willingly whom he presumes not to be capable of making him swerve from his fixt purpose of doing justice. hence the care of the ancients for concealing their talents. ideas to avoid and to include all contemptuous, spiteful, haughty, calumniating expressions must be avoided and not so much as even insinuated to the defamation of any particular person or rank, much less against those to whom an affront would alienate the minds of the judges. to be so imprudent as to attack judges themselves, not openly, but in any indirect manner, would be most unwise. the advocate for the other side may likewise furnish sufficient matter for an exordium. sometimes honorable mention may be made of him, as when we pretend to be in dread of his interest and eloquence in order to make them suspected by the judges, and sometimes by casting odium on him, altho this must be done very seldom. i rather think, from the authority of the best authors, that whatever affects the orator, affects also the cause he patronizes, as it is natural for a judge to give more credit to those whom he more willingly hears. we shall procure the favor of the judge not so much by praising him, which ought to be done with moderation, and is common to both sides, but rather by making his praise fitting, and connecting it with the interest of our cause. thus, in speaking for a person of consequence, we may lay some stress on the judge's own dignity; for one of mean condition, on his justice; for the unhappy, on his mercy; for the injured, on his severity. studying your hearers it also would not be amiss to become acquainted, if possible, with his character. for, according as his temper is, harsh or mild, pleasant or grave, severe or easy, the cause should be made to incline toward the side which corresponds with his disposition, or to admit some mitigation or softening where it runs counter to it. it may happen sometimes, too, that the judge is our enemy, or the opponent's friend. this is a circumstance requiring the circumspection of both parties, yet i think the favored advocate should behave with great caution, for a judge of a biased disposition will sometimes choose to pass sentence against his friends, or in favor of those to whom he bears enmity, that he may not appear to act with injustice. arousing emotions judges have also their private opinions and prejudices, which we must either strengthen or weaken, according as we see necessary. fear, too, sometimes must be removed, as cicero, in his defense of milo, endeavors to assure the judges that pompey's army, drawn up about the forum, is for their protection; and sometimes there will be an occasion to intimidate them, as the same orator does in one of his pleadings against verres. there are two ways of proceeding in this last case, the first plausible, and frequently used, as when it is hinted to them that the roman people might entertain an ill opinion of them, or that there might be an appeal from their judgment; the other desperate, and not so much used, as when threatened with prosecution themselves if they suffer themselves to be corrupted. this is a hazardous point, and is conducted with more safety to the orator when in a large assembly where corrupt judges are restrained by fear, and the upright have the majority. but i would never counsel this before a single judge, unless every other resource was wanting. if necessity requires it, i can not say that it is the business of the art of oratory to give directions in the matter, any more than to lodge an appeal, tho that, too, is often of service, or to cite the judge in justice before he passes sentence, for to threaten, denounce, or indict may be done by any one else as well as the orator. if the cause itself should furnish sufficient reason for gaining the good will of the judge, out of this whatever is most specious and favorable may be inserted in the exordium. it will be unnecessary to enumerate all the favorable circumstances in causes, they being easily known from the state of facts; besides, no exact enumeration can take place on account of the great diversity of law-suits. it is the cause itself, therefore, that must teach us to find and improve these circumstances; and, in like manner, with a circumstance that may make against us the cause will inform us how it may either be made entirely void, or at least invalidated. from the cause compassion also sometimes arises, whether we have already suffered or are likely to suffer anything grievous. for i am not of the opinion of those who to distinguish the exordium from the peroration, will have the one to speak of what is past and the other of what is to come. they are sufficiently distinguished without this discrimination. in the exordium the orator ought to be more reserved, and ought only to throw out some hints of the sentiments of compassion he designs to excite in the minds of the judges; whereas in the peroration he may pour out all the passions, introduce persons speaking, and make the dead to come forth, as it were, out of their graves, and recommend to the judges the care of their dearest pledges. all these particulars are seldom executed in the exordium. but the manner just pointed out, it will be very proper to observe in it, and to wear down all impressions to the contrary made by the opposite side, that as our situation will be deplorable if we should be defeated in our expectations, so, on the other hand, the behavior of our opponent would be insolent and haughty. material for the introduction besides persons and causes, the exordium likewise is sometimes taken from their adjuncts, that is, from things relating to the cause and persons. to persons are applicable not only the pledges above mentioned, but affinities, friendships, sometimes cities and whole countries are also likely to suffer by the person's misfortunes. theophrastus adds another kind of exordium, taken from the pleading of the orator who speaks first. such seems to be that of demosthenes for ctesiphon, in which he requests the judges to please permit him to reply as he thinks suitable rather than to follow the rules prescribed by the accuser. as the confidence observable in some orators may easily pass for arrogance, there are certain ways of behavior which, tho common, will please, and therefore ought not to be neglected, to prevent their being used by the opposing side: these are wishing, warding off suspicion, supplicating, and making a show of trouble and anxiety. the judge's attention is secured by inducing him to believe that the matter under debate is new, important, extraordinary, or of a heinous nature, or that it equally interests him and the public. then his mind is to be roused and agitated by hope, fear, remonstrance, entreaty, and even by flattery, if it is thought that will be of any use. another way of procuring attention may be to promise that we shall take up but little of their time, as we shall confine ourselves to the subject. from what has been said, it appears that different causes require to be governed by different rules; and five kinds of causes are generally specified, which are said to be, either honest, base, doubtful, extraordinary, or obscure. some add shameful, as a sixth kind, which others include in base or extraordinary. by extraordinary is understood that which is contrary to the opinion of men. in a doubtful cause the judge should be made favorable; in an obscure, docile; in a base, attentive. an honest cause is sufficient of itself to procure favor. extraordinary and base causes lack remedies. two types of introductions some, therefore, specify two kinds of exordiums, one a beginning, the other an insinuation. in the first the judges are requested openly to give their good will and attention; but as this can not take place in the base kind of cause, the insinuation must steal in upon their minds, especially when the cause does not seem to appear with a sufficiently honest aspect, either because the thing itself is wicked, or is a measure not approved by the public. there are many instances of causes of unseemly appearance, as when general odium is incurred by opposing a patriot; and a like hostility ensues from acting against a father, a wretched old man, the blind, or the orphan. this may be a general rule for the purpose, "to touch but slightly on the things that work against us, and to insist chiefly on those which are for our advantage." if the cause can not be so well maintained, let us have recourse to the goodness of the person, and if the person is not condemnable, let us ground our support on the cause. if nothing occurs to help us out, let us see what may hurt the opponent. for, since to obtain more favor is a thing to be wished, so the next step to it is to incur less hatred. in things that can not be denied, we must endeavor to show that they are greatly short of what they are reported to be, or that they have been done with a different intention, or that they do not in any wise belong to the present question, or that repentance will make sufficient amends for them, or that they have already received a proportionate punishment. herein, therefore, it will be better and more suitable for an advocate to act than for the person himself; because when pleading for another he can praise without the imputation of arrogance, and sometimes can even reprove with advantage. insinuation seems to be not less necessary when the opponent's action has pre-possest the minds of the judges, or when they have been fatigued by the tediousness of the pleading. the first may be got the better of by promising substantial proofs on our side, and by refuting those of the opponent. the second, by giving hopes of being brief, and by having recourse to the means prescribed for making the judge attentive. in the latter case, too, some seasonable pleasantry, or anything witty to freshen the mind will have a good effect. it will not be amiss, likewise, to remove any seeming obstruction. as cicero says of himself, he is not unaware that some will find it strange that he, who for so many years had defended such a number of people, and had given no offense to anyone, should undertake to accuse verres. afterward he shows that if, on the one hand, he accuses verres, still, on the other, he defends the allies of the roman people. how to select the right beginning the orator should consider what the subject is upon which he is to speak, before whom, for whom, against whom, at what time, in what place, under what conditions, what the public think of it, what the judges may think of it before they hear him, and what he himself has to desire, and what to apprehend. whoever makes these reflections will know where he should naturally begin. but now orators call exordium anything with which they begin, and consider it of advantage to make the beginning with some brilliant thought. undoubtedly many things are taken into the exordium which are drawn from other parts of the cause or at least are common to them, but nothing in either respect is better said than that which can not be said so well elsewhere. the value of naturalness there are many very engaging things in an exordium which is framed from the opponent's pleading, and this is because it does not seem to favor of the closet, but is produced on the spot and comes from the very thing. by its easy, natural turn, it enhances the reputation of genius. its air of simplicity, the judge not being on his guard against it, begets belief, and tho the discourse in all other parts be elaborate and written with great accuracy, it will for the most part seem an extempore oration, the exordium evidently appearing to have nothing premeditated. but nothing else will so well suit an exordium as modesty in the countenance, voice, thoughts, and composition, so that even in an uncontrovertible kind of cause, too great confidence ought not to display itself. security is always odious in a pleader, and a judge who is sensible of his authority tacitly demands respect. an orator must likewise be exceedingly careful to keep himself from being suspected, particularly in that regard; therefore, not the least show of study should be made, because all his art will seem exerted against the judge, and not to show this is the greatest perfection of art. this rule has been recommended by all authors, and undoubtedly with good reason, but sometimes is altered by circumstances, because in certain causes the judges themselves require studied discourses, and fancy themselves thought mean of unless accuracy appears in thought and expression. it is of no significance to instruct them; they must be pleased. it is indeed difficult to find a medium in this respect, but the orator may so temper his manner as to speak with justness, and not with too great a show of art. the need of simplicity of expression another rule inculcated by the ancients is not to admit into the exordium any strange word, too bold a metaphor, an obsolete expression, or a poetical turn. as yet we are not favorably received by the auditors, their attention is not entirely held, but when once they conceive an esteem and are warmly inclined toward us, then is the time to hazard this liberty, especially when we enter upon parts the natural fertility of which does not allow the liberty of expression to be noticed amidst the luster spread about it. the style of the exordium ought not to be like that of the argument proper and the narration, neither ought it to be finely spun out, or harmonized into periodical cadences, but, rather, it should be simple and natural, promising neither too much by words nor countenance. a modest action, also, devoid of the least suspicion of ostentation, will better insinuate itself into the mind of the auditor. but these ought to be regulated according to the sentiments we would have the judges imbibe from us. it must be remembered, however, that nowhere is less allowance made than here for failing in memory or appearing destitute of the power of articulating many words together. an ill-pronounced exordium may well be compared to a visage full of scars, and certainly he must be a bad pilot who puts his ship in danger of sinking, as he is going out of port. in regard to the length of the exordium, it ought to be proportionate to the nature of the cause. simple causes admit of a shorter exordium; the complex, doubtful, and odious, require a longer exordium. some writers have prescribed four points as laws for all exordiums,--which is ridiculous. an immoderate length should be equally avoided, lest it appear, as some monsters, bigger in the head than in the rest of the body, and create disgust where it ought only to prepare. "tying up" the introduction as often as we use an exordium, whether we pass next to the narration, or immediately to the proofs, we ought always to preserve a connection between what follows and what goes before. to proceed from one part to another, by some ingenious thought which disguises the transition, and to seek applause from such a studied exertion of wit, is quite of a piece with the cold and childish affectation of our declaimers. if a long and intricate narration must follow, the judge ought naturally to be prepared for it. this cicero often does, as in this passage: "i must proceed pretty high to clear up this matter to you, which i hope, gentlemen, you will not be displeased at, because its origin being known will make you thoroughly acquainted with the particulars proceeding from it." the narration there are causes so short as to require rather to be proposed than told. it is sometimes the case with two contending sides, either that they have no exposition to make, or that agreeing on the fact, they contest only the right. sometimes one of the contending parties, most commonly the plaintiff, need only propose the matter, as most to his advantage, and then it will be enough for him to say: "i ask for a certain sum of money due to me according to agreement; i ask for what was bequeathed to me by will." it is the defendant's business to show that he has no right to such a debt or legacy. on other occasions it is enough, and more advisable, for the plaintiff to point out merely the fact: "i say that horatius killed his sister." this simple proposition makes known the whole crime, but the details and the cause of the fact will suit better the defendant. let it be supposed, on the other hand, that the fact can not be denied or excused; then the defendant, instead of narrating, will best abide by the question of right. some one is accused of sacrilege for stealing the money of a private person out of a temple. the pleader of the cause had better confess the fact than give an account of it. "we do not deny that this money was taken out of the temple. it was the money of a private person, and not set apart for any religious use. but the plaintiff calumniates us by an action for sacrilege. it is, therefore, your business, gentlemen, to decide whether it can properly be specified as sacrilege." the two kinds of narration there are two kinds of narration in judicial matters, the one for the cause, the other for things belonging to it. "i have not killed that man." this needs no narration. i admit it does not; but there may be a narration, and even somewhat long, concerning the probable causes of innocence in the accused, as his former integrity of life, the opponent's motives for endangering the life of a guiltless person, and other circumstances arguing the incredibility of the accusation. the accuser does not merely say, "you have committed that murder," but shows reasons to evince its credibility; as, in tragedies, when teucer imputes the death of ajax to ulysses, he says that "he was found in a lonely place, near the dead body of his enemy, with his sword all bloody." ulysses, in answer, not only denies the crime, but protests there was no enmity between him and ajax, and that they never contended but for glory. then he relates how he came into that solitary place, how he found ajax dead, and that it was ajax's own sword he drew out of his wound. to these are subjoined proofs, but the proofs, too, are not without narration, the plaintiff alleging, "you were in the place where your enemy was found killed." "i was not," says the defendant, and he tells where he was. how to make the conclusion the end of the narration is rather more for persuading than informing. when, therefore, the judges might not require information, yet, if we consider it advisable to draw them over to our way of thinking, we may relate the matter with certain precautions, as, that tho they have knowledge of the affair in general, still would it not be amiss if they chose to examine into every particular fact as it happened. sometimes we may diversify the exposition with a variety of figures and turns; as, "you remember"; "perhaps it would be unnecessary to insist any longer on this point"; "but why should i speak further when you are so well acquainted with the matter." a subject of frequent discussion is to know whether the narration ought immediately to follow the exordium. they who think it should, seem to have some reason on their side, for as the design of the exordium is to dispose the judges to hear us with all the good will, docility, and attention, we wish, and as arguments can have no effect without previous knowledge of the cause, it follows naturally that they should have this knowledge as soon as it can conveniently be given to them. purposes of the narration if the narration be entirely for us, we may content ourselves with those three parts, whereby the judge is made the more easily to understand, remember, and believe. but let none think of finding fault if i require the narration which is entirely for us, to be probable tho true, for many things are true but scarcely credible, as, on the contrary, many things are false tho frequently probable. we ought, therefore, to be careful that the judge should believe as much what we pretend as the truth we say, by preserving in both a probability to be credited. those three qualities of the narration belong in like manner to all other parts of the discourse, for obscurity must be avoided throughout, and we must everywhere keep within certain bounds, and all that is said must be probable; but a strict observance of these particulars ought to be kept more especially in that part wherein the judge receives his first information, for if there it should happen that he either does not understand, remember, or believe, our labor in all other parts will be to no purpose. the qualities needed for success the narration will be clear and intelligible if, first, it be exprest in proper and significant words, which have nothing mean and low, nothing far-fetched, and nothing uncommon. second, if it distinguishes exactly things, persons, times, places, causes; all of which should be accompanied with a suitable delivery, that the judge may retain the more easily what is said. this is a quality neglected by most of our orators, who, charmed by the applause of a rabble brought together by chance, or even bribed to applaud with admiration every word and period, can neither endure the attentive silence of a judicious audience, nor seem to themselves to be eloquent unless they make everything ring about them with tumultuous clamor. to explain simply the fact, appears to them too low, and common, and too much within the reach of the illiterate, but i fancy that what they despise as easy is not so much because of inclination as because of inability to effect it. for the more experience we have, the more we find that nothing else is so difficult as to speak in such a manner that all who have heard us may think they could acquit themselves equally as well. the reason for the contrary notion is that what is so said is considered as merely true and not as fine and beautiful. but will not the orator express himself in the most perfect manner, when he seems to speak truth? now, indeed, the narration is laid out as a champion-ground for eloquence to display itself in; the voice, the gesture, the thoughts, the expression, are all worked up to a pitch of extravagance, and what is monstrous, the action is applauded, and yet the cause is far from being understood. but we shall forego further reflections on this misguided notion, lest we offend more by reproving faults, than gratify by giving advice. the narration will have its due brevity if we begin by explaining the affair from the point where it is of concern to the judge; next, if we say nothing foreign to the cause; and last, if we avoid all superfluities, yet without curtailing anything that may give insight into the cause or be to its advantage. there is a certain brevity of parts, however, which makes a long whole: "i came to the harbor, i saw a ship ready for sailing, i asked the price for passengers, i agreed as to what i should give, i went aboard, we weighed anchor, we cleared the coast, and sailed on briskly." none of these circumstances could be exprest in fewer words, but it is sufficient to say, "i sailed from the port." and as often as the end of a thing sufficiently denotes what went before, we may rest satisfied with it as facilitating the understanding of all other circumstances. but often when striving to be short, we become obscure, a fault equally to be avoided, therefore it is better that the narration should have a little too much, than that it should lack enough. what is redundant, disgusts; what is necessary is cut down with danger. i would not have this rule restricted to what is barely sufficient for pronouncing judgment on, because the narration may be concise, yet not, on that account, be without ornament. in such cases it would appear as coming from an illiterate person. pleasure, indeed, has a secret charm; and the things which please seem less tedious. a pleasant and smooth road, tho it be longer, fatigues less than a rugged and disagreeable short cut. i am not so fond of conciseness as not to make room for brightening a narration with proper embellishments. if quite homely and curtailed on all sides, it will be not so much a narration as a poor huddling up of things together. getting your statements accepted the best way to make the narration probable is to first consult with ourselves on whatever is agreeable to nature, that nothing may be said contrary to it; next, to find causes and reasons for facts, not for all, but for those belonging to the question; and last, to have characters answerable to the alleged facts which we would have believed; as, if one were guilty of theft, we should represent him as a miser; of adultery, as addicted to impure lusts; of manslaughter, as hot and rash. the contrary takes place in defense, and the facts must agree with time, place, and the like. sometimes a cause may be prepared by a proposition, and afterward narrated. all circumstances are unfavorable to three sons who have conspired against their father's life. they cast lots who shall strike the blow. he on whom the lot falls, enters his father's bed-chamber at night, with a poniard, but has not courage to put the design into execution. the second and the third do the same. the father wakes. all confess their wicked purpose, and by virtue of a law made and provided for such case, they are to be disinherited. but should the father, who has already made a partition of his estate in their favor, plead their cause, he may proceed thus: "children are accused of parricide, whose father is still alive, and they are sued in consequence of a law that is not properly applicable to their case. i need not here give an account of a transaction that is foreign to the point of law in question. but if you require a confession of my guilt, i have been a hard father to them, and rather too much occupied in hoarding up the income of my estate, which would have been better spent in necessaries for them." afterward he may say that they did not form this plan by themselves, that they were instigated to it by others who had more indulgent parents, that the result clearly showed they were not capable of so unnatural an action, that there was no necessity for binding themselves by oath if in reality they could have had such an inclination, nor of casting lots if each did not want to avoid the perpetration of such a crime. all these circumstances, such as they are, will be favorably received, softened in some measure by the short defense of the previous propositions. the order of the narration i am not of the opinion of those who think that the facts ought always to be related in the same order in which they happened. that manner of narration is best which is of most advantage to the cause, and it may, not improperly, call in the aid of a diversity of figures. sometimes we may pretend that a thing has been overlooked, so that it may be better exprest elsewhere than it would be in its own order and place; assuring the judges at the same time that we shall resume the proper order, but that the cause in this way will be better understood. sometimes, after explaining the whole affair, we may subjoin the antecedent causes. and thus it is that the art of defense, not circumscribed by any one invariable rule, must be adapted to the nature and circumstances of the cause. it will not be amiss to intimate that nothing enhances so much the credibility of a narration as the authority of him who makes it, and this authority it is our duty to acquire, above all, by an irreproachable life, and next, by the manner of enforcing it. the more grave and serious it is, the more weight it will have. here all suspicion of cunning and artifice should, therefore, be particularly avoided, for the judges, ever distrustful, are here principally on their guard, and, likewise, nothing should seem a pure fiction, or the work of study, which all might rather be believed to proceed from the cause than the orator. but this we can not endure, and we think our art lost unless it is seen; whereas it ceases to be art if it is seen. division and argument some are of the opinion that division should always be used, as by it the cause will be more clear and the judge more attentive and more easily taught when he knows of what we speak to him and of what we intend afterward to speak. others think this is attended with danger to the orator, either by his sometimes forgetting what he has promised, or by something else occurring to the judge or auditor, which he did not think of in the division. i can not well imagine how this may happen, unless with one who is either destitute of sense or rash enough to plead without preparation. in any other respect, nothing else can set a subject in so clear a light as just division. it is a means to which we are directed by the guidance of nature, because keeping in sight the heads on which we propose to speak, is the greatest help the memory can have. the mistake of too many divisions but if division should seem requisite, i am not inclined to assent to the notion of those who would have it extend to more than three parts. indeed, when the parts are too many, they escape the judge's memory and distract his attention; but a cause is not scrupulously to be tied down to this number, as it may require more. disadvantages of divisions there are reasons for not always using division, the principal reason being that most things are better received when seemingly of extempore invention and not suggestive of study, but arising in the pleading from the nature of the thing itself. whence such figures are not unpleasing as, "i had almost forgotten to say"; "it escaped my memory to acquaint you"; and "you have given me a good hint." for if the proofs should be proposed without something of a reputation of this kind, they would lose, in the sequel, all the graces of novelty. the distinguishing of questions, and the discussing of them, should be equally avoided. but the listeners' passions ought to be excited, and their attention diverted from its former bias, for it is the orator's business not so much to instruct as to enforce his eloquence by emotion, to which nothing can be more contrary than minute and scrupulously exact division of a discourse into parts. when the division is desirable if many things are to be avoided or refuted, the division will be both useful and pleasing, causing everything to appear in the order in which it is to be said. but if we defend a single crime by various ways, division will be superfluous, as, "i shall make it clear that the person i defend is not such as to make it seem probable that he could be guilty of murder; it shall also be shown that he had no motives to induce him to do it; and lastly, that he was across the sea when this murder took place." whatever is cited and argued before the third point must seem quite unnecessary, for the judge is in haste to have you come to that which is of most consequence, and the patient, will tacitly call upon you to acquit yourself of your promise, or, if he has much business to dispatch, or his dignity puts him above your trifling, or he is of a peevish humor, he will oblige you to speak to the purpose, and perhaps do so in disrespectful terms. pitfalls in argument many doubt the desirability of this kind of defense: "if i had killed him, i should have done well; but i did not kill him." where is the occasion, say they, for the first proposition if the second be true? they run counter to each other, and whoever advances both, will be credited in neither. this is partly true, for if the last proposition be unquestionable, it is the only one that should be used. but if we are apprehensive of anything in the stronger, we may use both. on these occasions persons seem to be differently affected; one will believe the fact, and exculpate the right; another will condemn the right, and perhaps not credit the fact. so, one dart may be enough for an unerring hand to hit the mark, but chance and many darts must effect the same result for an uncertain aim. cicero clears up this matter in his defense of milo. he first shows clodius to be the aggressor, and then, by a superabundance of right, adds that tho he might not be the aggressor, it was brave and glorious in milo to have delivered rome of so bad a citizen. tho division may not always be necessary, yet when properly used it gives great light and beauty to a discourse. this it effects not only by adding more perspicuity to what is said, but also by refreshing the minds of the hearers by a view of each part circumscribed within its bounds; just so milestones ease in some measure the fatigue of travelers, it being a pleasure to know the extent of the labor they have undergone, and to know what remains encourages them to persevere, as a thing does not necessarily seem long when there is a certainty of coming to the end. essentials of good argument every division, therefore, when it may be employed to advantage, ought to be first clear and intelligible, for what is worse than being obscure in a thing, the use of which is to guard against obscurity in other things? second, it ought to be short, and not encumbered with any superfluous word, because we do not enter upon the subject matter, but only point it out. if proofs be strong and cogent, they should be proposed and insisted on separately; if weak, it will be best to collect them into a body. in the first case, being persuasive by themselves, it would be improper to obscure them by the confusion of others: they should appear in their due light. in the second case, being naturally weak, they should be made to support each other. if, therefore, they are not greatly effective in point of quality, they may be in that of number, all of them having a tendency to prove the same thing; as, if one were accused of killing another for the sake of inheriting his fortune: "you did expect an inheritance, and it was something very considerable; you were poor, and your creditors troubled you more than ever; you also offended him who had appointed you his heir, and you know that he intended to alter his will." these proofs taken separately are of little moment, and common; but collectively their shock is felt, not as a peal of thunder, but as a shower of hail. the judge's memory, however, is not always to be loaded with the arguments we may invent. they will create disgust, and beget distrust in him, as he can not think such arguments to be powerful enough which we ourselves do not think sufficient. but to go on arguing and proving, in the case of self-evident things, would be a piece of folly not unlike that of bringing a candle to light us when the sun is in its greatest splendor. to these some add proofs which they call moral, drawn from the milder passions; and the most powerful, in the opinion of aristotle, are such as arise from the person of him who speaks, if he be a man of real integrity. this is a primary consideration; and a secondary one, remote, indeed, yet following, will be the probable notion entertained of his irreproachable life. the best order of the argument it has been a matter of debate, also, whether the strongest proofs should have place in the beginning, to make an immediate impression on the hearers, or at the end, to make the impression lasting with them, or to distribute them, partly in the beginning and partly at the end, placing the weaker in the middle, or to begin with the weakest and proceed to the strongest. for my part i think this should depend on the nature and exigencies of the cause, yet with this reservation, that the discourse might not dwindle from the powerful into what is nugatory and frivolous. let the young orator, for whose instruction i make these remarks, accustom himself as much as possible to copy nature and truth. as in schools he often engages in sham battles, in imitation of the contests of the bar, let him even then have an eye to victory, and learn to strike home, dealing moral blows and putting himself on his defense as if really in earnest. it is the master's business to require this duty, and to commend it according as it is well executed. for if they love praise to the degree of seeking it in their faults, which does them much harm, they will desire it more passionately when they know it to be the reward of real merit. the misfortune now is that they commonly pass over necessary things in silence, considering what is for the good of the cause as of little or no account if it be not conducive to the embellishment of the discourse. the peroration the peroration, called by some the completion, by others the conclusion, of a discourse, is of two kinds, and regards either the matters discust in it or the moving of the passions. the repetition of the matter and the collecting it together, which is called by the greeks recapitulation, and by some of the latins enumeration, serves for refreshing the judge's memory, for placing the whole cause in one direct point of view, and for enforcing in a body many proofs which, separately, made less impression. it would seem that this repetition ought to be very short, and the greek term sufficiently denotes that we ought to run over only the principal heads, for if we are long in doing it, it will not be an enumeration that we make, but, as it were, a second discourse. the points which may seem to require this enumeration, however, ought to be pronounced with some emphasis, and enlivened with opposite thoughts, and diversified by figures, otherwise nothing will be more disagreeable than a mere cursory repetition, which would seem to show distrust of the judge's memory. rules for the peroration this seems to be the only kind of peroration allowed by most of the athenians and by almost all the philosophers who left anything written on the art of oratory. the athenians, i suppose, were of that opinion because it was customary at athens to silence, by the public crier, any orator who should attempt to move the passions. i am less surprized at this opinion among philosophers, every perturbation of the mind being considered by them as vicious; nor did it seem to them compatible with sound morality to divert the judge from truth, nor agreeable to the idea of an honest man to have recourse to any sinister stratagem. yet moving the passions will be acknowledged necessary when truth and justice can not be otherwise obtained and when public good is concerned in the decision. all agree that recapitulation may also be employed to advantage in other parts of the pleading, if the cause is complicated and requires many arguments to defend it, and, on the other hand, it will admit of no doubt that many causes are so short and simple as to have no occasion in any part of them for recapitulation. the above rules for the peroration apply equally to the accuser and to the defendant's advocate. they, likewise, use nearly the same passions, but the accuser more seldom and more sparingly, and the defendant oftener and with greater emotions; for it is the business of the former to stir up aversion, indignation, and other similar passions in the minds of the judges, and of the latter to bend their hearts to compassion. yet the accuser is sometimes not without tears, in deploring the distress of those in whose behalf he sues for satisfaction, and the defendant sometimes complains with great vehemence of the persecution raised against him by the calumnies and conspiracy of his enemies. it would be best, therefore, to distinguish and discuss separately the different passions excited on the parts of the plaintiff and defendant, which are most commonly, as i have said, very like what takes place in the exordium, but are treated in a freer and fuller manner in the peroration. purposes of the peroration the favor of the judges toward us is more sparingly sued for in the beginning, it being then sufficient to gain their attention, as the whole discourse remains in which to make further impressions. but in the peroration we must strive to bring the judge into that disposition of the mind which it is necessary for us that he should retain when he comes to pass judgment. the peroration being finished, we can say no more, nor can anything be reserved for another place. both of the contending sides, therefore, try to conciliate the judge, to make him unfavorable to the opponent, to rouse and occasionally allay his passions; and both may find their method of procedure in this short rule, which is, to keep in view the whole stress of the cause, and finding what it contains that is favorable, odious, or deplorable, in reality or in probability, to say those things which would make the greatest impression on themselves if they sat as judges. i have already mentioned in the rules for the exordium how the accuser might conciliate the judges. yet some things, which it was enough to point out there, should be wrought to a fulness in the peroration, especially if the pleading be against some one universally hated, and a common disturber, and if the condemnation of the culprit should redound as much to the honor of the judges as his acquittal to their shame. thus calvus spoke admirably against vatinius: "you know, good sirs, that vatinius is guilty, and no one is unaware that you know it." cicero, in the same way, informs the judges that if anything is capable of reestablishing the reputation of their judgment, it must be the condemnation of verres. if it be proper to intimidate the judges, as cicero likewise does, against verres, this is done with better effect in the peroration than in the exordium. i have already explained my sentiments on this point. how to arouse emotions in short, when it is requisite to excite envy, hatred, or indignation there is greater scope for doing this to advantage in the peroration than elsewhere. the interest in the accused may naturally excite the judge's envy, the infamy of his crimes may draw upon him his hatred, the little respect he shows him may rouse his indignation. if he is stubborn, haughty, presumptuous, let him be painted in all the glaring colors that aggravate such vicious temper, and these manifested not only from his words and deeds, but from face, manner, and dress. i remember, on my first coming to the bar, a shrewd remark of the accuser of cossutianus capito. he pleaded in greek before the emperor, but the meaning of his words was: "might it not be said that this man disdains even to respect cæsar." the accuser has recourse frequently to the arousing of compassion, either by setting forth the distrest state of him for whom he hopes to find redress, or by describing the desolation and ruin into which his children and relations are likely thereby to be involved. he may, too, move the judges by holding out to them a prospect of what may happen hereafter if injuries and violence remain unpunished, the consequence of which will be that either his client must abandon his dwelling and the care of his effects, or must resolve to endure patiently all the injustice his enemy may try to do him. the accuser more frequently will endeavor to caution the judge against the pity with which the defendant intends to inspire him, and he will stimulate him, in as great a degree as he can, to judge according to his conscience. here, too, will be the place to anticipate whatever it is thought the opponent may do or say, for it makes the judges more circumspect regarding the sacredness of their oath, and by it the answer to the pleading may lose the indulgence which it is expected to receive, together with the charm of novelty in all the particulars which the accuser has already cleared up. the judges, besides, may be informed of the answer they should make to those who might threaten to have their sentence reversed; and this is another kind of recapitulation. the persons concerned are very proper objects for affecting the mind of the judge, for the judge does not seem to himself to hear so much the orator weeping over others' misfortunes, as he imagines his ears are smitten with the feelings and voice of the distrest. even their dumb appearance might be a sufficiently moving language to draw tears, and as their wretchedness would appear in lively colors if they were to speak it themselves, so proportionately it must be thought to have a powerful effect when exprest, as it were, from their own mouths. just so, in theatrical representations, the same voice, and the same emphatic pronunciation, become very interesting under the masks used for personating different characters. with a like view cicero, tho he gives not the voice of a suppliant to milo, but, on the contrary, commends his unshaken constancy, yet does he adapt to him words and complaints not unworthy of a man of spirit: "o my labors, to no purpose undertaken! deceiving hopes! useless projects!" this exciting of pity, however, should never be long, it being said, not without reason, that "nothing dries up so soon as tears." if time can mitigate the pangs of real grief, of course the counterfeit grief assumed in speaking must sooner vanish; so that if we dally, the auditor finding himself overcharged with mournful thoughts, tries to resume his tranquility, and thus ridding himself of the emotion that overpowered him, soon returns to the exercise of cool reason. we must, therefore, never allow this kind of emotion to become languid, but when we have wound up the passions to their greatest height, we must instantly drop the subject, and not expect that any one will long bewail another's mishap. therefore, as in other parts, the discourse should be well supported, and rather rise, so here particularly it should grow to its full vigor, because that which makes no addition to what has already been said seems to diminish it, and a passion soon evaporates that once begins to subside. tears are excited not only by words but by doing certain things, whence it is not unusual to present the very persons who are in danger of condemnation, in a garb suitable to their distress, together with their children and relations. accusers, too, make it a custom to show a bloody sword, fractured bones picked out of wounds, and garments drenched in blood. sometime, likewise, they unbind wounds to show their condition, and strip bodies naked to show the stripes they have received. these acts are commonly of mighty efficacy, as fully revealing the reality of the occurrence. thus it was that cæsar's robe, bloody all over, exposed in the forum, drove the people of rome into an excess of madness. it was well known that he was assassinated; his body also lay in state, until his funeral should take place; yet that garment, still dripping with blood, formed so graphic a picture of the horrible murder that it seemed to them to have been perpetrated that very instant. it will not be amiss to hint that the success of the peroration depends much on the manner of the parties in conforming themselves to the emotions and action of their advocates. stupidity, rusticity, and a want of sensibility and attention, as it is said, throw cold water on a cause against which the orator can not be too well provided. i have, indeed, often seen them act quite contrary to their advocate's instructions. not the least show of concern could be observed in their countenance. they laughed foolishly and without reason, and made others laugh by some ridiculous gesticulation or grimace, especially when the heat of a debate exhibited anything akin to theatrical action. an orator of slender ability will acquit himself better if he allows the judges by themselves to feel the compassion with which his subject may naturally inspire them, especially since the appearance, and voice, and studied air of the advocate's countenance are often ridiculed by such as are not affected by them. let the orator make an exact estimate of his powers, therefore, and be conscious of the burden he undertakes. here there is no middle state; he must either make his hearers weep, or expect to be laughed at. it should not be imagined, as some have thought, that all exciting of the passions, all sentimental emotions, ought to be confined to the exordium and peroration. in them they are most frequent, yet other parts admit them likewise, but in a shorter compass, as their greatest stress should be reserved for the end. for here, if anywhere, the orator may be allowed to open all the streams of eloquence. if we have executed all other parts to advantage, here we take possession of the minds of the judges, and having escaped all rocks, may expand all our sails for a favorable gale; and as amplification makes a great part of the peroration, we then may raise and embellish our style with the choicest expressions and brightest thoughts. and, indeed, the conclusion of a speech should bear some resemblance to that of tragedy and comedy, wherein the actor courts the spectator's applause. in other parts the passions may be touched upon, as they naturally rise out of the subject, and no horrible or sorrowful thing should be set forth without accompanying it with a suitable sentiment. when the debate may be on the quality of a thing, it is properly subjoined to the proofs of each thing brought out. when we plead a cause complicated with a variety of circumstances, then it will be necessary to use many perorations, as it were; as cicero does against verres, lending his tears occasionally to philodamus, to the masters of ships, to the crucified roman citizens, and to many others. passion and persuasion it may well be imagined that nothing else is so important in the whole art of oratory as the proper use of the passions. a slender genius, aided by learning or experience, may be sufficient to manage certain parts to some advantage, yet i think they are fit only for instructing the judges, and as masters and models for those who take no concern beyond passing for good speakers. but to possess the secret of forcibly carrying away the judges, of moving them, as we please, to a certain disposition of mind, of inflaming them with anger, of softening them to pity, so as to draw tears from them, all this is rare, tho by it the orator is made most distinguished and by it eloquence gains empire over hearts. the cause itself is naturally productive of arguments, and the better share generally falls to the lot of the more rightful side of the question, so that whichever side wins by dint of argument, may think that so far they did not lack an advocate. but when violence is to be used to influence the minds of the judges, when they are to be turned from coolly reflecting on the truth that works against us, then comes the true exercise of the orator's powers; and this is what the contending parties can not inform us of, nor is it contained in the state of their cases. proofs, it is true, make the judges presume that our cause is the better, but passion makes them wish it to be such, and as they wish it, they are not far from believing it to be so. for as soon as they begin to absorb from us our passions of anger, favor, hatred, or pity, they make the affair their own. as lovers can not be competent judges of beauty, because love blinds them, so here a judge attentive to the tumultuous working of a passion, loses sight of the way by which he should proceed to inquire after the truth. the impetuous torrent sweeps him away, and he is borne down in the current. the effect of arguments and witnesses is not known until judgment has been passed, but the judge who has been affected by the orator, still sitting and hearing, declares his real sentiments. has not he who is seen to melt into tears, already pronounced sentence? such, then, is the power of moving the passions, to which the orator ought to direct all his efforts, this being his principal work and labor, since without it all other resources are naked, hungry, weak, and unpleasing. the passions are the very life and soul of persuasion. qualities needed in the orator what we require in the orator is, in general, a character of goodness, not only mild and pleasing, but humane, insinuating, amiable, and charming to the hearer; and its greatest perfection will be if all, as influenced by it, shall seem to flow from the nature of things and persons, that so the morals of the orator may shine forth from his discourse and be known in their genuine colors. this character of goodness should invariably be maintained by those whom a mutual tie ought to bind in strict union, whenever it may happen that they suffer anything from each other, or pardon, or make satisfaction, or admonish, or reprimand, but far from betraying any real anger or hatred. a sentiment very powerful for exciting hatred may arise when an act of submission to our opponents is understood as a silent reproach of their insolence. our willingness to yield must indeed show them to be insupportable and troublesome, and it commonly happens that they who have desire for railing, and are too free and hot in their invectives, do not imagine that the jealousy they create is of far greater prejudice to them than the malice of their speech. all this presupposes that the orator himself ought to be a good and humane man. the virtues which he commends, if he possibly can, in his client, he should possess, or be supposed to possess, himself. in this way will he be of singular advantage to the cause he undertakes, the good opinion he has created of himself being a prejudice in its favor. for if while he speaks he appears to be a bad man, he must in consequence plead ill, because what he says will be thought repugnant to justice. the style and manner suitable on these occasions ought, therefore, to be sweet and insinuating, never hot and imperious, never hazarded in too elevated a strain. it will be sufficient to speak in a proper, pleasing, and probable way. the orator's business in regard to the passions should be not only to paint atrocious and lamentable things as they are, but even to make those seem grievous which are considered tolerable, as when we say that an injurious word is less pardonable than a blow, and that death is preferable to dishonor. for the powers of eloquence do not consist so much in forcing the judge into sentiments which the nature of the matter itself may be sufficient to inspire him with, as they do in producing and creating, as it were, the same sentiments when the subject may seem not to admit them. this is the vehemence of oratorical ability which knows how to equal and even to surpass the enormity and indignity of the facts it exposes, a quality of singular consequence to the orator, and one in which demosthenes excelled all others. the secret of moving the passions the great secret for moving the passions is to be moved ourselves, for the imitation of grief, anger, indignation, will often be ridiculous if conforming to only our words and countenance, while our heart at the same time is estranged from them. what other reason makes the afflicted exclaim in so eloquent a manner during the first transports of their grief? and how, otherwise, do the most ignorant speak eloquently in anger, unless it be from this force and these mental feelings? in such passions, therefore, which we would represent as true copies of real ones, let us be ourselves like those who unfeignedly suffer, and let our speech proceed from such a disposition of mind as that in which we would have the judge be. will he grieve who hears me speak with an expressionless face and air of indifference? will he be angry when i, who am to excite him to anger, remain cool and sedate? will he shed tears when i plead unconcerned? all this is attempting impossibilities. nothing warms nor moistens but that which is endued with the quality of heat or moisture, nor does anything give to another a color it has not itself. the principal consideration, then, must be that we, ourselves, retain the impression of which we would have the judges susceptible, and be ourselves affected before we endeavor to affect others. the power of mental imagery but how shall we be affected, the emotions or passions being not at our command? this may be done by what we may call visions, whereby the images of things absent are so represented to the mind that we seem to see them with our eyes and have them present before us. whoever can work up his imagination to an intuitive view of this kind, will be very successful in moving the passions. if i deplore the fate of a man who has been assassinated, may i not paint in my mind a lively picture of all that probably happened on the occasion? shall not the assassin appear to rush forth suddenly from his lurking place? shall not the other appear seized with horror? shall he not cry out, beg for his life, or fly to save it? shall i not see the assassin dealing the deadly blow, and the defenseless wretch falling dead at his feet? shall i not picture vividly in my mind the blood gushing from his wounds, his ghastly face, his groans, and the last gasp he fetches? when there is occasion for moving to compassion, we should believe and, indeed, be persuaded that the distress and misfortunes of which we speak have happened to ourselves. let us place ourselves in the very position of those for whom we feel sorrow on account of their having suffered such grievous and unmerited treatment. let us plead their cause, not as if it were another's, but taking to ourselves, for a short time, their whole grief. in this way we shall speak as if the case were our own. i have seen comedians who, when they have just appeared in a mournful character, often make their exit with tears in their eyes. if, then, the expression given to imaginary passions can affect so powerfully, what should not orators do, whose inner feelings ought to sympathize with their manner of speaking, which can not happen unless they are truly affected by the danger to which their clients are exposed. rules for practise in the declamatory exercises of schools it would be expedient, likewise, to move the passions and imagine the scene as a real one in life, and it is the more important as there the part is performed rather of a pleader against some person, than an advocate for some person. we represent a person who has lost his children, or has been shipwrecked, or is in danger of losing his life, but of what significance is it to personate such characters, unless we also assume their real sentiments. this nature, and these properties of the passions, i thought it incumbent on me not to conceal from the reader, for i, myself, such as i am, or have been (for i flatter myself that i have acquired some reputation at the bar), have often been so affected that not only tears, but even paleness, and grief, not unlike that which is real, have betrayed my emotions. the study of words what now follows requires special labor and care, the purpose being to treat of elocution, which in the opinion of all orators is the most difficult part of our work, for m. antonius says that he has seen many good speakers, but none eloquent. he thinks it good enough for a speaker to say whatever is necessary on a subject, but only the most eloquent may discuss it with grace and elegance. if down to the time he lived in, this perfection was not discoverable in any orator, and neither in himself nor in l. crassus, it is certain that it was lacking in them and their predecessors only on account of its extreme difficulty. cicero says that invention and disposition show the man of sense, but eloquence the orator. he therefore took particular pains about the rules for this part, and that he had reason for so doing the very name of eloquence sufficiently declares. for to be eloquent is nothing else than to be able to set forth all the lively images you have conceived in your mind, and to convey them to the hearers in the same rich coloring, without which all the principles we have laid down are useless, and are like a sword concealed and kept sheathed in its scabbard. this, then, is what we are principally to learn; this is what we can not attain without the help of art; this ought to be the object of our study, our exercise, our imitation; this may be full employment for our whole life; by this, one orator excels another; and from this proceeds diversity of style. the proper value of words it should not be inferred from what is said here that all our care must be about words. on the contrary, to such as would abuse this concession of mine, i declare positively my disapprobation of those persons who, neglecting things, the nerves of causes, consume themselves in a frivolous study about words. this they do for the sake of elegance, which indeed is a fine quality when natural but not when affected. sound bodies, with a healthy condition of blood, and strong by exercise, receive their beauty from the very things from which they receive their strength. they are fresh-colored, active, and supple, neither too much nor too little in flesh. paint and polish them with feminine cosmetics, and admiration ceases; the very pains taken to make them appear more beautiful add to the dislike we conceive for them. yet a magnificent, and suitable, dress adds authority to man; but an effeminate dress, the garb of luxury and softness, lays open the corruption of the heart without adding to the ornament of the body. in like manner, translucent and flashy elocution weakens the things it clothes. i would, therefore, recommend care about words, but solicitude about things. the choicest expressions are for the most part inherent in things, and are seen in their own light, but we search after them as if always hiding and stealing themselves away from us. thus we never think that what ought to be said is at hand; we fetch it from afar, and force our invention. eloquence requires a more manly temper, and if its whole body be sound and vigorous, it is quite regardless of the nicety of paring the nails and adjusting the hair. the danger of verbiage it often happens, too, that an oration becomes worse by attending to these niceties, because simplicity, the language of truth, is its greatest ornament, and affectation the reverse. the expressions that show care, and would also appear as newly formed, fine, and eloquent, lose the graces at which they aim, and are far from being striking and well received, because they obscure the sense by spreading a sort of shadow about it, or by being too crowded they choke it up, like thick-sown grain that must run up too spindling. that which may be spoken in a plain, direct manner we express by paraphrase; and we use repetitions where to say a thing once is enough; and what is well signified by one word, we load with many, and most things we choose to signify rather by circumlocution than by proper and pertinent terms. a proper word, indeed, now has no charms, nothing appearing to us fine which might have been said by another word. we borrow metaphors from the whims and conceits of the most extravagant poets, and we fancy ourselves exceedingly witty, when others must have a good deal of wit to understand us. cicero is explicit in his views in this respect. "the greatest fault a speech can have," says he, "is when it departs from the common way of discourse and the custom of common sense." but cicero would pass for a harsh and barbarous author, compared to us, who make little of whatever nature dictates, who seek not ornaments, but delicacies and refinements, as if there were any beauty in words without an agreement with things, for if we were to labor throughout our whole life in consulting their propriety, clearness, ornament, and due placing, we should lose the whole fruit of our studies. acquiring a practical vocabulary yet many are seen to hesitate at single words, even while they invent, and reflect on and measure what they invent. if this were done designedly to use always the best, this unhappy temper would still be detestable, as it must check the course of speaking and extinguish the heat of thought by delay and diffidence. for the orator is wretched, and, i may say, poor, who can not patiently lose a word. but he will lose none who first has studied a good manner of speaking, and by reading well the best authors has furnished himself with a copious supply of words and made himself expert in the art of placing them. much practise will so improve him afterward that he always will have them at hand and ready for use, the thought fitting in naturally with the proper manner of expression. but all this requires previous study, an acquired faculty, and a rich fund of words. for solicitude in regard to inventing, judging, and comparing, should take place when we learn, and not when we speak. otherwise they who have not sufficiently cultivated their talents for speaking will experience the fate of those who have made no provision for the future. but if a proper stock of words is already prepared, they will attend as in duty bound, not so much in the way of answering exigencies as always to seem inherent in the thought and to follow as a shadow does a body. how to choose the right words yet this care should not exceed its due bounds, for when words are authorized by use, are significant, elegant, and aptly placed, what more need we trouble ourselves about? but some eternally will find fault, and almost scan every syllable, who, even when they have found what is best, seek after something that is more ancient, remote, and unexpected, not understanding that the thought must suffer in a discourse, and can have nothing of value, where only the words are commendable. let us, therefore, pay particular regard to elocution, yet, at the same time be convinced that nothing is to be done for the sake of words, they having been invented solely for the sake of things. the most proper words always will be those which are best expressive of the ideas in our mind, and which produce in the ideas of the judges the effect we desire. such undoubtedly will make a speech both admirable and pleasing, but not so admirable as are prodigies, nor pleasing by a vicious and unseemly pleasure, but a pleasure reflecting dignity with praise. elegance and grace the orator will recommend himself particularly by the embellishments he adopts, securing in other ways the approbation of the learned, and in this also the favor of popular applause. not so much with strong as with shining armor did cicero engage in the cause of cornelius. his success was not due merely to instructing the judges, and speaking in a pure and clear style. these qualities would not have brought him the honor of the admiration and applause of the roman people. it was the sublimity, magnificence, splendor, and dignity of his eloquence that forced from them signal demonstrations of their amazement. nor would such unusual eulogies have been given him if his speech had contained nothing extraordinary, nothing but what was common. and, indeed, i believe that those present were not completely aware of what they were doing, and that what they did was neither spontaneous, nor from an act of judgment, but that filled with a sort of enthusiasm, and not considering the place they were in, they burst forth with unrestrained excitement. the value of beauty of expression these ornaments of speech, therefore, may be thought to contribute not a little to the success of a cause, for they who hear willingly are more attentive and more disposed to believe. most commonly it is pleasure that wins them over, and sometimes they are seized and carried away with admiration. a glittering sword strikes the eyes with some terror, and thunder would not so shock us if its crash only, and not its lightning, was dreaded. therefore cicero, with good reason, says in one of his epistles to brutus: "the eloquence which does not excite admiration, i regard as nothing." aristotle, too, would have us endeavor to attain this perfection. but this embellishment, i must again and again repeat, ought to be manly, noble, and modest; neither inclining to effeminate delicacy, nor assuming a color indebted to paint, but glistening with health and spirits. let none of those who build up their reputation on a corrupt manner of eloquence, say that i am an enemy to such as speak with elegance. i do not deny that it is a perfection, but i do not ascribe it to them. shall i think a piece of ground better laid out and improved, in which one shall show me lilies and violets and pleasing cascades, than one where there is a full harvest or vines laden with grapes? shall i esteem a barren planetree and shorn myrtles beyond the fruitful olive and the elm courting the embraces of the vine? the rich may pride themselves on these pleasures of the eye, but how little would be their value if they had nothing else? but shall no beauty, no symmetry, be observed in the care of fruit trees? undoubtedly there should, and i would place them in a certain order, and keep a due distance in planting them. what is more beautiful than the quincunx, which, whatever way you look, retains the same direct position? planting them out so will also be of service to the growth of the trees, by equally attracting the juices of the earth. i should lop off the aspiring tops of my olive; it will spread more beautifully into a round form, and will produce fruit on more branches. a horse with slender flanks is considered handsomer than one not framed in that manner, and the same quality also shows that he excels in swiftness. an athlete whose arms from exercise show a full spring and play of the muscles, is a beautiful sight, and he, likewise, is best fitted as a combatant. thus the true species is never without its utility, as even a meager judgment easily may discern. developing variety of style but it will be of more importance to observe that this decent attire ought to be varied according to the nature of the subject. to begin with our first division, the same style will not suit equally demonstrative, deliberative, and judicial causes. the first, calculated for ostentation, aims at nothing but the pleasure of the auditory. it, therefore, displays all the riches of art, and exposes to full view all the pomp of eloquence; not acting by stratagem, nor striving for victory, but making praise and glory its sole and ultimate end. whatever may be pleasing in the thought, beautiful in the expression, agreeable in the turn, magnificent in the metaphor, elaborate in the composition, the orator will lay open for inspection and, if it were possible, for handling, as a merchant exposes his wares; for here the success wholly regards him and not the cause. but when the serious part of a trial is on hand, and the contest is truly in earnest, care of reputation ought to be the orator's last concern. for this reason, when everything in a way is at stake, no one ought to be solicitous about words. i do not say that no ornaments ought to have place in them, but that they should be more modest and severe, less apparent, and above all suited to the subject. for in deliberations the senate require something more elevated; the assemblies of the people, something more spirited; and at the bar, public and capital causes, something more accurate. but a private deliberation, and causes of trivial consequence, as the stating of accounts and the like, need little beyond the plain and easy manner of common discourse. would it not be quite shameful to demand in elaborate periods the payment of money lent, or appeal to the emotions in speaking of the repairs of a gutter or sink? the choice of words as the ornament, as well as perspicuity, of speech consists either in single words or in many together, we shall consider what they require separately and what in conjunction. tho there is good reason for saying that perspicuity is best suited by proper words, and ornament by metaphorical, yet we should always know that an impropriety is never ornamental. but as many words very often signify the same thing, and therefore are called synonymous, some of these must be more sublime, more bright, more agreeable, and sweeter and fuller in pronunciation than others. as the more clear-sounding letters communicate the same quality to the syllables they compose, so the words composed of these syllables become more sonorous, and the greater the force or sound of the syllables is, the more they fill or charm the ear. what the junction of syllables makes, the copulation of words makes also, a word sounding well with one, which sound badly with another. there is a great diversity in the use of words. harsh words best express things of an atrocious nature. in general, the best of simple words are believed to be such as sound loudest in exclamation, or sweetest in a pleasing strain. modest words will ever be preferred to those that must offend a chaste ear, and no polite discourse ever makes allowance for a filthy or sordid expression. magnificent, noble, and sublime words are to be estimated by their congruity with the subject; for what is magnificent in one place, swells into bombast in another; and what is low in a grand matter, may be proper in a humble situation. as in a splendid style a low word must be very much out of place and, as it were, a blemish to it, so a sublime and pompous expression is unsuited to a subject that is plain and familiar, and therefore must be reputed corrupt, because it raises that which ought to find favor through its native simplicity. the manner of delivery i shall pass now to the construction of words, observing that their ornamental use may be considered from two points of view; first, as it regards the elocution we conceive in our minds; second, the manner of expressing it. it is of particular consequence that we should be clear as to what ought to be amplified or diminished; whether we are to speak with heat or moderation; in a florid or austere style; in a copious or concise manner; in words of bitter invective, or in those showing placid and gentle disposition; with magnificence or plainness; gravity or politeness. besides which it is equally important to know what metaphors, what figures, what thoughts, what manner, what disposition, are best suited for effecting our purpose. faults of expression to avoid in speaking of the ornaments of a discourse, it may not be amiss to touch first upon qualities contrary to them, because the principal perfection consists in being free from faults. we, therefore, must not expect ornament that is not probable, in a discourse. cicero calls that kind of ornament probable which is not more nor less than it ought to be. not that it should not appear neat and polished, for this is a part of ornament, but because too much in anything is always a fault. he would have authority and weight in words, and thoughts that are sensible, or conformable to the opinions and manners of men. these inviolably retained and adhered to, he makes ample allowance for whatever else may contribute to illustrate a discourse. and thus it is that metaphors, superlatives, epithets, compound, and synonymous words, if they seem to express the action and fully represent things, seldom fail to please. we should avoid the fault which makes a sentence appear not full enough, on account of something defective, tho this is rather a vice of obscurity than want of ornament in speech. but when it is done for some particular reason, then it becomes a figure of speech. we should likewise be aware of tautology, which is a repetition of the same word or thought, or the use of many similar words or thoughts. tho this does not seem to have been much guarded against by some authors of great note, it is, notwithstanding, a fault, and cicero himself often falls into it. similarity of expression is a still greater vice, because the mind is wearied by lack of the graces of variety, and the discourse being all of one color, shows a great deficiency in the art of oratory. it, besides, creates loathing, and at length becomes insupportable, both to the mind and ear, through the tedious repetition of the same cold thoughts, figures, and periods. there is another fault, that of being over-nice, which is caused by extreme anxiety to be exact, but which is as far distant from exactness as superstition is from true religion. in short, every word that contributes neither to perspicuity nor ornament, may be called vicious. a perverse affectation is faulty in all respects. all bombast, and flimsiness, and studied sweetness, and redundancies, and far-fetched thoughts, and witticisms, fall under the same denomination. thus whatever stretches beyond the bounds of perfection, may be called affectation, and this happens as often as the genius is lacking in judgment, and suffers itself to be deceived by an appearance of good. it is the worst of vices in matters of eloquence, for even when others are avoided, this is sought after, and its whole trespass is against elocution. there are vices incident to things, which come from being devoid of sense, or from being common, or contrary, or unnecessary, and a corrupt style consists principally in impropriety of words, in their redundancy, in their obscure import, in a weak composition, and in a puerile hunting after synonymous or equivocal words. but every perverse affectation is false in consequence of its idea, tho not everything that is false is an affectation, the latter saying a thing otherwise than as nature will have it, and than it ought to be, and than is sufficient. use of vivid description there can not be a greater perfection than to express the things we speak of in such lively colors as to make them seem really to take place in our presence. our words are lacking in full effect, they assume not that absolute empire they ought to have, when they strike only the ear, and when the judge who is to take cognizance of the matter is not sensible of its being emphatically exprest. one manner of representation consists in making out of an assemblage of circumstances the image we endeavor to exhibit. an example of this we have in cicero's description of a riotous banquet; he being the only one who can furnish us with examples of all kinds of ornaments: "i seemed to myself to see some coming in, others going out; some tottering with drunkenness, others yawning from yesterday's carousing. in the midst of these was gallius, bedaubed with essences, and crowned with flowers. the floor of their apartment was all in a muck of dirt, streaming with wine, and strewed all about with chaplets of faded flowers, and fish-bones." who could have seen more had he been present? in this manner pity grows upon us from hearing of the sacking of a town. undoubtedly he who acquaints us of such an event, comprehends all the incidents of so great a calamity, yet this cursory piece of intelligence makes but a languid impression upon the mind. but if you enter into descriptive pictures of all that was included in one word, as it were, flames will appear spreading through houses and temples; the crash of falling houses will be heard; and one confused noise formed out of all together. some will be seen striving to escape the danger, but know not where to direct their flight; others embracing for the last time their parents and relations; here the dismal shrieks of women and piercing cries of children fill one with pity; there the sighs and groans of old men, lamenting their unhappy fate for having lived so long as to be witnesses of their country's desolation. a further addition to these scenes of woe is the plunder of all things, sacred as well as profane; the avidity of the soldier prowling after and carrying away his prey; the wretched citizens dragged away in chains before their haughty conquerors; mothers struggling to keep with them their children; and slaughter still exercising its cruelties wherever there is the least expectation of booty. tho all these details are comprehended in the idea of the sacking of a town, yet it is saying less to state merely that the town was sacked than to describe its destruction in this circumstantial manner. such circumstances may be made to appear vivid if they retain a likeness to truth. they may not have happened in reality, yet, as they are possible, the descriptive evidence is not objectionable. the same evidence will arise also from accidents, as in the following examples: ... me horror chills, shudd'ring, and fear congeals my curdling blood. trapp. ... to their bosoms press'd, the frighted mothers clasp'd their crying babes. trapp. this perfection, the greatest, in my opinion, a discourse can have, is very easily acquired by only considering and following nature. for eloquence is a picture of the happenings of human life, every one applying to himself what he hears, by making the case in some measure his own, and the mind receives very willingly that with which it has become familiar. to throw light, also, upon things, similes have been invented, some of which by way of proof are inserted among arguments, and others are calculated for expressing the images of things, the point we are here explaining. ... thence like wolves prowling in gloomy shade, which hunger blind urges along, while their forsaken whelps expect them with dry jaws. trapp. ... thence with all his body's force flings himself headlong from the steepy height down to the ocean: like the bird that flies low, skimming o'er the surface, near the sea, around the shores, around the fishy rocks. trapp. how to employ similes and metaphors we must be exceedingly cautious in regard to similitudes, that we do not use such as are either obscure or unknown. for that which is assumed for the sake of illustrating another thing, ought indeed to be clearer than that which it so illustrates. in speaking of arguments i mentioned a kind of similitude which, as an ornament to a discourse, contributes to make it sublime, florid, pleasing, and admirable. for the more far-fetched a similitude is, the more new and unexpected it will appear. some may be thought commonplace, yet will avail much for enforcing belief; as, "as a piece of ground becomes better and more fertile by cultivation, so does the mind by good institutions." "as physicians prescribe the amputation of a limb that manifestly tends to mortification, so would it be necessary to cut off all bad citizens, tho even allied to us in blood." here is something more sublime: "rocks and solitudes echo back the melody, and the fiercest beasts are often made more gentle, being astonished by the harmony of music." but this kind of similitude is often abused by the too great liberties our declaimers give themselves; for they use such as are false, and they do not make a just application of them to the subjects to which they would compare them. in every comparison the similitude either goes before, and the thing follows; or the thing goes before, and the similitude follows. but the similitude sometimes is free and separate: sometimes, which is best, it is connected with the thing of which it is the image, this connection being made to aid and correspond mutually on both sides. cicero says in his oration for murena: "they who have not a genius for playing on the lyre, may become expert at playing on the flute (a proverbial saying among the greeks to specify the man who can not make himself master of the superior sciences): so among us they who can not become orators, turn to the study of the law." in another passage of the same oration, the connected comparison is conceived in a sort of poetical spirit. "as storms are often raised by the influence of some constellation, and often suddenly and from some hidden cause which can not be accounted for, so the stormy agitations we sometimes behold in the assemblies of the people are often occasioned by a malign influence easily discoverable by all; and often their cause is so obscure as to seem merely the effect of chance." there are other similes, which are very short, as this, "strolling and wandering through forests like beasts." and that of cicero against clodius, "from which judgment we have seen him escape naked, like a man from his house on fire." such similes constantly occur in common discourse. of a similar kind is an ornament which not only represents things, but does so in a lively and concise manner. undoubtedly a conciseness in which nothing is lacking, is deservedly praised; that which says precisely only what is necessary, is less estimable; but that which expresses much in a few words is of all the most beautiful. eloquence does not think it enough to show of what it speaks, in a clear and evident manner; it uses, besides, a variety of other expedients for embellishing a discourse. thus it is that a simple and unaffected style is not without beauty, but it is a beauty entirely pure and natural, such as is admired in women. beauty is also annexed to propriety and justness of expression, and this beauty is the more elegant as it shows but little care. there is an abundance that is rich, an abundance that smiles amidst the gaiety of flowers, and there is more than one sort of power, for whatever is complete in its kind can not be destitute of its proper strength and efficacy. composition and style i well know that there are some who will not sanction any care in composition, contending that our words as they flow by chance, however uncouth they may sound, are not only more natural, but likewise more manly. if what first sprang from nature, indebted in nowise to care and industry, be only what they deem natural, i admit that the art of oratory in this respect has no pretensions to that quality. for it is certain that the first men did not speak according to the exactness of the rules of composition; neither were they acquainted with the art of preparing by an exordium, informing by a narration, proving by arguments, and moving by passions. they were deficient in all these particulars, and not in composition only; and if they were not allowed to make any alterations for the better, of course they would not have exchanged their cottages for houses, nor their coverings of skins for more decent apparel, nor the mountains and forests in which they ranged for the abode of cities in which they enjoy the comforts of social intercourse. and, indeed, what art do we find coeval with the world, and what is there of which the value is not enhanced by improvement? why do we restrain the luxuriance of our vines? why do we dig about them? why do we grub up the bramble-bushes in our fields? yet the earth produces them. why do we tame animals? yet are they born with intractable dispositions. rather let us say that that is very natural which nature permits us to meliorate in her handiwork. the power of skilful composition how can a jumble of uncouth words be more manly than a manner of expression which is well joined and properly placed? if some authors weaken the subjects of which they treat, by straining them into certain soft and lascivious measures, we must not on that account judge that this is the fault of composition. as the current of rivers is swifter and more impetuous in a free and open channel than amidst an obstruction of rocks breaking and struggling against the flow of their waters, an oration that is properly connected flows with its whole might, and is far preferable to one that is craggy and desultory by reason of frequent interruptions. why, then, should it be thought that strength and beauty are incompatible, when, on the contrary, nothing has its just value without art, and embellishment always attends on it? do not we observe the javelin which has been cleverly whirled about, dart through the air with the best effect; and in managing a bow and arrow, is not the beauty of the attitude as much more graceful as the aim is more unerring? in feats of arms, and in all the exercises of the palæstra, is not his attitude best calculated for defense or offense, who uses a certain art in all his motions, and keeps to a certain position of the feet? composition, therefore, in my opinion, is to thoughts and words what the dexterous management of a bow or string may be for directing the aim of missive weapons; and i may say that the most learned are convinced that it is greatly conducive not only to pleasure, but also to making a good impression on others. first, because it is scarcely possible that anything should affect the heart, which begins by grating on the ear. secondly, because we are naturally affected by harmony, otherwise the sounds of musical instruments, tho they express no words, would not excite in us so great a variety of pleasing emotions. in sacred canticles, some airs are for elating the heart into raptures, others to restore the mind to its former tranquillity. the sound of a trumpet is not the same when it is the signal for a general engagement, and when on defeat it implores the conqueror's mercy; neither is it the same when an army marches up to give battle, and when it is intent on retreating. it was a common practise with the pythagoric philosophers, on arising in the morning, to awake their minds by an air on the lyre, in order to make them more alert for action; and they had recourse to the same musical entertainment for disposing them to sleep, believing it to be a means for allaying all tumultuous thoughts which might in any way have ruffled them in the course of the day. if, then, so great a power lies in musical strains and modulations, what must it be with eloquence, the music of which is a speaking harmony? as much, indeed, as it is essential for a thought to be exprest in suitable words, it is equally necessary for the same words to be disposed in proper order by composition, that they may flow and end harmoniously. some things of little consequence in their import, and requiring but a moderate degree of elocution, are commendable only by this perfection; and there are others which appear exprest with so much force, beauty, and sweetness, that if the order in which they stand should be changed or disturbed, all force, beauty, and sweetness would vanish from them. the essentials of good composition there are three things necessary in every kind of composition, and these are order, correction, and number. _ . order_ we shall speak first of order, which applies to words considered separately or joined together. in regard to the former, care must be taken that there be no decrease by adding a weaker word to a stronger, as accusing one of sacrilege, and giving him afterward the name of thief; or adding the character of wanton fellow to that of a highwayman. the sense ought to increase and rise, which cicero observes admirably where he says: "and thou, with that voice, those lungs, and that gladiator-like vigor of thy whole body." here each succeeding thing is stronger than the one before; but if he had begun with the whole body, he could not with propriety have descended to the voice and lungs. there is another natural order in saying men and women, day and night, east and west. words in prose not being measured, as are the feet which compose verse, they are, therefore, transferred from place to place, that they may be joined where they best fit, as in a building where the irregularity, however great, of rough stones is both suitable and proper. the happiest composition language can have, however, is to keep to a natural order, just connection, and a regularly flowing cadence. sometimes there is something very striking about a word. placed in the middle of a sentence, it might pass unnoticed, or be obscured by the other words that lie about it, but when placed at the end the auditor can not help noting it and retaining it in his mind. _ . connection_ juncture follows, which is equally requisite in words, articles, members, and periods, all these having their beauty and faults, in consequence of their manner of connection. it may be a general observation that in the placing of syllables, their sound will be harsher as they are pronounced with a like or different gaping of the mouth. this, however, is not to be dreaded as a signal fault, and i know not which is worse here, inattention or too great care. too scrupulous fear must damp the heat and retard the impetuosity of speaking, while at the same time it prevents the mind from attending to thoughts which are of greater moment. as, therefore, it is carelessness to yield to these faults, so it is meanness to be too much afraid of them. _ . number_ numbers are nowhere so much lacking, nor so remarkable, as at the end of periods; first, because every sense has its bounds, and takes up a natural space, by which it is divided from the beginning of what follows: next, because the hearers following the flow of words, and drawn, as it were, down the current of the oration, are then more competent judges, when that impetuosity ceases and gives time for reflection. there should not, therefore, be anything harsh nor abrupt in that ending, which seems calculated for the respite and recreation of the mind and ear. this, too, is the resting-place of the oration, this the auditor expects, and here burst forth all his effusions of praise. the composition of periods the beginning of periods demands as much care as the closing of them, for here, also, the auditor is attentive. but it is easier to observe numbers in the beginning of periods, as they are not depending on, nor connected with, what went before. but the ending of periods, however graceful it may be in composition and numbers, will lose all its charm if we proceed to it by a harsh and precipitate beginning. as to the composition of the middle parts of a period, care must be taken not only of their connection with each other, but also that they may not seem slow, nor long, nor, what is now a great vice, jump and start from being made up of many short syllables, and producing the same effect on the ear as the sounds from a child's rattle. for as the ordering of the beginning and ending is of much importance, as often as the sense begins or ends; so in the middle, too, there is a sort of stress which slightly insists; as the feet of people running, which, tho they make no stop, yet leave a track. it is not only necessary to begin and end well the several members and articles, but the intermediate space, tho continued without respiration, ought also to retain a sort of composition, by reason of the insensible pauses that serve as so many degrees for pronunciation. cicero gives many names to the period, calling it a winding about, a circuit, a comprehension, continuation, and circumscription. it is of two kinds; the one simple when a single thought is drawn out into a considerable number of words; the other compound, consisting of members and articles which include several thoughts. wherever the orator has occasion to conduct himself severely, to press home, to act boldly and resolutely, he should speak by members and articles. this manner has vast power and efficacy in an oration. the composition is to adapt itself to the nature of things, therefore, even rough things being conceived in rough sounds and numbers, that the hearer may be made to enter into all the passions of the speaker. it would be advisable, for the most part, to make the narration in members; or if periods are used, they ought to be more loose and less elaborate than elsewhere. but i except such narrations as are calculated more for ornament than for giving information. the use of periods the period is proper for the exordiums of greater causes, where the matter requires solicitude, commendation, pity. also in common places and in every sort of amplification; but if you accuse, it ought to be close and compact; if you praise, it should be full, round, and flowing. it is likewise of good service in perorations, and may be used without restriction wherever the composition requires to be set off in a somewhat grand and noble manner, and when the judge not only has a thorough knowledge of the matter before him, but is also captivated with the beauty of the discourse and, trusting to the orator, allows himself to be led away by the sense of pleasure. history does not so much stand in need of a periodical flow of words, as it likes to move around in a sort of perpetual circle, for all its members are connected with each other, by its slipping and gliding along from one subject to the next, just as men, strengthening their pace, hold and are held, by grasping each other by the hand. whatever belongs to the demonstrative kind has freer and more flowing numbers. the judicial and deliberative, being varied in their matter, occasionally require a different form of composition. fitting expression to thought who doubts that some things are to be exprest in a gentle way, others with more heat, others sublimely, others contentiously, and others gravely? feet composed of long syllables best suit grave, sublime, and ornamental subjects. the grave will take up a longer space in the pronunciation, and the sublime and ornamental will demand a clear and sonorous expression. feet of short syllables are more agreeable in arguments, division, raillery, and whatever partakes of the nature of ordinary conversation. the composition of the exordium will differ, therefore, as the subject may require. for the mind of the judge is not always the same, so that, according to the time and circumstances, we must declare our mournful plight, appear modest, tart, grave, insinuating; move to mercy and exhort to diligence. as the nature of these is different, so their composition must be conducted in a different way. let it be in some measure a general observation that the composition ought to be modeled on the manner of pronunciation. in exordiums are we not most commonly modest, except when in a cause of accusation we strive to irritate the minds of the judges? are we not copious and explicit in narration; in arguments animated and lively, even showing animation in our actions; in common places and descriptions, exuberant and lavish of ornaments; and in perorations, for the most part weighed down by distress? of the variety which ought to be in a discourse, we may find another parallel instance in the motions of the body. with all of them, do not the circumstances regulate their respective degrees of slowness and celerity? and for dancing as well as singing, does not music use numbers of which the beating of the time makes us sensible? as our voice and action are indeed expressive of our inner feelings in regard to the nature of the things of which we speak, need we, then, be surprized if a like conformity ought to be found in the feet that enter into the composition of a piece of eloquence? ought not sublime matters be made to walk in majestic solemnity, the mild to keep in a gentle pace, the brisk and lively to bound with rapidity, and the nice and delicate to flow smoothly? faults in composition if faults in composition be unavoidable, i should rather give preference to that which is harsh and rough than to that which is nerveless and weak, the results of an affected style that many now study, and which constantly corrupts, more and more, by a wantonness in numbers more becoming a dance than the majesty of eloquence. but i can not say that any composition is good, however perfect otherwise, which constantly presents the same form, and continually falls into the same feet. a constant observing of similar measures and cadences, is a kind of versification, and all prose in which this fault is discoverable, can have no allowance made for it, by reason of its manifest affectation (the very suspicion of which ought to be avoided), and its uniformity, which, of course, must fatigue and disgust the mind. this vice may have some engaging charms at first sight, but the greater its sweets are, the shorter will be their continuance; and the orator once detected of any anxious concern in this respect, will instantly lose all belief that has been placed in him, and vainly will he strive to make on others' minds the impressions he expected to make; for how is it to be expected that a judge will believe a man, or permit himself to feel grief or anger on account of one whom he observes to have attended to nothing more than the display of such trifles? some of the connections of smooth composition ought, therefore, to be designedly broken, and it is no small labor to make them appear not labored. let us not be such slaves to the placing of words as to study transpositions longer than necessary, lest what we do in order to please, may displease by being affected. neither let a fondness for making the composition flow with smoothness, prevail on us to set aside a word otherwise proper and becoming; as no word, in reality, can prove disagreeable enough to be wholly excluded, unless it be that in the avoiding of such words we consult mere beauty of expression rather than the good of composition. to conclude, composition ought to be graceful, agreeable, varied. its parts are three: order, connection, number. its art consists in adding, retrenching, changing. its qualities are according to the nature of the things discust. the care in composition ought to be great, but not to take the place of care in thinking and speaking. what deserves to be particularly attended to is the concealing of the care of composition, that the numbers may seem to flow of their own accord, and not with the least constraint or affectation. copiousness of words eloquence will never be solid and robust, unless it collects strength and consistence from much writing and composing; and without examples from reading, that labor will go astray for lack of a guide; and tho it be known how everything ought to be said, yet the orator who is not possest of a talent for speaking, always ready to exert himself on occasion, will be like a man watching over a hidden treasure. our orator, who we suppose is familiar with the way of inventing and disposing things, of making a choice of words, and placing them in proper order, requires nothing further than the knowledge of the means whereby in the easiest and best manner he may execute what he has learned. it can not, then, be doubted that he must acquire a certain stock of wealth in order to have it ready for use when needed, and this stock of wealth consists of a plentiful supply of things and words. the right word in the right place things are peculiar to each cause, or common to few; but a provision of words must be made indiscriminately for all subjects. if each word were precisely significant of each thing, our perplexity would be less, as then words would immediately present themselves with things, but some being more proper than others, or more ornamental, or more emphatic, or more harmonious, all ought not only to be known but to be kept ready and in sight, as it were, that when they present themselves for the orator's selection, he easily may make a choice of the best. i know that some make a practise of classing together all synonymous words and committing them to memory, so that out of so many at least one may more easily come to mind; and when they have used a word, and shortly after need it again, to avoid repetition they take another of the same significance. this is of little or no use, for it is only a crowd that is mustered together, out of which the first at hand is taken indifferently, whereas the copiousness of language of which i speak is to be the result of acquisition of judgment in the use of words, with the view of attaining the true expressive force of eloquence, and not empty volubility of speech. this can be affected only by hearing and reading the best things; and it is only by giving it our attention that we shall know not only the appellations of things, but what is fittest for every place. the value of hearing speakers with some eloquent compositions we may derive more profit by reading them, but with some others, more by hearing them pronounced. the speaker keeps awake all our senses, and inspires us by the fire that animates him. we are struck, not by the image and exterior of things, but by the things themselves. all is life and motion, and with solicitude for his success, we favorably receive all he says, its appeal to us lying in the charm of novelty. together with the orator, we find ourselves deeply interested in the issue of the trial and the safety of the parties whose defense he has undertaken. besides these we find that other things affect us: a fine voice, a graceful action corresponding with what is said, and a manner of pronunciation, which perhaps is the most powerful ornament of eloquence; in short, everything conducted and managed in the way that is most fitting. the advantages of reading in reading, our judgment goes upon surer ground, because often our good wishes for the speaker, or the applause bestowed on him, surprizes us into approbation. we are ashamed to differ in opinion from others, and by a sort of secret bashfulness are kept from believing ourselves more intelligent than they are; tho indeed we are aware, at the same time, that the taste of the greater number is vicious, and that sycophants, even persons hired to applaud, praise things which can not please us; as, on the other hand, it also happens that a bad taste can have no relish for the best things. reading is attended, besides, with the advantage of being free, and not escaping us by the rapidity which accompanies action; and we may go over the same things often, should we doubt their accuracy, or wish to fix them in our memories. repeating and reviewing will, therefore, be highly necessary; for as meats are chewed before they descend into the stomach, in order to facilitate their digestion, so reading is fittest for being laid up in the memory, that it may be an object of imitation when it is no longer in a crude state but has been softened and elaborated by long meditation. how to read most profitably none, however, but the best authors, and such as we are least liable to be deceived in, demand this care, which should be diligent and extended even almost to the point of taking the pains to transcribe them. nor ought judgment to be passed on the whole from examining a part, but after the book has been fully perused, it should have a second reading; especially should this be done with an oration, the perfections of which are often designedly kept concealed. the orator, indeed, often prepares, dissembles, lies in wait, and says things in the first part of the pleading which he avails himself of in the last part. they may, therefore, be less pleasing in their place, while we still remain ignorant of the purpose for their being said. for this reason, after a due consideration of particulars, it would not be amiss to re-read the whole. what to read theophrastus says that the reading of poetry is of vast service to the orator. many, and with good reason, are of the same opinion, as from the poets may be derived sprightliness in thought, sublimity in expression, force and variety in sentiment, propriety and decorum in character, together with that diversion for cheering and freshening minds which have been for any time harassed by the drudgery of the bar. let it be remembered, however, that poets are not in all things to be imitated by the orator, neither in the liberty of words, nor license of figures. the whole of that study is calculated for ostentation. its sole aim is pleasure, and it invariably pursues it, by fictions of not only what is false, but of some things that are incredible. it is sure, also, of meeting with partizans to espouse its cause, because, since it is bound down to a certain necessity of feet it can not always use proper words, and being driven out of the straight road, must turn into byways of speaking, and be compelled to change some words, and to lengthen, shorten, transpose and divide them. as for orators, they must stand their ground completely armed in the order of battle, and having to fight for matters of the highest consequence, must think of nothing but gaining the victory. still would i not have their armor appear squalid and covered with rust, but retain rather a brightness that dismays, such as of polished steel, striking both the mind and eyes with awe, and not the splendor of gold and silver, a weak safeguard, indeed, and rather dangerous to the bearer. history, likewise, by its mild and grateful sap may afford kind nutriment to an oratorical composition. yet the orator should so read history as to be convinced that most of its perfections ought to be avoided by him. it nearly borders upon poetry, and may be held as a poem, unrestrained by the laws of verse. its object is to narrate, and not to prove, and its whole business neither intends action nor contention, but to transmit facts to posterity, and enhance the reputation of its author. in the reading of history there is another benefit, and indeed the greatest, but one not relative to the present subject. this proceeds from the knowledge of things and examples, which the orator ought to be well versed in, so that not all his testimonies may be from the parties, but many of them may be taken from antiquity, with which, through history, he will be well acquainted; these testimonies being the more powerful, as they are exempt from suspicion of prejudice and partiality. i shall venture to say that there are few which have stood the test of time, that may not be read with some profit by the judicious. cicero himself confesses that he received great help from old authors, who were, indeed, very ingenious but were deficient in art. before i speak of the respective merit of authors, i must make, in a few words, some general reflections on the diversity of taste in regard to matters of eloquence. some think that the ancients deserve to be read, believing that they alone have distinguished themselves by natural eloquence and that strength of language so becoming men. others are captivated with the flowery profusion of the orators of the present age, with their delicate turns, and with all the blandishments they skilfully invent to charm the ears of an ignorant multitude. some choose to follow the plain and direct way of speaking. others take to be sound and truly attic whatever is close, neat, and departs but little from ordinary conversation. some are delighted with a more elevated, more impetuous, and more fiery force of genius. others, and not a few, like a smooth, elegant, and polite manner. i shall speak of this difference in taste more fully when i come to examine the style which may seem most proper for the orator. qualities of classic writers _homer_ we may begin properly with homer. he it is who gave birth to, and set the example for all parts of eloquence, in the same way, as he himself says, as the course of rivers and springs of fountains owe their origin to the ocean. no one, in great subjects, has excelled him in elevation; nor in small subjects, in propriety. he is florid and close, grave and agreeable, admirable for his concise as well as for his copious manner, and is not only eminent for poetical, but likewise oratorical, abilities. _Æschylus_ Æschylus is the one who gave birth to tragedy. he is sublime, and grave, and often pompous to a fault. but his plots are mostly ill-contrived and as ill-conducted. for which reason the athenians permitted the poets who came after him to correct his pieces and fit them for the stage, and in this way many of these poets received the honor of being crowned. _sophocles and euripides_ sophocles and euripides brought tragedy to greater perfection; but the difference in their manner has occasioned dispute among the learned as to their relative poetic merits. for my part, i shall leave the matter undecided, as having nothing to do with my present purpose. it must be confest, nevertheless, that the study of euripedes will be of much greater value to those who are preparing themselves for the bar; for besides the fact that his style comes nearer the oratorical style, he likewise abounds in fine thoughts, and in philosophic maxims is almost on an equality with philosophers, and in his dialog may be compared with the best speakers at the bar. he is wonderful, again, for his masterly strokes in moving the passions, and more especially in exciting sympathy. _thucydides and herodotus_ there have been many famous writers of history, but all agree in giving the preference to two, whose perfections, tho different, have received an almost equal degree of praise. thucydides is close, concise, and ever pressing on. herodotus is sweet, natural, and copious. one is remarkable for his animated expression of the more impetuous passions, the other for gentle persuasion in the milder: the former succeeds in harangues and has more force; the other surpasses in speeches of familiar intercourse, and gives more pleasure. _demosthenes_ a numerous band of orators follows, for athens produced ten of them, contemporary with one another. demosthenes was by far the chief of them, and in a manner held to be the only model for eloquence; so great is his force; so closely together are all things interwoven in his discourse, and attended with a certain self-command; so great is his accuracy, he never adopting any idle expression; and so just his precision that nothing lacking, nothing redundant, can be found in him. Æschines is more full, more diffusive, and appears the more grand, as he has more breadth. he has more flesh, but not so many sinews. _lysias and isocrates_ lysias, older than these, is subtle and elegant, and if it is enough for the orator to instruct, none could be found more perfect than he is. there is nothing idle, nothing far-fetched in him; yet is he more like a clear brook than a great river. isocrates, in a different kind of eloquence, is fine and polished, and better adapted for engaging in a mock than a real battle. he was attentive to all the beauties of discourse, and had his reasons for it, having intended his eloquence for schools and not for contentions at the bar. his invention was easy, he was very fond of graces and embellishments, and so nice was he in his composition that his extreme care is not without reprehension. _plato_ among philosophers, by whom cicero confesses he has been furnished with many resourceful aids to eloquence, who doubts that plato is the chief, whether we consider the acuteness of his dissertations, or his divine homerical faculty of elocution? he soars high above prose, and even common poetry, which is poetry only because comprised in a certain number of feet; and he seems to me not so much endowed with the wit of a man, as inspired by a sort of delphic oracle. _xenophon_ what shall i say of xenophon's unaffected agreeableness, so unattainable by any imitation that the graces themselves seem to have composed his language? the testimony of the ancient comedy concerning pericles, is very justly applicable to him, "that the goddess of persuasion had seated herself on his lips." _aristotle and theophrastus_ and what shall i say of the elegance of the other disciples of socrates? what of aristotle? i am at a loss to know what most to admire in him, his vast and profound erudition, or the great number of his writings, or his pleasing style and manner, or the inventions and penetration of his wit, or the variety of his works. and as to theophrastus, his elocution has something so noble and so divine that it may be said that from these qualities came his name. _vergil_ in regard to our roman authors, we can not more happily begin than with vergil, who of all their poets and ours in the epic style, is without any doubt the one who comes nearest to homer. tho obliged to give way to homer's heavenly and immortal genius, yet in vergil are to be found a greater exactness and care, it being incumbent on him to take more pains; so that what we lose on the side of eminence of qualities, we perhaps gain on that of justness and equability. _cicero_ i proceed to our orators, who likewise may put roman eloquence upon a par with the grecian. cicero i would strenuously oppose against any of them, tho conscious of the quarrel i should bring upon myself by comparing him with demosthenes in a time so critical as this; especially as my subject does not oblige me to it, neither is it of any consequence, when it is my real opinion that demosthenes ought to be particularly read, or, rather, committed to memory. i must say, notwithstanding, that i judge them to be alike in most of the great qualities they possest; alike in design, disposition, manner of dividing, of preparing minds, of proving, in short in everything belonging to invention. in elocution there is some difference. the one is more compact, the other more copious; the one closes in with his opponent, the other allows him more ground to fight in; the one is always subtle and keen in argument, the other is perhaps less so, but often has more weight; from the one nothing can be retrenched, neither can anything be added to the other; the one has more study, the other more nature. still ought we to yield, if for no other reason than because demosthenes lived before cicero, and because the roman orator, however great, is indebted for a large part of his merit to the athenian. for it seems to me that cicero, having bent all his thoughts on the greeks, toward forming himself on their model, had at length made constituents of his character the force of demosthenes, the abundance of plato, and the sweetness of isocrates. nor did he only, by his application, extract what was best in these great originals, but by the happy fruitfulness of his immortal genius he himself produced the greater part, or rather all, of these same perfections. and to make use of an expression of pindar, he does not collect the water from rains to remedy a natural dryness, but flows continually, himself, from a source of living waters, and seems to have existed by a peculiar gift of providence, that in him eloquence might make trial of her whole strength and her most powerful exertions. for who can instruct with more exactness, and move with more vehemence? what orator ever possest so pleasing a manner that the very things he forcibly wrests from you, you fancy you grant him; and when by his violence he carries away the judge, yet does the judge seem to himself to obey his own volition, and not to be swept away by that of another? besides, in all he says there is so much authority and weight that you are ashamed to differ from him in opinion; and it is not the zeal of an advocate you find in him, but rather the faith and sincerity of a witness or judge. and what, at the same time, is more admirable, all these qualities, any one of which could not be attained by another without infinite pains, seem to be his naturally; so that his discourses, the most charming, the most harmonious, which possibly can be heard, retain, notwithstanding, so great an air of happy ease that they seem to have cost him nothing. with good reason, therefore, is he said by his contemporaries to reign at the bar, and he has so far gained the good graces of posterity that cicero is now less the name of a man than the name of eloquence itself. let us then keep him in view, let him be our model, and let that orator think he has made considerable progress who has once conceived a love and taste for cicero. _cæsar_ if cæsar had made the bar his principal occupation, no other of our orators could better have disputed the prize of eloquence with cicero. so great is his force, so sharp his wit, so active his fire, that it plainly appears he spoke with as much spirit as he fought. a wonderful elegance and purity of language, which he made his particular study, were a further embellishment of all these talents for eloquence. _philosophers_ it remains only to speak of those who have written on subjects of philosophy. hitherto we have had but few of this kind. cicero, as in all other respects, so also in this, was a worthy rival of plato. brutus has written some excellent treatises, the merit of which is far superior to that of his orations. he supports admirably well the weight of his matter, and seems to feel what he says. cornelius celsus, in the manner of the skeptics, has written a good many tracts, which are not without elegance and perspicuity. plancus, among the stoics, may be read with profit, for the sake of becoming acquainted with the things he discusses. catius, an epicurean, has some levity in his way, but in the main is not an unpleasing author. _seneca_ i have designedly omitted speaking hitherto of seneca,--who was proficient in all kinds of eloquence,--on account of the false opinion people entertained that i not only condemned his writings, but also personally hated him. i drew this aspersion upon myself by my endeavor to bring over eloquence to a more austere taste, which had been corrupted and enervated by very many softnesses and delicacies. then seneca was almost the only author young people read with pleasure. i did not strive to exclude him absolutely, but could not bear that he should be preferred to others much better, whom he took all possible pains to cry down, because he was conscious that he had taken to a different manner from their way of writing, and he could not otherwise expect to please people who had a taste for these others. it was seneca's lot, however, to be more loved than imitated, and his partizans run as wide from him as he himself had fallen from the ancients. yet it were to be wished that they had proved themselves like, or had come near, him. but they were fond of nothing in him but his faults, and every one strove to copy them if he could. then priding themselves on speaking like seneca, of course they could not avoid bringing him into disgrace. his perfections, however, were many and great. his wit was easy and fruitful, his erudition considerable, his knowledge extensive--in which last point he sometimes was led into mistakes, probably by those whom he had charged to make researches for him. there is hardly a branch of study on which he has not written something; for we have his orations, his poems, epistles, and dialogs. in philosophic matters he was not so accurate, but was admirable for his invectives against vice. he has many bright thoughts, and many things are well worth reading in him for improvement of the moral character; but his elocution is, for the most part, corrupt, and the more dangerous because its vices are of a sweet and alluring nature. one could wish he had written with his own genius and another's judgment. for if he had rejected some things, if he had less studiously affected some engaging beauties, if he had not been overfond of all his productions, if he had not weakened the importance of his matter by frivolous thoughts, he would have been honored by the approbation of the learned rather than by the love of striplings. however, such as he is, he may be read when the taste is formed and strengthened by a more austere kind of eloquence, if for no other reason than because he can exercise judgment on both sides. for, as i have said, many things in him are worthy of praise, worthy even of admiration if a proper choice had been made, which i wish he had made himself, as indeed that nature is deserving of an inclination to embrace what is better, which has ability to effect anything to which it inclines. knowledge and self-confidence knowledge of the civil law will, likewise, be necessary for the orator whom we have described, and together with it knowledge of the customs and religion of the commonwealth of which he may take charge, for how shall he be able to give counsel in public and private deliberations if ignorant of the many things which happen together particularly to the establishment of the state? and must he not falsely aver himself to be the patron of the causes he undertakes, if obliged to borrow from another what is of greatest consequence in these causes, in some measure like those who repeat the writings of poets? and how will he accomplish what he has so undertaken if the things which he requires the judge to believe, he shall speak on the faith of another, and if he, the reputed helper of his clients, shall himself stand in need of the help of another? thorough information indispensable but we will suppose him not reduced to this inconvenience, having studied his cause sufficiently at home, and having thoroughly informed himself of all that he has thought proper to lay before the judges: yet what shall become of him when unforeseen questions arise, which often are suddenly started on the back of pleadings? will he not with great unseemliness look about him? will he not ask the lower class of advocates how he shall behave? can he be accurate in comprehending the things then whispered to him, when he is to speak on them instantly? can he strongly affirm, or speak ingenuously for his clients? grant that he may in his pleadings, but what shall be his fate in altercation, when he must have his answer ready and he has no time for receiving information? and what if a person learned in the law is not assisting? what if one who knows little of the matter tells him something that is wrong? and this is the greatest mischief in ignorance, to believe such a monitor intelligent. now, as we suppose the orator to be a particularly learned and honest man, when he has made sufficient study of that which naturally is best, it will give him little trouble if a lawyer dissents from him in opinion, since even they are admitted to be of different opinions among themselves. but if he desires to know their sentiments on any point of law, he need only read a little, which is the least laborious part of study. if many men who despaired of acquiring the necessary talents for speaking in public, have engaged in the study of law, with how much more ease will the orator effect this, which may be learned by those who from their own confession could not be orators? m. cato was as much distinguished by his great eloquence as by his great learning in the law. scævola and servius sulpitius, both eminent lawyers, were also very eloquent. cicero not only in pleading never appeared at a loss in knowledge of the law, but also began to write some tracts on it. from all these examples it appears that an orator may not less attend to the teaching than the learning of it. the manner of the speaker i would not have him who is to speak rise unconcerned, show no change of color, and betray no sense of danger,--if they do not happen naturally, they ought at least to be pretended. but this sense should proceed from solicitude for performing well our duty, not from a motive of fear; and we may decently betray emotion, but not faint away. the best remedy, therefore, for bashfulness, is a modest assurance, and however weak the forehead may be, it ought to be lifted up, and well it may by conscious merit. the need of good delivery there are natural aids, as specified before, which are improved by care, and these are the voice, lungs, a good presence, and graceful action, which are advantages sometimes so considerable as to beget a reputation for wit. our age produced orators more copious than trachallus, but when he spoke he seemed to surpass them all, so great was the advantage of his stature, the sprightliness of his glance, the majesty of his aspect, the beauty of his action, and a voice, not as cicero desires it should be, but almost like that of tragedians, and surpassing all the tragedians i ever heard. i well remember that when he once pleaded in the julian hall before the first bench of judges, and there also, as usual, the four classes of judges were then sitting, and the whole place rang with noise, he was not only heard distinctly from the four benches, but also was applauded, which was a disparagement to those who spoke after him. but this is the accumulation of what can be wished for, and a happiness hard to be met with, and as it can not fall to every one's lot, let the orator strive at least to make himself heard by those before whom he speaks. the test of an oration above all, as happens to a great many, let not desire for temporary praise keep our orator from having an eye to the interest of the cause he has undertaken. for as generals in waging wars do not always march their armies over pleasant plains, but often must climb rugged hills, must lay siege to forts and castles raised on steep rocks and mountains, and fortified both by nature and by art: so an orator will be pleased with an opportunity to make great excursions, and when he engages on champion ground, he will display all his forces so as to make an exceedingly fine appearance; but if under the necessity of unraveling the intricacies of some points of law, or placing truth in a clear light from amidst the obscurity thrown around it, he will not then ostentatiously ride about, nor will he use a shower of pointed sentences, as missive weapons; but he will carry on his operations by frustrating his enemy; by mines, by ambuscade, and by stratagem: all of which are not much to be commended while they are being used, but after they have been practised. whence those men benefit themselves most, who seem least desirous of praise; for when the frivolous parade of eloquence has ceased its bursts of thunder among its own applauders, the more potent applause of true talents will appear in genuine splendor; the judges will not conceal the impressions which have been made on them; the sense of the learned will outweigh the opinion of ignorance: so true it is that it is the winding up of the discourse, and the success attending it, that must prove its true merit. avoiding ostentation it was customary with the ancients to hide their eloquence; and m. antonius advises orators so to do, in order that they may be the more believed, and that their stratagems may be less suspected. but the eloquence of those times could well be concealed, not yet having made an accession of so many luminaries as to break out through every intervening obstacle to the transmission of their light. but indeed all art and design should be kept concealed, as most things when once, discovered lose their value. in what i have hitherto spoken of, eloquence loves nothing else so much as privacy. a choice of words, weight of thought, elegance of figures, either do not exist, or they appear. but because they appear, they are not therefore to be displayed with ostentation. or if one of the two is to be chosen, let the cause rather than the advocate be praised; still the issue will justify him, by his having pleaded excellently a very good cause. it is certain that no one else pleads so ill as he who endeavors to please, while his cause displeases; because the things by which he pleases must necessarily be foreign to his subject. the orator ought not to be so particular and vain as not to undertake the pleading of the smaller kind of causes, as beneath him, or as if a matter of less consequence should in any respect lessen the reputation he has acquired. duty indeed is a just motive for his undertaking them, and he should wish that his friends were never engaged in any other kind of suits, which in the main are set off with sufficient eloquence when he has spoken to the purpose. do not abuse your opponent some are very liberal in abuse of the advocate of the opposing party, but unless he has brought it upon himself, i think it is acting very ungenerously by him, in consideration of the common duties of the profession. add to this that these sallies of passion are of no advantage whatever to him who pleads, the opponent having, in his turn, an equal right to abuse; and they may even be harmful to the cause, because the opponent, spurred on to become a real enemy, musters together all the forces of wit to conquer if possible. above all, that modesty is irrecoverably lost which procures for the orator so much authority and belief, if once departing from the character of a good man, he degenerates into a brawler and barker, conforming himself not to the disposition of the judge, but to the caprice and resentment of the client. taking liberties of this kind frequently leads the orator to hazard some rash expressions not less dangerous to the cause than to himself. pericles was accustomed to wish, with good reason, that no word might ever enter his mind which could give umbrage to the people. but the respect he had for the people ought in my opinion to be had for all, who may have it in their power to do as much hurt; for the words that seemed strong and bold when exprest, are called foolish when they have given offense. thorough preparation essential as every orator is remarkable for his manner, the care of one having been imputed to slowness, and the facility of another to rashness, it may not be amiss to point out here a medium. let him come for pleading prepared with all possible care, as it must argue not only neglect, but also a wicked and treacherous disposition in him, to plead worse than he can in the cause he undertakes, therefore he should not undertake more causes than he is well able to handle. he should say things, studied and written, in as great a degree as the subject can bear, and, as demosthenes says, deeply engraven, if it were possible, on his memory, and as perfect as may be. this may be done at the first pleading of a cause, and when in public judgments a cause is adjourned for some time before it comes to a rehearsing. but when a direct reply is to be made, due preparations are impracticable; and even they who are not so ready find what they have written to be rather a prejudice to them if anything unexpectedly is brought forward; for it is with reluctance that they part with what they have prepared, and keeping it in mind during the whole pleading, they are forced to continually wonder if anything can be taken from it to be included in what they are obliged to speak extempore. and tho this may be done, there will still be a lack of connection, and the incoherence will be discoverable from the different coloring and inequality of style. thus there is neither an uninterrupted fluency in what they say extempore, nor a connection between it and what they recite from memory, for which reason one must be a hindrance to the other, for the written matter will always bring to it the attention of the mind, and scarcely ever follow it. therefore in these actions, as country-laboring men say, we must stand firmly on our legs. for, as every cause consists of proving and refuting, whatever regards the first may be written, and whatever it is certain the opponent will answer, as sometimes it is certain what he will, may be refuted with equal care and study. knowing the cause well is one essential point for being prepared in other respects, and listening attentively to all the opponent states, is another. still we may previously think of many particular incidents and prepare the mind for all emergencies, this being of special advantage in speaking, the thought being thereby the more easily transmitted and transferred. but when in answering or otherwise there may be necessity for extempore speaking, the orator will never find himself at a loss and disconcerted, who has been prepared by discipline, and study, and exercise, with the powers of facility, and who, as always under arms and ready for engaging, will no more lack a sufficient flow of speech in the pleading of causes than he does in conversation on daily and domestic occurrences; neither will he ever, for lack of coming duly prepared, decline burdening himself with a cause, if he has time to learn the state of it, for with anything else he always will be well acquainted. conclusion the orator having distinguished himself by these perfections of eloquence at the bar, in counsels, in the assemblies of the people, in the senate, and in all the duties of a good citizen, ought to think, likewise, of making an end worthy of an honest man and the sanctity of his ministry: not that during the course of his life he ought to cease being of service to society, or that, endowed with such integrity of mind and such talent of eloquence, he can continue too long in the exercise of so noble an employment; but because it is fitting that he should guard against degrading his character, by doing anything which may fall short of what he has already done. the orator is indebted for what he is, not only to knowledge, which increases with his years, but to his voice, lungs, and strength of body; and when the latter are impaired by years, or debilitated by infirmities, it is to be feared that something might be lacking in this great man, either from his stopping short through fatigue, and out of breath at every effort, or by not making himself sufficiently heard, or, lastly, by expecting, and not finding, him to be what he formerly was. when the orator does sound a retreat, no less ample fruits of study will attend on him. he either will write the history of his time for the instruction of posterity, or he will explain the law to those who came to ask his advice, or he will write a treatise on eloquence, or that worthy mouth of his will employ itself in inculcating the finest moral precepts. as was customary with the ancients, well-disposed youth will frequent his house, consulting him as an oracle on the true manner of speaking. as the parent of eloquence will he form them, and as an old experienced pilot will he give them an account of shores, and harbors, and what are the presages of storms, and what may be required for working the ship in contrary or favorable winds. to all this will he be induced not only by a duty of humanity common to mankind, but also by a certain pleasure in it; for no one would be glad to see an art going into decay, in which he himself excelled, and what is more laudable than to teach others that in which one is perfectly skilled? for all i know, the happiest time in an orator's life is when he has retired from the world to devote himself to rest; and, remote from envy, and remote from strife, he looks back on his reputation, as from a harbor of safety; and while still living has a sense of that veneration which commonly awaits only the dead; thus anticipating the pleasure of the noble impression posterity will conceive of him. i am conscious that to the extent of my poor ability, whatever i knew before, and whatever i could collect for the service of this work, i have candidly and ingenuously made a communication of, for the instruction of those who might be willing to reap any advantage from it: and it is enough for an honest man to have taught what he knows. to be good men, which is the first and most important thing, consists chiefly in the will, and whoever has a sincere desire to be a man of integrity, will easily learn the arts that teach virtue; and these arts are not involved in so many perplexities, neither are they of such great number, as not to be learned by a few years' application. the ordering of an upright and happy life is attainable by an easy and compendious method, when inclination is not lacking. nature begot us with the best dispositions, and it is so easy to the well-inclined to learn that which is good, that we can not help being surprized, on making a due estimate of things, how there can be so many bad persons in the world. for, as water is naturally a proper element for fish, dry land for quadrupeds, and air for birds, so indeed it ought to be more easy to live according to the prescript of nature than to infringe her laws. as to the rest, tho we might measure our age, not by the space of more advanced years, but by the time of youth, we should find that we had quite years enough for learning, all things being made shorter by order, method, and the manner of application. to bring the matter home to our oratorical studies, of what significance is the custom which i see kept up by many, of declaiming so many years in schools, and of expending so much labor on imaginary subjects, when in a moderate time the rules of eloquence may be learned, and pursuant to their directions, a real image framed of the contests at the bar? by this i do not mean to hint in the least that exercises for speaking should ever be discontinued, but rather that none should grow old in any one particular exercise for that purpose, for we may require the knowledge of many sciences, and learn the precepts of morality, and exercise ourselves in such causes as are agitated at the bar, even while we continue in the state of scholars. and indeed the art of oratory is such as need not require many years for learning it. each of the arts i have mentioned may be abridged into few books, there being no occasion to consider them so minutely and so much in detail. practise remains, which soon makes us well skilled in them. knowledge of things is increasing daily, and yet books are not so many; it is necessary to read in order to acquire this knowledge, of which either examples as to the things themselves may be met with in history, or the eloquent expression of them may be found in orators. it is also necessary that we should read the opinions of philosophers and lawyers, with some other things deserving of notice. taking time for study all this indeed may be compassed, but we ourselves are the cause of our not having time enough. how small a portion of it do we allot to our studies! a good part of it is spent in frivolous compliments and paying and returning visits, a good part of it is taken up in the telling of idle stories, a good part at the public spectacles, and a good part in the pleasures of the table. add to these our great variety of amusements, and that extravagant indulgence we bestow upon our bodies. one time we must go on a course of travels, another time we wish recreation amidst the pleasures of rural life, and another time we are full of painful solicitude regarding the state of our fortune, calculating and balancing our loss and gain; and together with these, how often do we give ourselves up to the intoxication of wine, and in what a multiplicity of voluptuousness does our profligate mind suffer itself to be immersed? should there be an interval for study amidst these avocations, can it be said to be proper? but were we to devote all this idle or ill-spent time to study, should we not find life long enough and time more than enough for becoming learned? this is evident by only computing the time of the day, besides the advantages of the night, of which a good part is more than sufficient for sleep. but we now preposterously compute not the years we have studied, but the years we have lived. tho geometricians and grammarians, and the professors of other arts, spent all their lives, however long, in treating and discussing their respective arts, does it thence follow that we must have as many lives as there are things to be learned? but they did not extend the learning of them to old age, being content with learning them only, and they spent so many years not so much in their study as in their practise. now, tho one should despair of reaching to the height of perfection, a groundless hope even in a person of genius, health, talent, and with masters to assist him; yet it is noble, as cicero says, to have a place in the second, or third, rank. he who can not rival the glory of achilles in military exploits, shall not therefore have a mean opinion of the praise due to ajax, or diomedes, and he who can not approach homer, need not despise the fame of tyrteus. if men were to yield to the thought of imagining none capable of exceeding such eminent persons as went before them, then they even who are deemed excellent would not have been so. vergil would not have excelled lucretius and macer; nor cicero, crassus and hortensius; and no one for the future would pretend to any advantage over his predecessor. tho the hope of surpassing these great men be but faint, yet it is an honor to follow them. have pollio and messala, who began to appear at the bar when cicero was already possest of the empire of eloquence, acquired little dignity in their life-time, and left but a small degree of glory for the remembrance of posterity? true it is that arts brought to perfection would deserve very ill of human affairs if afterward they could not at least be kept to the same standard. the rewards of eloquence add to this that a moderate share of eloquence is attended with no small advantage, and if measured by the fruits gathered from it, will almost be on a par with that which is perfect. it would be no difficult matter to show from many ancient or modern examples that no other profession acquires for men, greater honors, wealth, friendship, present and future glory, were it not degrading to the honor of letters to divert the mind from the contemplation of the most noble object, the study and possession of which is such a source of contentment, and fix it on the less momentous rewards it may have, not unlike those who say they do not so much seek virtue as the pleasure resulting from it. let us therefore with all the zealous impulses of our heart endeavor to attain the very majesty of eloquence, than which the immortal gods have not imparted anything better to mankind, and without which all would be mute in nature, and destitute of the splendor of a perfect glory and future remembrance. let us likewise always make continued progress toward perfection, and by so doing we shall either reach the height, or at least shall see many beneath us. this is all, as far as in me lies, i could contribute to the promoting and perfecting of the art of eloquence; the knowledge of which, if it does not prove of any great advantage to studious youth, will, at least, what i more heartily wish for, give them a more ardent desire for doing well. * * * * * advertisements * * * * * how to read and declaim a course of instruction in reading and declamation having as its prime object the cultivation of taste and refinement by grenville kleiser _formerly instructor in public speaking at yale divinity school; author of "how to speak in public," etc._ this eminently practical book is divided into five parts: part one--preparatory course: twenty lessons on naturalness, distinctness, vivacity, confidence, simplicity, deliberateness, and kindred topics. part two--advance course: twenty lessons on thought values, thought directions, persuasion, power, climax, etc., etc. part three--articulation and pronunciation. part four--gesture and facial expression. part five--the most up-to-date and popular prose and poetic selections anywhere to be found. it is a book to beget intelligent reading, so as to develop in the student mental alertness, poise, and self-confidence. _ mo, cloth. $ . , net; by mail, $ . _ funk & wagnalls company, publishers new york and london * * * * * kleiser's complete guide to public speaking _by grenville kleiser_ famous author of many practical books and courses the only extensive, comprehensive, encyclopedic work of its kind ever issued. how to speak, develop vocabulary, write, train memory, gesture, etc. the best advice by the world's great authorities upon every phase of public speaking. _of great worth to the public speaker_ "i consider it a compendium of particularly valuable information to all men who are called upon to address public audiences."--_josephus daniels_, secretary of the navy. "full of the best sort of instruction."--_evening sun_, new york. _a storehouse of practical information_ "in that one volume is stored an amazing amount of practical information of success-winning sort."--_hudson maxim_. _royal vo, cloth, over pages, $ . net. full flexible leather, $ . net; carriage cents extra_ funk & wagnalls company, publishers new york and london * * * * *