it concentrates the whole argument upon a single point, and
forces more readily the assent of the bearers.

Another source of our orator's success was his frequent use
of лaçà Seizμaτa-reasoning from examples. This is rightly
judged to be of great importance.* Of especial force was it
among a people who revered their ancestry like the Athenians.
The orator uses this method in the third Olynthiac, where he
endeavors to awaken the spirit of Miltiades and Themistocles,
and to bring back the better times of the state. In the first
Philippic he incites them to energy and hope under discour-
agement, from the existence of similar virtues in former strug-
gles, and the glorious consequence. In the third Philippic, the
object is to prove that Philip notwithstanding the peace is the
foe of Athens, which is sustained by the following induction:
he who disturbs Greece, destroys cities and disorganizes states,
is our enemy. In the speech against Leptines, to prove the
injury effected by his law, he describes the miseries of those
deprived by it of exemptions.

Demosthenes is also distinguished for the elevated sentiments
with which his speeches are so plentifully strewed. Very dif-
ferent is he in this respect from Aeschines or Isocrates or Lysi-
as, and the only ancient orator who is like him is Isaeus.† From
this quality the stoic Panaetius has expressed the opinion, that
almost all these speeches seem to favor the stoical doctrine that
virtue is to be preferred for its own sake, as almost all prefer
virtue to the good of the state.

To come now to speak of the Disposition; this was divided
by the ancients into introduction, narration, proposition, proof
and refutation of opponents, and peroration. According to
Aristotle, the object of the introduction is to make known to
the hearers the subject; according to Cicero and Quinctillian
it is to make the hearers attentive and favorable.

In

Almost all the introductions of Demosthenes are short.
some cases they are comprised in a single sentence. In his
Philippics one or two thoughts are sufficient for introduction.
He begins either with an apology, as in the first Philippic, or a
statement of the nature of the subject as in the first and second
Olynthiacs, or a contradiction of some previously expressed

* Cic. De Orat. 34.

See Philip. III. sec. 4, tò d' ¿vosßis, etc. Olynth. II. sec. 4, ov
ἐστὶν-οὐκ ἐστίν, Sec. 7, ἄλλομαι νύν. Sec. 8, μεγάλη γὰρ ροπή.
De Corona, passim.

opinion as in the third Olynthiac, or a reprehension of preceding orators as in the Chersonese oration, or there is no introduction at all as in the Megalopolitan oration. In the private cases, he begins either with a complaint against the character of his opponent, as in his speeches against Lacritus, Callicles and Boeotus, or a profession of inexperience, as in that against Phormio, or a recommendation of the subject as more important than it seems, as against Polycles, or more frequently with a single statement from which to proceed directly to the subject, and sometimes there is none at all, as against Zenothemis. Demosthenes by following the rule of Aristotle avoids the errors of more modern orators in his introductions. He skilfully makes them the key-note to which the sequel of his oration is attuned, and of course they are fitted to prepare the hearers for what follows. On extraordinary occasions Demosthenes would expend more labor on his introductions. The ancients made two kinds, προοίμιον and ἔφοδον. Of the former class would be those already described; of the latter such as would be necessary to calm the prejudices and appease the irritation of the hearers. A fine instance of this last kind occurs in the De Corona. He rose under unfavorable circumstances. Aeschines had made a great impression against him. His remarks on the law had been acute. His claim on the judges to restrict his opponent to the same arrangement was urgent. But still worse was the impression conveyed that Demosthenes was an irreligious man, and disbelieved the gods. Demosthenes commences with an appeal to all the gods, fitted to dispel their suspicions, speaks of the advantage of his opponent, and again prays the gods to incline the judges not to grant his request.

After the introduction followed the narration. This was designed to give the hearers the necessary information as to the case before them. Of course in speeches advising for the future, like the public harangues of Demosthenes, it was unnecessary, but in legal argument, it was of the highest importance to remove prejudice from the minds of the judges, and give them that information which would lead to a favorable decision. According to Aristotle the qualities of this part should be clearness, probability, and conciseness. Among ancient orators Lysias was most distinguished in this part. But Dionysius, by a comparison of extracts from the two orators, has shown that Demosthenes was in no way inferior. This excellence may be particularly seen in the argument against Conon.

Next comes the proposition, and statement of the plan. An

cient orators were much less particular in this than modern ones, because the circumstances of their speeches and arguments made it less necessary, and because it was often expedient to keep up attention by keeping the hearers in suspense. Such is generally the course of Demosthenes. He prefers to speak as he pleases, without the shackles of a previously stated plan.

The most important part was the proof and refutation. In the management of this, Demosthenes especially excelled. His popular speeches consisted of a continuous row of syllogisms, and proofs grounded upon general principles or examples. Very seldom was there any one on such occasions to refute. But in legal arguments very much depended on the refutation of an adversary. Here the external proofs, testimony, laws, torture, etc. came to his aid, but much depended on the power of the orator to infuse life into this dead mass. Opposing arguments were to be taken up and faithfully compared, and proved inferior to his own. Demosthenes introduces his refutations with—' I hear that my opponent will say.' Not that he had heard anything, but by his thorough meditation upon the subject was able to anticipate objections, and thus throw his adversary into great confusion and embarrassment. He does not ordinarily spend much time in refutation, but treats the opposing arguments as if too worthless for his attention. Good instances of his manner may be found in the speeches against Dionysiodorus and Midias, and in that on the Crown.

The last part is the peroration. His public speeches usually end with the expression of some pious wish for the good of the state, or some profession of his own sincerity and disinterestedness. They are all short like his introductions. Of far greater importance should be the peroration to the legal argument. The sympathies of the judge depend much on the closing appeal. But here Demosthenes is far inferior to Cicero. He is better in complaints than in defences. The close of the speeches against Midias and Aeschines are not without power. But ordinarily his stern character seems poorly adapted to the graces of style fitted for moving to sympathy and compassion. Aeschines in this respect is far his superior.

So much for the internal economy-now for the exterior form. The material is not all that gives value to a work of art. The form is also essential to completeness.

Under the term elocution, the Ancients comprehended the clothing and exhibition of the thoughts prepared. The Athe

nian populace paid great attention to this subject. Accustomed from childhood to an intimate acquaintance with the poets, and in later years with philosophers and orators, their standard of taste was high, and the correctness they looked for in their public speakers was complete. This was of great advantage to the orator in giving him an audience for whom he would not have to depreciate his own style, but who were capable of understanding his most refined and polished expressions, and his literary allusions. We must judge of the style of Demosthenes, by what were considered in his age the requisite qualities of a good style. These were rhythm of periods, figures, and suitable variations in accordance with the subject. In each of these particulars Demosthenes excelled. The style of an author depends upon his habits of thought. It is a picture of his ideas. According to the predominance of the ratiocinative or the appetitive faculty, will be the peculiarities of the style. In Demosthenes the former predominated, but he is not deficient in the latter, when occasion called him to convince by excitement rather than by proof. To all styles clearness and beauty are essential. Clearness depends on purity and precision. Purity demands words suited to the subject, and neither obsolete nor newly-coined. Precision demands that there be expressed no more nor less than the author intends, and it includes the subordinate as well as the leading ideas. In purity Demosthenes greatly excelled, as Dionysius has shown by comparing him with the principle masters of Attic style. But in precision is he still more distinguished. There is never a redundancy of words, or a sacrifice of sense to sound. Little is there to add, little to subtract. And he is here far superior to all his contemporaries-as Aeschines, Lycurgus, Hegesippus and Dinarchus.

Ancient authors bestowed great attention upon the structure of sentences. Philosophers and historians strove to give clearness, richness and euphony to their periods, and the orators were urged to the same by their attention to delivery. The Greek language was susceptible of great musical expression. Hence the cultivation of rhythm in oratory. But this quality of Greek eloquence is lost to our perception. The nature of the Greek language also contributed to clearness, in its flexibility, in the inversions of which it was susceptible, and in the participial constructions to express the accessory definitions of the main proposition (Nebenbestimmungen des Hauptgedankens.) The sentences of Demosthenes, however crowded with

parentheses, are all clear. Take for example the first sentence in the first Philippic. Long sentences are not often found in Demosthenes, and when they occur they have more precision than in Cicero. His long periods are composed of different propositions, so that they approximate to the character of short sentences. Simplicity is at the foundation of the great power of Demosthenes.

Demosthenes made frequent use of tropes and figures of speech in his speeches. For a particular account of them see Vossii Instit. Orat. Lib. IV. V. 1. The metaphor-which puts like for like. Thus the words προσπεριβάλλεται, περιστοιχίζεται in Sec. 4. Phil. I. bringing before the mind the picture of a huntsman, heated in the chase; avezuitioɛ Olynth. II. 4, vлɛo̟Exлεлhηyμéroι Olynth. II. 3, representing those terrified by Philip, in the peculiar sound of the word, and the image of one stunned by a stroke of lightning. 2. The interrogatory-Olynth. III. 6. 3. The exclamation he uses not so often as Cicero, as it tends very little to aid the progress of the argument, or the proof. 4. The anticipation (лgólnys) is used in confuting beforehand an adversary. When there is no regular opponent it assumes the dramatic form as Olynth. III. 9., & tur, etc. 5. The sermocination, by which one absent is introduced as present aud speaking. Thus Timotheus in De Chersoneso. 6. Repetition, où yuọ éσtìv—¿vz éσtív. 7. Concession, as De Class. 8, and Cont. Lept. 18, where for the time being the orator admits a position the more successfully to rebuke it afterward. 8. Apostrophe, De Corona, 60. 100. 9. Hyperbole, Phil. III. 6. 10. Climax, De Corona, 55. 11. Aposiopesis, De Corona, 1. 12. Paronomasia, De Cor. ρήματα- δαίματα. Olynth. III. καὶ κρήvas zai lýgovs. 13. Irony and sarcasm. In De Cor. comparison between himself and Aeschines, etc. 14. Comparisons. These are introduced not for ornament, but for use.

The ancients divide style into three kinds. 1. to lɛлtóv, the graceful and easy; 2. usoóres, the moderate; 3. To μέyε90s, the elevated. The ancient rhetoricians make Demosthenes to have been distinguished for all, particularly the latter. The first he adopted in his private speeches particularly where the nature of the subject or character of individuals demanded. In his public speeches, he adopts the latter. Yet by no means uniformly even there. It is not natural for the human mind to sustain itself at an elevation for a very protracted period. The style only lights up occasionally with flashes of unwonted brilliancy—and then the hearer is let down gradually and gently from his height. De