subject, his language was bold and rapid; but when he took up the pen his emotion ceased, and the periods fell languid from its point, "which," continues he, "never happened to those who, having cultivated a more studied and polished style of oratory, wrote as they spoke. Hence the mind of Lælius yet breathes in his writings, though the force of Galba has failed."

Galba, however, was highly esteemed by the judges, the people, and Lælius himself, as appears from the following anecdote: "Lælius being entrusted with the defence of certain persons suspected of having committed a murder in the Sicilian forest, spoke for two days, correctly, eloquently, and with the approbation of all, after which the consuls deferred judgment. He then recommended the accused to carry their cause to Galba, as it would be defended by him with more heat and vehemence. Galba, in consequence, delivered a most forcible and pathetic harangue, and after it was finished, his clients were absolved as if by acclamation."

Cicero compares Lælius with his friend Scipio Africanus, in whose presence this question concerning the Sicilian murder was debated. They were almost equally distinguished for their eloquence; and they were like each other in this respect, that they both always delivered themselves in a smooth manner, and never, like Galba, "exerted themselves with loudness of speech or violence of gesture." Their style of oratory, however was unlike,-Lælius adopting a much more ancient phraseology than that adopted by his friend. Cicero was most inclined to admire the oratory of Scipio, but his contemporaries awarded the palm of eloquence to Lælius.

The introduction of Greek learning about this time produced the same improvement in oratory that it had effected in every branch of literature.

M. Emilius Lepidus was younger than Galba or Scipio, and was consul in 617 A.U.C. His orations were extant in Cicero's time. It is said that he was the first Roman orator who, in imitation of the Greeks, gave sweetness and har

mony to his periods, or "the graces of a style regularly polished and improved by art."

Cicero mentions many other orators of the same age with Lepidus, and gives a minute account of their different styles of oratory. Among them are the most prominent men of the period, as Scipio Nasica, Emilius Paulus, and Mucius Scævola.

The political situation of Rome, consequent upon the disputes which continually arose between the patricians and the plebeians; the frequent impeachment of corrupt officials; the inquietude and unrest which succeeded its foreign wars; the debates concerning agrarian laws, afforded ample room for the display of forensic and political oratory. Oratory continued to open the most direct path to dignities during the whole period prior to the breaking out of the civil wars, when her sweet voice was drowned by the horrid din of war.

The Gracchi were factious demagogues who endeavoured to inflame the passions of the poor against the rich. Instead of pointing out to the rich the good qualities and the dire necessities of the poor, and of calling the attention of the poor to the many admirable qualities of the rich, they made the vices of the rich the constant themes of their most impassioned declamations. But, notwithstanding their demagogical character, the influence which the celebrated brothers exerted over the people is a sufficient proof of their eloquence.

Tiberius Gracchus made oratory a serious study. He was instructed in elocution, in his boyhood, by his mother Cornelia. He was also constant in his attendance upon the ablest masters from Greece. When he entered on the turbulent stage of Roman life, the land was owned by a few people, and the middle classes which constituted the strength of the ancient republic, were gradually rooted out. Tiberius Gracchus while passing through Etruria on his way to Numantia found the country almost depopulated of freemen, and at that time formed the project of agrarian law. While much in his political conduct is worthy of condemna

tion, he was undoubtedly eloquent, as the following specimen from Plutarch will show: "The wild beasts of Italy have their dens to retire to-their places of refuge and repose; while the brave men who shed their blood in the cause of their country have nothing left but fresh air and sunshine. Without houses, without settled habitations, they wander from place to place with their wives and children; and their commanders do but mock them when, at the head of their armies, they exhort their soldiers to fight for their sepulchres and altars. For, among such numbers, there is not one Roman which belonged to his ancestors, or a tomb in which their ashes repose. The private soldiers fight and die to increase the wealth and luxury of the great; and they are styled sovereigns of the world, while they have not one foot of ground they can call their own." The violent course pursued by Tiberius Gracchus caused his death.

Caius Gracchus was endowed with greater ability than his brother, but unfortunately he pursued the same course, that of endeavouring to widen the breach between the senate and the people. He was untiring in his exertions to lessen the authority of the senate, and increase the authority of the people. He advocated the colonisation of the public lands, and their distribution among the poor; the regulation of the markets, so as to diminish the price of bread, and for vesting the judicial power in the knights.

Though much alike in character, and in their political conduct, there was a considerable difference between the forensic demeanour and style of oratory of the two brothers. "Tiberius, in his looks and gesture, was mild and composed, Caius earnest and vehement; so that when they spoke in public Tiberius had the utmost moderation in his action and moved not from his place; whereas Caius was the first of the Romans who, in addressing the people, walked to and fro in the rostrum, threw his gown off his shoulder, smote his thigh, and exposed his arm bare. The language of Tiberius was laboured and accurate, that of Caius bold and figurative. The oratory of the former was of a gentle kind, and pity was the emotion it chiefly raised-that of

the latter was strongly impassioned, and calculated to excite terror. In speaking, indeed, Caius was so often hurried away by the violence of his passion that he exalted his voice above the regular pitch, indulged in abusive expressions, and disordered the whole tenor of his oration. In order to guard against such excesses, he stationed a slave behind him with an ivory flute, which was modulated so as to lead him to lower or heighten the tone of his voice, according as the subject required a higher or a softer key. Says Cicero, "The flute you may as well leave at home, but the meaning of the practice you must remember at the bar."

Oratory became an object of assiduous study in the time of the Gracchi. The custom was to introduce a young man intended for the study of the law to one of the most distinguished orators of the city, whom he attended when he had occasion to speak on a public or private cause, or in the assemblies of the people. In doing this, he not only heard him, but every other noted speaker. By pursuing this course he became practically acquainted with business, and the method of administering justice in the courts, and learned the arts of oratorical conflict, as it were, in the field of battle. 'It animated the courage and quickened the judgment of youth, thus to receive their instructions in the eye of the world, and in the midst of affairs, where no one could advance an absurd or weak argument without being exposed by his adversary, and despised by the audience. Hence, they also had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the various sentiments of the people, and observing what pleased or disgusted them in the several orators of the Forum. By these means they were furnished with an instructor of the best and the most improving kind, exhibiting not the feigned resemblance of eloquence, but her real and lively manifestation-not a pretended but genuine adversary, armed in earnest for the combat-an audience ever full and ever new, composed of foes as well as of friends, and amongst whom not a single expression could fall but was either censured or applauded."

The advantages dérived from fictitious oratorical contests were also given to the youth of the city by the introduction of debating societies at Rome about the middle of its seventh century. In the year 661 A.U.C., Plotius Gallus, a Latin rhetorician, opened a declaiming school at Rome, but the declamations turned on questions of real business.

From these facts it is evident that in the middle of the seventh century oratory was sedulously studied, and universally practised, and that there must have been many proficients. It would be an endless task to enumerate all the public speakers mentioned by Cicero, the extensiveness of whose catalogue is only equalled by its dryness. The author will therefore proceed to Marcus Antonius and Lucius Crassus, whom Cicero celebrates as having first raised the glory of Roman eloquence to an equality with that of Greece.

Marcus Antonius was the grandfather of the famous triumvir. He was the most popular orator of his time, and was chiefly courted by clients because of his ability, and the fact that he was always ready to undertake any cause which was offered to him. It is said that he possessed a ready memory and remarkable talent of introducing everything where it could be placed with most effect. "He had a frankness of manner which precluded any suspicion of artifice, and gave to all his orations an appearance of being the unpremeditated effusions of an honest heart. But though there was no apparent preparation in his speeches, he always spoke so well, that the judges were never sufficiently prepared against the effects of his eloquence. His language was not perfectly pure, or of a constantly sustained elegance, but it was of a solid and judicious character, well adapted to his purpose; his gesture, too, was appropriate and suited to his sentiments and language; his voice was strong and durable, though naturally hoarse-but even this defect he turned to advantage, by frequently and easily adopting a mournful and querulous tone, which in criminal questions excited compassion, and more readily gained the belief of the judges.'

According to Cicero he left very few orations behind him,