tition of the material with a view to orderly presentation. Waiving the question whether the partition is at the end of the introduction or at the beginning of the discussion, we may say that the best division is the simplest and most natural, with each part distinct from the others, yet with all the parts standing in intelligible relationship to one another and to the main idea. In spoken more than in written discourse, the plan must be perfectly clear, because the hearer has no time to think back over the speech in order to consider relationships of ideas. He is occupied with the passing word.

As an illustration of the value of a clear, self-consistent partition, let us study the underlying structure of Webster's Bunker Hill Monument Speech. The speech is of the expository class; there is no debatable proposition; there is only a subject and an occasion requiring a voice to express its dominant mood. The pian which follows fails, of course, to reproduce what is most characteristic and valuable in the speech, the element of personality, the emotional uplift; but it shows the chief ideas in their relationship.

OUTLINE OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT ADDRESS.

INTRODUCTION.

1. Impressiveness of the occasion (p. 74, 11. 1-8).

2. Patriotic memories and hopes peculiar to Americans inspired (p. 74, 1. 9-p. 76, 1. 17).

I. By the significance to them of the date and place
(p. 74, 1. 9-p. 75, 1. 7).

II. By the significance to them of the discovery of
America (p. 75, 11. 8-23).

III. By the significance to them of colonial history (p. 75, 1. 24—p. 76, 1. 8).

IV. By the significance to them of the Revolution (p. 76, 11. 9-17).

DISCUSSION.

A. Purposes of the Society in providing for the Monument (p. 76, 1. 18-p. 77, 1. 2).

I. Not that a monument is necessary, but to show our appreciation of the deeds of our ancestors, to keep alive similar sentiments and to foster a regard for the principles of the Revolution (p. 77, 11. 3-26).

II. Not to cherish hostility or the military spirit, but to express our sense of the benefits which

have come through the events commemorated (p. 77, 1. 27-p. 78, 1. 29).

B. Mighty events in America and Europe since the Revolution (p. 78, 1. 30-p. 80, 1. 18).

C. Apostrophe to the survivors of the Revolution (p. 80, 1. 19-p. 81, 1. 20).

D.

Tribute to the patriotic dead (p. 81, 1. 21—p. 82, 1. 1),
especially to Warren (p. 82, 1. 2—p. 82, 1. 19).

E. Address to the living survivors (p. 82, 1. 20-p. 83, 1. 23).
F. The unity of spirit in the Colonies and the effect of the
Battle of Bunker Hill, especially upon La Fayette (p.

83, 1. 24-p. 87, 1. 25).

G. Eulogy on La Fayette (p. 87, 1. 26-p. 89, 1. 7).

H. Improvement in the world since the Battle of Bunker Hill, especially in politics and government (p. 89, 1. 8). 1. Diffusion of knowledge and community of ideas; with results (p. 89, 1. 23-p. 90, 1. 33).

II. Difference between the Revolution in America and the French Revolution (p. 91, 1. 28).

a.

America was accustomed to representative government (p. 92, 11. 4-30).

b. Europe was a stranger to the popular principle (p. 92, 1. 31—p. 93, 1. 4).

c. Europe has, however, gained by the change (p. 93, 11. 4-21).

(1) Everywhere there is a desire for

popular government (p. 93, 11.

22-32).

III. The influence of world opinion upon arbitrary governments (p. 93, 1. 33-p. 94, 1. 19). The case of Greece (p. 94, 1. 20-p. 95, 1. 33).

IV. The rise of independent states in South America (p. 95, 1. 34—p. 97, 1. 6).

I. The influence of the example of America (p. 97, 1. 7). I. It proves that free government may be safe and just (p. 97, 11. 13-19).

II. If we fail, free government will perish from the earth (p. 97, 1. 20-p. 98, 1. 2).

III. Free government may be as permanent as any other (p. 98, 11. 3-13).

CONCLUSION.

The duty of America is to preserve what the fathers won and to increase the spirit of union.

This analysis shows that Webster is in complete control of his material; he divides it as he will, for the subject and the occasion do not rigidly prescribe what points he shall take up. There is no logical proposition to impose requirements upon him in the matter of division, subdivision, and proof. To be sure we may reduce the whole address to the form of a syllogism if we wish:

Major Premise. All true patriots who have made sacrifices that their country might furnish to the world an illustrious example of freedom, good government and prosperity, should be gratefully honored by their countrymen.

Minor Premise. The heroes of the American Revolution have made sacrifices that their country might, etc.

Conclusion. The heroes of the American Revolution should be gratefully honored by their countrymen. Nothing is gained, however, by applying this strict logical test to an address the chief aim of which is not to prove a proposition, but to deepen feeling and to increase appreciation. To treat it as we treat an argumentative discourse is to reduce it to a string of plati tudes, and to miss all that gives it distinction.

It is to be noted, however, that while Webster is free to select what topics he wishes, we find no waywardness or eccentricity in the selection. The topics are eminently appropriate to the subject and the occasion; each is distinct from the others; each follows the preceding topic naturally. As we pass from one to the next we are made to feel their relationship. In some cases it is a relationship of similarity or contrast; the apostrophe to the survivors (C) suggests the tribute to the patriotic dead (D) and this in turn suggests the address to the living (E). In other cases it is a relationship of cause and effect; the eulogy of LaFayette (G) follows as a natural effect of the facts cited just before under (F); the apostrophe to the survivors (C) is the natural effect of the recital of the mighty events referred to under (B); the improvement in the world (H) is the effect of the diffusion of knowledge and community of ideas (H-I); the difference between the Revolution in America and in Europe (H-II) is accounted for by a recital of causes (H-II a-b). In still other cases it is a relationship neither of similarity and contrast nor of cause and effect, but ideas follow one another because they are felt to be in contiguity, that is near to one another,

either near in time, as in the narrative portions, or near in thought. The influence of world opinion upon arbitrary governments (H-III) is near in thought to the preceding topic, the desire for popular government everywhere; the case of Greece suggests the case of the states of South America (IV). Thus it is easy to account for the position of each topic in the discussion and to find a reason why it is where we find it.

We notice also the use of climax in the arrangement of the divisions. The first climax is reached at p. 78, 1. 29; the second at p. 83, 1. 23; the third at the close of the eulogy of La Fayette, p. 89, 1. 7; the fourth at p. 95, 1. 33; the last in the conclusion of the speech. The general arrangement is in accordance with the usual principles of cause and effect, similarity and contrast, and contiguity.

(2) The second element that may enter into the body of a discourse is definition. When this term is used most people think only of the kind of definition that is found in the dictionaries, a single sentence giving the meaning of a term in other words that are likely to be better understood, a sentence that puts the thing to be defined into its proper genus or class and then gives its difference from the other members of the class. This kind of formal definition is almost always necessary in argumentative discourse, especially in debate. Before a proposition is discussed its terms must be understood.

But the word definition has a much wider meaning. It means all those processes of explanation, illustration, and example that set the limits of an idea. Lincoln's letter to Greeley is definitive of Lincoln's policy; it sets the limits of that policy and tells both what it includes and what it does not include. Definition may be inci