2. Have you found something similar in other letters? 3. What does he think of their belief? 4. Of their faithfulness? 5. How general is the belief? 6. Why did he not punish them? 7. What was his plan of treatment? 8. Why did he think it would succeed?

TRAJAN TO PLINY.

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If, indeed, they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to be received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age. (Bk. X, Letter XCVIII.)

QUESTIONS.

1. What do you think of the attitude of Trajan toward the Christians?

PLINY TO TRAJAN.

I have hitherto never, Sir, granted an order for postchaises to any person or upon any occasion, but in affairs that relate to your administration. I find myself, however, at present under a sort of necessity of breaking through this fixed rule. My wife, having received an account of her grandfather's death, and

being desirous to wait upon her aunt with all possible expedition, I thought it would be unkind to deny her the use of this privilege, as the grace of so tender an office consists in the early discharge of it, and as I well knew a journey which was founded in filial piety could not fail of your approbation. I should think myself highly ungrateful, therefore, were I not to acknowledge that, among other great obligations which I owe to your indulgence, I have this in particular, that, in confidence of your favor, I have ventured to do, without consulting you, what would have been too late had I waited for your consent. (Bk. X, Letter CXXI.)

TRAJAN TO PLINY.

You did me justice, my dearest Secundus, in confiding in my affection towards you. Without doubt, if you had waited for my consent to forward your wife in her journey by means of those warrants which I have entrusted to your care, the use of them would not have answered your purpose; since it was proper this visit to her aunt should have the additional recommendation of being paid with all possible expedition. (Bk. X, Letter CXXII.)

QUESTIONS.

1. What kind of a relation is shown by these letters to have existed between Trajan and Pliny? 2. What have you seen that indicates to you that Trajan was really a great ruler? 3. Make an outline upon the political condition of a Roman province as shown by Pliny's Letters. 4. How did it differ from the situation under the Republic?

F. M. FLING.

IN the paper of this series published in the March number of the NORTH WESTERN MONTHLY the first instance of visualizing given was as follows: "The age of the young traveler might be about nineteen, or betwixt that and twenty, and his face and person, which were very prepossessing, did not, however, belong to the country in which he was now a sojourner. His dress was very neat, and arranged with the precision of a youth conscious of possessing a fine person." This is almost as written by Sir Walter Scott. It does not do his art full justice, for one telling stroke is omitted in order not to confuse the impotent with the effective. Some of the reasons why this description fails should now be apparent. One defect, however, has not been pointed out. Negative statements in visualizing are worthless lumber. Telling us what a man does not look like will never help us to see the man.

First work in visualization, as was indicated in the paper already referred to, should be perfectly definite, and persons of unusual and strik ing appearance should be selected as subjects. Caricature, even, need not be received with hostility. It is easier to bring the grotesque down to truth than to develop strength from the flabby and insipid.

Following these first attempts should come efforts along the same lines with men, women, and children of every-day look and manners as material, and with truth, not caricature, in the treatment. Individuals should be differentiated by selecting and presenting what is distinctive in the appearance and manner of each. I know a deaf and dumb boy, who, by clever mimicry, can tell one what neighbors have called during the day. It is such elements as he selects and presents that a writer should set down with the pen.

Before going further, it is well to note that it is sometimes best not to attempt to make the reader see precisely the person the writer has in mind. The effect may be entirely wrong. If my ideal doctor looks like some quack you have seen, it may be better to suggest your own ideal doctor than to insist upon substituting mine. Similarly, it is quite possible to suggest your own ideal of womanly beauty. If my object is nothing but this, I shall defeat my purpose if I insist upon describing a tall blonde to a reader whose ideal is a small brunette. It is seldom necessary thus to suggest different types to different readers. The task, too, is more difficult, and should not be attempted or even talked about until some skill in the simpler mode is developed. Then, however, students are not likely to find the step too great. "As fair as the lily she wore at her breast" is not vague or indefinite, but probably the words will not suggest the same mental picture to any two persons who read them. To visualize the doctor, one might need only to speak of the far-away look in his eyes as he leaves the sick-room, hold ing his glasses in his hand.

For reasons considered in the March number, the next step in class work may well be characterization. Here, again, a safe way is to observe one's instincts in speech. If you tell a story to a man and he does not see the "point," you probably keep talking until he does. At least you tell the story the next time in another way.

You continue to vary the manner of telling the story until some effective form is found. In talking, you always have at least one face before you, and the expression of it signals you instantly when you are going wrong. This is one of the reasons why spoken language is so true to the principles of literary art. A writer cannot see his readers, and the best he can do is to write as he would talk to them, only more carefully. It is assumed that he has time to correct mistakes and to avoid awkward expressions that would be tolerated in conversation. The writer appears before the reader in full dress and not in his working blouse. Shavings are expected in the shop, but are not brought to your door with the finished table or chair.

If you were to tell a friend about a stranger, you probably would not say: "He is a man of generous impulses, although not refined in manner." Your friend would soon cease to listen, or would forget whether you were talking about a man or a woman. Such things are often

found in books, but they are no more effective there; and what is not effective is not artistic. In speech, you would probably begin instead: "I never saw much in him until one day when," —and you would proceed to tell what he did on that day. In other words, you would not discuss his character at all. You would state what it was that made you know the man, and would give another the same chance to know him that you have had.

It is probably evident that this is a good way to characterize. It may not be so clear that it is the only effective way, and consequently the only artistic way. But this is really not far from the truth. Probably everyone old enough to go to school has tried to state his opinion of somebody and at the same time conceal what it was that led to the forming of that opinion. When we try this we invariably end in one of three ways. Either we give up as hopeless the attempt to make the listener feel as we do toward the person we are talking about, or we finally tell precisely what we had intended to keep to ourselves, or we think of and tell some other act or words equally characteristic.

It is easy to test this matter in another way. If I am told that a man is kindly and afterward see him whipping a horse, what I have heard, if it is remembered at all, does not stand as my impression of the man. If I see him whipping a horse and am afterward told he is kindly, again the statement is without effect. The only thing that will overthrow my impression is to be told of or to see some act that will cause me to find out my error for myself.

This, then, as it is the way in which people talk about people, is suggested as the way in which to write about people. Shakespeare, who has succeeded in characterization better than anyone else, makes use of no other mode. The best modern novelists are following in his footsteps. If students attempt to characterize in this manner, they are in good company.

In visualizing the ideal is to make the reader see a person as clearly as we have seen him. In characterization the ideal is to make the reader know a man as well as we know him. In visualizing we should present the salient details that will recall to our minds the appearance of the man. In characterizing we should present the acts which make us know the man. In visualizing, it is unnecessary and inartistic to give an inventory of all elements and features In like manner in the appearance of a person.

therefore, must remember that these extracts do not touch even many of the most interesting questions which have confronted our statesmen in the past. Yet it is hoped that they may arouse an interest so that more of the documentary matter pertaining to our external relations may be called for and used.

November 29, 1775, congress passed the following resolution, which may be said to be the first word ever uttered by the American people with regard to foreign affairs:

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed for the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world; and that they lay their correspondence before Congress when directed.

The members chosen were Mr. Harrison, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Jay.--Secret Journals of the Congress of the Confederation, vol. II, P. 5.

We next find our diplomatic history set forth in the resolutions which follow:

[June 11, 1776.] Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign powers.-Ibid, p. 475.

[September 17, 1776.] Congress took into consideration the plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign nations, with the amendments agreed to by the committee of the whole; and thereupon.

Resolved, That the following plan of a treaty be proposed to his most christian majesty: [Plan.]— Ibid, p. 6.

Resolved, That Thursday next be assigned for appointing commissioners to transact the business of the United States at the court of France.-Ibid, p. 31.

Resolved, That three be appointed. The ballots being taken, Mr. B. Franklin, Mr. S. Deane, and Mr. T. Jefferson, were elected.-Ibid, p. 31.

[September 28, 1776.] Resolved, That the commissioners should live in such a style and manner, at the court of France, as they may find suitable and necessary to support the dignity of their publick character, keeping an account of their expenses, which shall be reimbursed by the Congress of the United States of America. Ibid, p. 33.

The first alliance made by the United States contains, among others, the following clauses:

The most christian king, and the United States of North America . . . having this day concluded a treaty of amity and commerce, . . . have thought it necessary to take into consideration the means of strengthening those engagements, and of rendering them useful to the safety and tranquility of the two parties; particularly in case Great Britain, in resentment should break the peace with France.

ART. XI. The two parties guarantee, mutually, from the present time and forever, against all other powers, to-wit, the United States to his most christian majesty, the present possessions of the crown of France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace; and his most christian majesty guarantees, on his part, to the United States, their liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters of government as of commerce, and also their possessions, and the additions or conquests that their confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America,

the whole as their possession shall be affixed and assured to the said states at the moment of the cessation of their present war with England.

-Secret Journal of Congress, vol. II, pp. 82, 86, 88The extracts below from the treaty of peaceof 1783 will give much valuable information if duly studied:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of . . . King George the Third, and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings ... have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles:

ART. I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the United States, viz.: New Hampshire, Massachusetts. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign, and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.

ART. VII. The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free

-United States Statutes at Large, vol. VIII, pp. 81, 83.

The treaty of peace of 1783 was completed only after a long and intense struggle between the commissioners of the two countries. John Adams, in his diary, has left us a clear picture of the daily life and disputes, not only between the English and American commissioners, but also among the American commissioners themselves. The negotiations had to do with many subjects. These extracts in regard to the right to fish off the banks of Newfoundland introduce us to their daily "squabbles" as well as any that may be chosen:

Upon the return of the other gentlemen, Mr. Strachey proposed to leave out the word "right" of fishing, and make it "liberty." Mr. Fitzherbert said the word "right" was an obnoxious expression. Upon this I rose up and said, "Gentlemen, is there or can there be a clearer right? In former treaties, that of Utrecht and that of Paris,-France and England have claimed the right, and used the word. When God Almighty made the banks of New Foundland, at three hundred leagues distance from the people of America, and at six hundred leagues distance from those of France and England, did He not give as good a right to the former as to the latter? If Heaven in the creation gave a right it is ours at least as much as yours. If occupation, use, and possession, give a right, we have it as clearly as you. If war, and blood, and treasure give a right, ours is as good as yours. have been constantly fighting in Canada, Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia, for the defense of this fishing, and have expended beyond all proportion more than you. If, then, the right cannot be denied, why should it not be acknowledged, and put out of dispute? Why should we leave room for illiterate fishermen to wrangle and chicane?-Life and Works of John Adams, vol. III, pp. 333, 334.

We

I forgot to mention that, when we were upon the fishery, and Mr. Strachey and Mr. Fitzherbert were urging us to leave out the word "right" and substitute "liberty," I told them at last, in answer to their proposal, to agree upon all other articles, and leave that of the fishery to be adjusted at the definitive treaty. I never could put my hand to any articles without satisfaction about the fishery; that Congress had, three or four years ago, when they did me the honor to give me a commission to make a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, given me positive instructions not to make any such treaty without an article in the treaty of peace acknowledging our right to the fishery; that

I was happy that Mr. Laurens was now present, who, I believed, was in Congress at the time, and must remember it. Mr. Laurens upon this said, with great firmness, that he was in the same case, and could never give his voice for any articles without this. Mr. Jay spoke up, and said, it could not be a peace, it would only be an insidious truce without it.-Ibid, p. 335.

I have not attempted, in these notes, to do justice to the arguments of my colleagues, all of whom were, throughout the whole business, when they attended, very attentive and able, especially Mr. Jay, to whom the French, if they knew as much of his negotiations as they do of mine, would very justly give the title with which they have inconsiderately decorated me, that of "Le Washington de la negociation": a very flattering compliment indeed, to which I have not a right, but sincerely think it belongs to Mr. Jay.Ibid, p. 339.

The X. Y. Z. episode in American history is perhaps well known, but it is doubtful if many of our students ever read an extract from the letters of our ministers in France,-Pinckney. Marshall, and Gerry,-which, when published, roused the American people to the highest pitch of excitement, and led to the production of "Hail Columbia."

Citizen Minister [Mr. Monroe]: I hasten to lay before the Executive Directory the copies of your letters of recall, and of the letter of credence of Mr. Pinckney, whom the President of the United States has appointed to succeed you, in the quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States near the French Republic. The Directory has charged me to notify you "that it will not acknowledge nor receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it."-Benton, Abridyment of Debates in Congress, vol. II, p. 390.

The following extracts may make more evident why the cry "Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute," became such a phrase to conjure with in the years 1797-1800:

In the evening of the same day, M. X called on General Pinckney, and after having sat some time whispered him that he had a message from M. Talleyrand to communicate when he was at leisure. General Pinckney immediately withdrew with him into another room, and said that he had been acquainted with M. Talleyrand, . . and that he was sure that he had a great regard for [America] and its citizens; and was very desirous that a reconciliation be brought about with France, that, to effect that end, he was ready, if it was thought proper, to suggest a plan, confidentially, that M. Talleyrand