other things being equal, those actions will be
preferred which, from their association with the names of the most
distinguished officers, may be presumed to show how far just tactical
ideas obtained in a particular age or a particular service. It will
also be desirable, where analogies between ancient and modern weapons
appear on the surface, to derive such probable lessons as they offer,
without laying undue stress upon the points of resemblance. Finally,
it must be remembered that, among all changes, the nature of man
remains much the same; the personal equation, though uncertain in
quantity and quality in the particular instance, is sure always to be
found.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] By a base of permanent operations "is understood a country whence
come all the resources, where are united the great lines of
communication by land and water, where are the arsenals and armed
posts."

[8] An interesting proof of the weight attributed to the naval power
of Great Britain by a great military authority will be found in the
opening chapter of Jomini's "History of the Wars of the French
Revolution." He lays down, as a fundamental principle of European
policy, that an unlimited expansion of naval force should not be
permitted to any nation which cannot be approached by land,--a
description which can apply only to Great Britain.

[9] Gougeard: La Marine de Guerre; Richelieu et Colbert.

[10] Whatever may be thought of Clerk's claim to originality in
constructing a system of naval tactics, and it has been seriously
impugned, there can be no doubt that his criticisms on the past were
sound. So far as the author knows, he in this respect deserves credit
for an originality remarkable in one who had the training neither of a
seaman nor of a military man.

[11] La Serre: Essais Hist. et Crit. sur la Marine Francaise.

[12] Lapeyrouse-Bonfils: Hist. de la Marine Francaise.

[13] Jurien de la Graviere: Guerres Maritimes.

[14] Since the above was written, the secretary of the navy, in his
report for 1889, has recommended a fleet which would make such a
blockade as here suggested very hazardous.

[15] The word "defence" in war involves two ideas, which for the sake
of precision in thought should be kept separated in the mind. There is
defence pure and simple, which strengthens itself and awaits attack.
This may be called passive defence. On the other hand, there is a view
of defence which asserts that safety for one's self, the real