PART V. THE ORATION. CHAPTER XXVI. ELOQUENCE. The object of rhetoric is persuasion,-of logic, conviction,-of grammar, significancy. -COLERIDGE. De Quincey divides all literature into two classes-the literature of knowledge and the literature of power. The function of the first is to teach; the function of the second is to move. For the best definition which I think can be given of Eloquence is, the art of speaking in such a manner as to obtain the end for which we speak.-BLAIR. The word Eloquence in its greatest latitude denotes that art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end. "The best orator is he that so speaks as to instruct, to delight, and to move the minds of his hearers." *-CAMPBELL. A new element enters into the construction of the Oration. The fundamental purpose of Conversation is to entertain, of Letter-writing to inform, of the Essay to interest. The Oration must entertain, must inform, must interest; but it must do more, it must persuade. A speech has a purpose, and it is or is not a good speech according as it does or does not effect that purpose. It may be wise and witty and weighty, but if it does not move the audience it is a failure. The essayist or the poet may feel * Optimus est orator qui dicendo animos audientium et docet, et delectat, et permovet.-CICERO. inly assured that his work is worthy; that though neglected now, it will some time be recognized as a masterpiece. The orator has no such solace. His speech is for the moment and the occasion of its delivery; if it fails then, it is a failure forever. These two varieties of power are illustrated in the styles of Daniel Webster and Rufus Choate. Both were powerful speakers; but Webster was the superior, because of his superior power of selection. Much as one is dazzled by Choate's marvellous command of vocabulary, still one cannot avoid thinking of his style in the reading. That always indicates a defect. An absolutely perfect style attracts no attention to itself. Criticism of it is an afterthought. Members of the Boston bar all alike yielded to the spell of Choate's rhetoric; yet, in the very act of admiring, they found time to note that he " drove the substantive and six," alluding to the multitude of adjectives which he harnessed to a noun. Men with tears coursing down their cheeks, in listening to his sonorous periods in his eulogy upon Webster, yet slyly made a memorandum that they would count the words in some of those periods when they should be printed, and afterward remarked that one of them was the longest but one in the English language. Who ever heard of any such arithmetical criticism of Webster's reply to General Hayne of South Carolina? When Choate spoke, men said, "What a marvellous style. How beautiful, how grand, how immense his vocabulary, how intricate his combinations, how adroit his sway over the mother-tongue." When Webster spoke, men said, "He will gain his case." Webster's vocabulary was much more limited than that of Choate, but he had a much sterner power of selection and rejection. His command of language was like Darwin's law of species in the struggle for existence-only that lived which deserved to live.-PHELPS. Adaptation to the audience and the occasion is therefore the prime consideration. Nothing merits the name of eloquent or beautiful which is not suited to the occasion, and to the persons to whom it is addressed.-BLAIR. Universally indeed in the arguments used as well as in the appeals to the feelings, a consideration must be had of the hearers, whether they are learned or ignorant,-of this or that profession, -nation,-character, etc., and the address must be adapted to each; so that there can be no excellence in writing or speaking, in the abstract; nor can we any more pronounce on the eloquence of any composition than upon the wholesomeness of a medicine, without knowing for whom it is intended.-WHATELY. Even the common people are better judges of argument and good sense than we sometimes think them; and upon any question of business, a plain man, who speaks to the point, without art, will generally prevail over the most artful speaker who deals in flowers and ornaments, rather than in reasoning.-BLAIR. In applauding an orator, we usually applaud ourselves. He says what we were just ready to say; we seem to have suggested the idea. The deliberate expression of human thought will always assume a form supposed to be adapted to the intelligence, the temper, the tastes, and the aims of those to whom it is addressed. He who speaks to an audience composed of men of one class, of one profession, of one party, or of one sect, will use a narrower vocabulary, a more restricted or a more select dialect, than he who expects to be heard by a more various and comprehensive circle; and a writer who appeals to a whole people, who seeks to convince the understanding or enlist the sympathies of a nation, must adopt a diction, employ arguments, and resort to illustrations, which shall, in their turn, suit the comprehension and awaken the interest of men of every class and of every calling.-MARSH. Special care must be taken to exclude from popular speeches certain features, which Abbott has thus classified: (a) Considerations that are subtile or far-fetched.-Though an audience may applaud these if they are skilfully presented, they will be practically guided by plainer and coarser arguments. (b) Language and imagery that are subtile or pedantic.-In Taylor's "Edwin the Fair," the Pedant, in addressing an audience of monks, begins figuratively— On Mount Olympus with the Muses nine Upon which the cry is— He doth confess it, lo! He doth confess it! Fagots and a stake! So when in debate, in reply to the argument of an opponent that his client is a man of letters, a speaker retorts, " 'Yes, a man of three letters," the retort is lost on those who do not happen to know that this phrase is the translation of the Latin euphemism for thief, homo trium litterarum (f u r). (c) Considerations alien to the ways of thinking of the assembly addressed. Thus it has been said in the House of Commons of a scheme laid before it by a philosopher, "It is not of our atmosphere." For the same reason it has been remarked that lawyers seldom succeed in the House of Commons; and Erskine, the greatest of advocates, excited nothing but contempt in Pitt, who ruled the House of Commons. Hence, also, the kind of oratory which suits a jury-i.e., an unskilled audience-differs from that which is likely to convince a judge; i.e., a skilled auditor. (d) Considerations of a higher moral tone than is likely to be appreciated by the assembly.—A speaker may feel it his duty to urge such considerations, but they are not oratorical. An interesting example of oratory, ineffective for this reason, is the speech in justification of the murder of Cæsar, attributed by Shakspere to Brutus. It appeals to abstract principles of morality quite beyond the comprehension of the crowd, and therefore excites nothing but a cold respect for the speaker. Then follows Antony, with an appeal to feelings, some good, some bad, but actually present in the minds of the audience, and excites them to frenzy. A little boy was shown the picture of the martyrs thrown to the lions. He startled his friends by shouting: “Ma! O Ma! Just look at that poor little lion way behind there. He won't get any." There are audiences that from abstract discussion draw reflections far from those intended. It is not by his own taste, but by the taste of the fish that the angler is determined in his choice of bait.—MACAULAY. (e) Imagery, phraseology, and rhythm, too rich and exquisite to be readily appreciated.-Specimens have been given above of the highest eloquence of English prose. Scarcely one of them belongs to oratory as here defined; that is, scarcely one of them would be tolerated in the House of Commons, or in a law court. Students must not be misled by the speeches of Burke so as to suppose that the richness and ingenuity of his style is properly |