ham began by defying Walpole, and ended by fighting against a great majority. Burke, during the greater part of his career, fought courageously against almost hopeless odds. Fox was never greater than when, after the Westminster election, he stood almost single-handed confronting a host of foes. Pitt's courage and constancy enabled him to maintain his place against an immense majority, and ultimately gain the victory. Brougham's best speeches are monuments of his unflinching courage. Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, and William Lloyd Garrison are examples of great orators who have literally held their lives in their hands while contending against a great and unscrupulous enemy. Self-confidence is identical with courage, and means that faith which one has in his own cause and his own measures. Yet sometimes orators may seem to fail in this from that trepidation which they feel in the presence of an audience. There is a feeling from which even great orators are not exempt akin to that which among actors is known as stage fright." It arises from oversensitiveness, a feeling of responsibility, a perception of the ludicrous, and other causes. The very things that lead to stage fright may be the requisites to success in oratory. 66 Vehemence. This includes intense feeling, fiery energy, and fervid eloquence. It is the chief characteristic of Demosthenes, and is celebrated in Milton's well-known lines: "Thence to the famous orators repair, Shook the arsenal, and fulmin'd over Greece To Macedon, and Artaxerxes' throne." Among modern orators, Chatham exhibits most of this. Elevation. Demosthenes and Chatham resemble each other in this also; they everywhere exhibit generous sentiments, comprehensive statesmanship, grand conceptions of the position and duty of their respective countries, a lofty regard for her honor and glory, an intense spirit of liberty, and a high personal sense of honor. Sincerity. It is one of the highest essentials to successful oratory that the hearers believe in the sincerity of the speaker. No preacher can be successful whose piety is doubt ed; no statesman whose patriotism is suspected, or whose professions of lofty principles are taken for a cloak to self-seeking. That advocate labors under a terrible disadvantage who does not believe in the justice of his cause. Insincerity, disingenuousness, affectation, all serve to ruin a cause, and the finest language is taken for nothing better than an empty sound. § 561. INTELLECTUAL QUALITIES. Logical power. Reasoning, method, analysis and synthesis, abstraction and generalization—all these are essentials, and exist in different degrees. Burke is said by De Quincey to have had of all men of that age the finest understanding. He shows always a comprehensive grasp of his subject, close and continuous logic, and a constant effort to trace out things to their causes. Chatham is irregular in his method; he shows. less of reason than of feeling; he is impatient of slow logical processes, and deals in vehement assertion or denial. Pitt is logical and argumentative, with admirable method; Erskine is like him in this, but is fuller of illustration, and also of warmth of feeling; Fox is irregular in method, but full of force; Chatham, Burke, and Fox all alike shun abstractions, and however else they may differ, they resemble one another in their preference for the concrete. Versatility. Subtlety of thought, affluence of expression, wide command of subjects for illustration, extensive attainments-all these are included under this term, and are chiefly exhibited by Burke. Imagination. That of Chatham is vigorous, lofty, and comprehensive. By this he gained that skill in making inferences and deductions which, whether we call it sagacity or forecast, placed him above all other statesmen. Burke's imagination is conspicuous everywhere-in his imagery, in his descriptions, in his keen perception of hidden causes of things lying in the past, and in his forecast of the future. Command of language. Orators differ greatly in this respect, the vocabulary of some being as limited as that of others is unlimited. In affluence and rhetorical power, Burke surpassed all other English orators. In readiness, aptitude, and quickness of extempore effort, Chatham was without an equal. His denunciation of Lord Suffolk, one of the most vehement strains of indignant eloquence in English oratory, was made without premeditation, and remains without any equal as an example at once of vehement emotion and readiness and richness of expression. CHAPTER X. DIALOGUE. § 562. DIALOGUE. IN other kinds of composition the subject is treated by one, viz., the author, whether writer or speaker. This is the case in description, narration, and exposition. Even in debate, which is most nearly akin to dialogue, this holds good, since each speech in a debate is by itself, a single consideration of the subject by one individual—the speaker. Dialogue is different. It is the consideration of a subject by more than one. Here the interlocutors and their arguments must be regarded as inseparable. Dialogue is an imitation of the conversation of real life, and differs from other kinds of literature as conversation differs from individual discussion, soliloquy, or monologue. Dialogue is very ancient in literature. There are indications of it in the Song of Solomon; the Book of Job is of this charYet it may be considered as having derived its real origin among the Greeks. acter. The fact has already been noted that Greek literature appealed to the ear, and was the property of the outside world rather than of the recluse. Epic and lyric poetry were sung; the drama was for the ear and eye; the Athenians were a community of talkers, not readers. Philosophers talked familiarly with their disciples or opponents. Their doctrines were conveyed by word of mouth rather than by writing. Socrates never wrote a line, and others, like him, restricted themselves to viva voce discussions. The method was that of simple dialogue. It was his custom to traverse the streets, and enter into conversation with individuals. His disciples adopted not only his sentiments, but his manner; and in their philosophical writings employed the Socratic method of dialogue. The chief of these were Plato and Xenophon, the former of whom wrote in dialogue exclusively. Two kinds of dialogue may be observed: 1. Didactic dialogue. 2. Dramatic dialogue. § 563. DIDACTIC DIALOGUE. 1. Dialogue is didactic when it is used for the purpose of exposition. The most important are the works of Plato, of which the best known is the Phædo, where he argues in favor of the immortality of the soul. Socrates is introduced as chief speaker, and with the discussion is given an account of the last moments of the great teacher's life. Plato's method here, as elsewhere, is to use Socrates as the exponent of his own views. Some of the works of Xenophon are of the same class; as the Memorabilia, which purports to be an account of the teachings of Socrates. Cicero wrote several treatises in the same style, e. g., the Tusculan Questions, though his dialogue is but partial, and soon becomes lost sight of in the reasonings of the chief speaker. Lucian affords a better example of this mode of compo sition. In modern times the dialogue has been used for important purposes. The idealism of Berkeley is put forth in a dialogue between Philonus and Hylas; and Walter Savage Landor's most valuable contributions to literature have this form. The dialogue as a means of exposition is limited in its scope. Even at its best, as employed by Plato, it does not admit of full argumentative treatment, or of any general discussion involving minor arguments of a cumulative character, or containing syllogistic processes, with major and minor premises. § 564. DRAMATIC DIALOGUE. 2. This is used for the purpose of narration. Ist. In the drama. This will be considered under the head of dramatic literature. 2d. In prose fiction. Prose fiction has had a great development in our day. It has taken the prominent place which once was held by dramatic literature, and attracted writers of the greatest genius, who might once have written for the stage. It is many-sided, and is used for all subjects in all possible ways. It is as comprehensive as literature itself, ranging in its aim throughout all the world of things that are of human interest, from the pettiest details of social life to the principles of religion, national welfare, morals, civilization, reform. The greatest novelists are those who use the dialogue to the best advantage. They use it for two leading purposes: 1st, to delineate character; 2d, to narrate the action. The dialogue is particularly successful in the hands of Scott, Dickens, and Thackeray. With them the whole story unfolds itself in this way. CHAPTER XI. THE DRAMA. § 565. THE DRAMA. DRAMATIC literature has to do with the visible representation of the acts of men. It involves two necessary elements-1st, narration; 2d, action. The narration is produced by means of dialogue. The action accompanies the spoken words. § 566. THE DIVISIONS OF DRAMATIC LITERATURE. The chief divisions of dramatic literature are the following: Tragedy, comedy, melodrama, farce, burlesque, masque, opera (musical drama). Tragedy is the representation of grave and serious subjects. Comedy is the representation of the subjects of common life. Melodrama is the representation of scenes that partake of tragedy and comedy, and approach the extravagant. Farce is the representation of scenes that are broadly humor ous. |