Chapter XVI: Part IV: Eminent Extempore Speakers (1)

AUGUSTINE—LUTHER—CHATHAM—PITT—BURKE—MIRABEAU—PATRICK
HENRY—WHITEFIELD—WESLEY—SIDNEY SMITH—F. W.
ROBERTSON—CLAY—BASCOM—SUMMERFIELD—SPURGEON—H. W.
BEECHER—BINGHAM—GLADSTONE—SIMPSON—WENDELL PHILLIPS—J. P. DURBIN.

EMINENT SPEAKERS.

USE OF EXAMPLES.

Notwithstanding the popularity of unwritten speech, and the innumerable arguments in its favor, there is an impression in some quarters that the very highest excellence cannot be attained without the previous use of the pen. It may be shown that it is more natural to find the words in which our thoughts are clothed at the moment of expression; that a stronger and better frame-work of thought can be constructed, if the mind, in preparing for speech, is occupied with that alone; that the speaker and hearer may thus be brought into closer union; that this, in short, is the order of nature, which leaves the solid frame-work of the tree standing through many winters, but each spring bestows its graceful robe of leaves upon that which was prepared to receive it. But this is not enough to produce lasting conviction. It is still maintained, almost with obstinacy, that in the highest fields of oratory, words must be previously chosen, fitted together, and polished.

This nearly every speech-writer proves from his own experience. The efforts that have afforded him most satisfaction were those in which nothing had been left to the chance of the moment. But it is easy to see how even experience may mislead in this particular. We can judge the comparative merits of another in his different modes of address with some approach to accuracy, for our mental state—that of listeners—continues the same under them all. But it is different when we judge ourselves. When we extemporize, our best expressions fade from the mind after they have been given forth, and can only be recalled by a strong effort. On the other hand, when we have wrought our language slowly, and lingered over each sentence, we see all the beauty it contains, and begin to admire our own production. If we see anything faulty, instead of lamenting it, as we would an unfortunate, spoken sentence, we change it, and take credit for the keenness of our critical taste. Is it wonderful that when we come before an audience with an address made as nearly perfect as we can construct it in every line, and the whole clearly written, or firmly engraved on the memory, and then repeat it, with a full appreciation of each beauty as we pass along, that we consider it to be of far higher merit than the impassioned torrent poured forth on another occasion, when we scarcely knew that we were using words at all? If the people do not seem to appreciate it, their want of taste and culture affords a ready excuse for them, even if the speaker is not too much occupied with his own eloquence to notice them at all. He is always ready, too, with the examples of Massillon and Bossuet, or of Chalmers, to prove that it was thus the most powerful orators spoke.

We do not deny that great effects may be produced, under certain circumstances, by committed words. The fact that many actors have won great fame by repeating the words of others, proves how much may be done in this direction. It is but reasonable, that if some gifted minds can thrill an audience to tears, and rouse every feeling to its highest bent by merely copying others, that those who, in addition to this ability, possess the power of framing their own thoughts in suitable words, may accomplish as much. John B. Gough is an instance of the power that may be wielded in this manner. But such men cannot occupy the highest position in the temple of fame. They are but actors. When they speak they will be listened to with eagerness and pleasure, as great performers always are, but it will be as performers rather than as authorities. They have placed themselves on a level with those who deal in unreal things, and there they must be content to remain. Doubtless it is more noble to speak the sentiments and feelings that we once possessed, in the language adapted to _that_ time, than to deal in those belonging to another person, but the resemblance between the two is very close, and the people feel it so acutely that they make no discrimination.

But we maintain that even in momentary effect—the quality which is supposed to belong peculiarly to the powerful declamation of prepared language—extempore speakers have passed beyond all others; while in power of thought and lasting influence, there can be no comparison. There is no single quality of speech that cannot be reached as well without writing as with it, while perpetual readiness, vast and profound knowledge (which writing extensively leaves no time to acquire), and weight and authority with the people, belong almost exclusively to the extemporizer.

These assertions may seem bold to many, but we are prepared to substantiate them. In the preceding pages we have aimed to show how this species of address may be acquired, and improved to an almost unlimited degree. The ideal thus sketched is not an impossible or imaginary one. It has often been attained, and for the encouragement of those who may be disposed to throw away their manuscripts, and trust to the method of nature, the following examples are selected. These are chosen because of their eminence, and also because of the wide variety of qualities displayed in their eloquence. Many more might be given, but these are sufficient for our purpose, which is to show that in every department of speech the highest eloquence that ever flowed from the lips of men has clothed itself in unpremeditated words.

In these sketches we, of course, make no pretension to originality, but have compiled what was adapted to our purpose from every available source. And as the matter so obtained has been frequently abridged, and two or three different accounts woven together, it has sometimes been impossible to give full credit. We are under especial obligation to the “New American Cyclopedia,” Mosheim’s Church History, Stevens’s History of Methodism, Harsha’s “Orators and Statesmen,” “Kidder’s Homiletics,” with the current biographies of the speakers treated of.

Much of the oratory of antiquity was recited. This has been used as an argument to prove the comparative inferiority of that speech which is the offspring of the moment, forgetting the great difference between ancient and modern life—a difference arising from the greater diversity of the latter, and the nobler aims to which it gives birth. The typical Grecian oration is as much a work of art as a statue. It was made to be admired, and if, by the beauty of its arrangement, the melody of its language, and the elegance of its delivery, this object was achieved, the orator was satisfied. It was so, to a less degree, in the classic age of Rome. The form of the oration was of greater importance than its matter, and it was judged that this would be best perfected by the use of the pen, and of the memory. Yet the practice of antiquity on this point was far from uniform. Some of the noblest orators spoke extempore, and have less fame than those who adopted the opposite plan, only because at that time the art of reporting was too imperfect to preserve their eloquence. The effect they produced remains, and from it we obtain a faint view of their greatness. Pericles spoke without previous writing, and the sway his speech established over his countrymen was more undisputed than that of Demosthenes. The latter had an assemblage of talents that, with his tireless industry, would have made him eminent in any mode of address that he might have adopted; but even he did not recite exclusively.

The great rival of Cicero, Hortensius, whose wonderful power excited the emulation of the former, spoke from the impulse of the moment, as did many of the more eminent of the Roman orators. Cicero was a man of tireless energy. He applied himself to the study and practice of eloquence with a singleness of aim, and a concentration of purpose that may well command our admiration. He accumulated vast stores of knowledge, perfected his logic, and improved his voice until it became music, and brought all the resources of a mighty mind to bear on oratory. It is not wonderful that he was listened to with profound attention, while he recited what he had previously composed. But some of his most brilliant passages were extemporaneous. The outburst that overwhelmed Catiline when he unexpectedly appeared in the senate, was coined, at white heat, by the passion of the moment.

The reason why so many of the ancients committed their speeches, was because they could not be preserved otherwise, unless the orator could remember and write down what he had said. Every unwritten speech perished, and left nothing but a dim memory of the results it had produced. This is the reason why the extempore speakers of the ancient world are less known than the reciters. But the art of short-hand has effected a revolution in this particular, and the most impassioned speeches are now photographed for the admiration of future generations. The man who wishes his speech preserved is no longer compelled to write it.

EARLY PREACHING IN THE CHURCH.

We may be sure that the preaching of Christ and the Apostles was without notes. It seems scarcely less than profanation to picture even the latter as reading from a previously prepared manuscript, after they had been promised the help of the Spirit in the hour when help was needed; and it is inconceivable that the Saviour should have taken any other mode of imparting His wisdom to men, than that of direct address. Paul deprecated the eloquence of mere words, although the sketch of his sermon on Mars’ Hill, with other addresses, shows that he did not neglect the eloquence of thought, and the strength of orderly, logical arrangement. We have no direct evidence of the manner of preaching in the first century, but from all intimations we are led to conclude that sermons were composed without the use of the pen, and consisted of easy, familiar scripture expositions and deductions of moral lessons. Origen, the most celebrated divine of the third century, preached without manuscript, and Eusebius says of him:

“Then, as was to be expected, our religion spreading more and more,
and our brethren beginning to converse more freely with all, Origen,
who they say was now more than sixty years of age, and who, from
long practice, had acquired great facility in discoursing, permitted
his discourses to be taken down by ready writers, a thing which he
had never allowed before.”

This shows not only that he had been accustomed to preach extempore, but that he would not permit the sketches of his sermons which could be made by the imperfect reporting of that day, to be published until late in life. This would be very natural, when unstudied explanation was the main object of the address, but very unnatural if the sermon had been written according to the rules of rhetorical composition. In the sermons of Chrysostom there are many passages which could not, from their nature, have been precomposed, and these are among the most brilliant of all. But Augustine, who flourished in the fourth century, affords us a still more conclusive proof of the power of the natural mode of address.

AUGUSTINE.

The father of this great man was a pagan, but his mother was a Christian. She was a most remarkable woman, and from her he doubtless inherited some of the strongest elements of his character. Her prayers for his conversion were almost continual, but for many years produced no apparent result. He plunged into many excesses, and lived a most irregular life, but from this he was aroused by the death of his father, and by the study of philosophy. For a time the latter seemed to satisfy his ardent mind, but soon he saw its insufficiency, became an earnest searcher for truth, and explored the writings of the sages of antiquity without being able to find anything on which he could rest. The problems of life pressed upon him with a terrible weight, and he was too profound a thinker to be satisfied with any superficial explanation. The doctrine of the ancient Persians—that of the two antagonistic principles of good and evil in the world—for a while charmed his imagination, but its influence over him soon passed away. During all this time he was rising in fame as a teacher of rhetoric and eloquence, and had established a school in Rome which became widely celebrated.

His reputation as a teacher caused him to be summoned to Milan, where the Emperor then was. The great preacher, Ambrose, then in the zenith of his power, officiated in that city. Augustine heard him, and felt that his doubts were answered. But it required a terrible struggle before he could yield, and it was only after he had passed the whole series of Christian doctrines in review, and tested them by all his mighty power of argument, that he at last reposed in the truth. The joy of his good mother can scarcely be conceived at this answer to her unceasing prayer, and she soon passed away triumphantly. He spent a short period in seclusion and profound meditation, was then baptized, and four years after began to preach.

The success of Augustine was as great in preaching as it had been in teaching, and he was promoted to the office of Bishop. His power was soon felt all over the Christian world. He at once entered on a course of labor like that of Whitefield and Wesley, but still more varied. He preached once every day, and sometimes twice; visited the sick and poor with great assiduity; governed his diocese wisely; was the Christian champion against almost innumerable forms of heresy all over the world; composed some most beautiful hymns; wrote extensive commentaries that are still valued; kept up a vast correspondence with emperors, kings, and church dignitaries everywhere; and indited works of theology, literature, criticism, and philosophy in immense profusion. Some of these will live as long as the language in which they are written is known. For thirty-five years he remained at his post, and died at last, while his city was beleagured by a barbarian army, in time to escape witnessing the ruin that burst on the flock he had so long loved and served.

The power of Augustine as a preacher can scarcely be overrated. Everywhere the people flocked to hear him, and the most enduring fruits followed his ministry. His sermons were not calculated simply to win admiration for the preacher, but pointed to the holier life, and led men to love and strive after it. He was the real founder of what is known at the present day as Calvinism, and by his vast power made it the prevailing doctrine of the church for centuries after his death. There can be no question about his sincerity and earnestness, and just as little regarding the influence of his solemn eloquence. He quieted tumults, changed the opinions of whole towns, and wielded assemblies at his will. He left a large number of sermons in a fragmentary condition, but fully justifying all that his contemporaries have written of him.

It is not possible that such a man should have read or recited his discourses. To have done so would have left him no time for such grand works as the “Confessions,” “City of God,” and others too numerous to mention, which will endure while the world stands. But he has not left us in doubt as to his mode of preaching. He enjoins the “Christian teacher” to make his hearers comprehend what he says, “to read in the eyes and countenances of his auditors whether they understand him or not, and to repeat the same thing by giving it different terms, till he perceives that it is understood, an advantage which those cannot have who, by a servile dependence on their memories, learn their sermons by heart, and repeat them as so many lessons. Let not the preacher become the servant of words; rather let words be servants to the preacher.” In his charity, however, he does allow of reciting under certain circumstances. “Those who are destitute of invention, but can speak well, provided they select well written discussions of another man and commit them to memory for the instruction of their hearers, will not do badly if they take this course.”

LUTHER.

The name of Luther is so well known that it will not be necessary to give more than a very brief sketch of his wonderful life. The peasant, who was raised by his virtues to more than kingly power, and to be the leader of the greatest religious movement of modern times, cannot be a stranger to the world. Luther was bred in the midst of poverty and almost of want. As he grew older, his father, who was a kind-hearted, though stern man, began to rise in the world, and found means to send him to school. The patronage of a wealthy lady named Cotta, was also of great benefit to him. He was distinguished very early for quickness and profundity of intellect, and the highest hopes were formed of him. But in the midst of flattering prospects, he was deeply convicted of sin, and terrified concerning his spiritual state. After he had spent a long time in mental struggles, full of agony, he resolved to become a monk, as the surest way of allaying all doubt, and obtaining the spiritual rest for which he longed. His father never forgave this step, until his son stood in direct opposition to the power of Rome. But the ardent heart of Luther could not find peace in the dull routine of a convent life, and every spiritual trial was redoubled. At last, while he was reading in an old copy of the Bible, which he had found in the library of the convent, the great doctrine of justification by faith dawned upon him with all the freshness of a new revelation. He at once began to teach the people the same blessed doctrine, with the most gratifying results. His preaching was marked by great power, and soon his sphere widened. He was made a doctor of divinity in the University of Wittenberg, and began to lecture on Paul’s Epistles, and the Psalms. He was still a devoted adherent of Rome, although he taught the students under his care to look to the Scriptures as the fountain of all authority. But the germs of the Reformation were already hid in his own mind, and it only required circumstances to bring them into vigorous life.

These were soon supplied. When a monk came to Wittenberg, selling pardons for every kind of sin, even that which was to be committed, Luther felt it his duty to warn the people against any dependence on such sources of forgiveness. The Pope took part with the monk in the strife that followed; and the contest went from one point to another, until the Pope hurled a decree of excommunication at Luther, which he burned, in the presence of his adherents, as a token of defiance and contempt. The reformation spread wonderfully, and although surrounded on every side by threatenings and enemies, the life of this great man was spared, and for years he exerted an influence in Germany not second to that of the Emperor himself. When he fell at last, in the midst of his labors, the people mourned for him as for a personal benefactor.

All through his life, Luther had the secret of reaching the hearts of the people in a wonderful manner. No other of the great men who abounded at that time possessed a tithe of his power in this respect. It has been said “that his words were half battles.” His discourses were not smooth or graceful, yet it was not for want of ability to secure these qualities, for he had great command of every style of language, and loved softer and more ornamented speech in others; but he was too much in earnest, with an empire, and the vastest hierarchy the world ever saw, arrayed against him, to stay to use them. Whenever he preached the people would flock together from great distances, and listen as to a prophet, while he unfolded the grand and simple plan of salvation in the plainest words. He had every element of a great preacher. His imagination was most vivid, and he did not fail to use it to the utmost. He could paint a scene in all the completeness of action before his hearers, and awaken their tears or smiles at his will. He used no manuscript, but spoke from the vast fulness of knowledge he possessed on every subject. His pen was employed as well as his voice. By it he not only produced a great number of books that advanced the cause of the Reformation almost as much as his spoken efforts, but by the combination of the two methods of expression, writing to meet the eye and speaking for the ear, he taught himself both accuracy and readiness, and was thus prepared for the part he was called upon to act. Added to these, were his strong emotions, and indomitable will, which gave him an energy that bore every thing before him. For beauty and grace in themselves he cared nothing, but when they came unbidden, as they often did, they were welcome. He rightly estimated his own character and work when he said “that he was rough, boisterous, stormy, and altogether warlike; born to fight innumerable devils and monsters, to remove stumps and stones, to cut down thistles and thorns, and to clear the wild woods.”

LORD CHATHAM.

It may well be doubted whether the eloquence of this great and wonderful man did not surpass that of either Cicero or Demosthenes. It is certain that the effects he repeatedly produced have never been surpassed. And he had not to deal with a populace easily moved, although cultivated in some particulars, as they had; but his mightiest triumphs were won in the British Parliament, from an acute, critical, and often hostile assembly. His example, with that of his son, who was almost equally great, afford an irrefutable answer to those who doubt the capacity of unwritten speech to convey impressions as mighty as any ever produced by man.

He was born in 1708, and was educated at Oxford, quitting it without a degree, but with a brilliant reputation. Soon after he entered Parliament, and gained such power that he was shortly advanced to the office of Prime Minister. This was in the reign of George II. and at the opening of the Seven Years War, by which England won the province of Canada, and became the most powerful empire in the world. But when he took the reins of government it was far different. The armies of the nation had been beaten in every quarter, and the people were almost in despair. But he infused new spirit into them, and by his energy and farsighted combinations, won the most glorious series of triumphs that ever crowned the arms of England. His fame did not cease when he left the ministry, and, in America at least, he is best known for his friendly words to us during the revolutionary war. He opposed with all the strength of his wondrous eloquence the oppressive measures that provoked the colonists to revolution. Yet there was no element of fear or compromise in his disposition. He only opposed the ministry in their government of our country because he believed their measures to be unjust. But when, after seven years of defeat and disaster, the body of the nation became convinced that the Americans never could be conquered, and the proposition was made to recognize their independence, Chatham fought against the accomplishment of the separation with all his vigor. He made his last speech on this subject, and while the house was still under the solemn awe that followed his address, he was stricken down by apoplexy and borne home to die.

We have little upon which to base an estimate of this almost unequalled orator, save the effect he produced upon his contemporaries. Nothing has been preserved of his speeches, but a few passages that stamped themselves indelibly upon the minds of his hearers. Yet through his eloquence, backed by his strong will, he was for many years virtually dictator of England, and even when most alone, scarcely any one dared to meet him in debate.

Many curious instances are given of the uncontrolled ascendency he obtained over the House of Commons. His most celebrated rival was Murray, Earl of Mansfield, who had just been promoted to the office of Attorney-General, when the incident narrated below occurred. Chatham made a speech, really intended to overwhelm Murray, but on a totally different subject. Fox says “every word was MURRAY, yet so managed that neither he nor anybody else could take public notice of it or in any way reprehend him. I sat near Murray, who _suffered_ for an hour. At its close he used an expression that at once became proverbial.” After the unhappy Attorney had writhed for a time, and endured the terrible, but indirect, satire of Chatham until endurance was scarcely possible any longer, the latter stopped, threw his piercing eyes around as if in search of something, then fixing their whole force on his victim, exclaimed, “I must now address a few words to Mr. Attorney; they shall be few, but they shall be daggers!” Murray was agitated; the look was continued, and the agitation became so uncontrollable as to be noticed by the whole house. “_Felix trembles_,” roared Chatham, in a voice of thunder, “_he shall hear me some other day_.” Murray was too completely stricken to attempt a reply.

On another occasion, having finished a speech, he walked out of the house with a slow step, being at the time an habitual invalid. There was a profound silence until he was passing through the door. Then a member started up, saying, “Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the right honorable gentleman.” Chatham caught the sound, turned back, and fixed his eye on the orator, who instantly sat down. He then walked slowly to his seat, repeating in Latin, as he hobbled along, the lines from Virgil, in which is described the terror of the Grecian ghosts when Æneas entered the dark realm:

“The Grecian chiefs....
When they beheld the MAN with shining arms
Amid those shades, trembled with sodden fear,
... and raised
A feeble outcry; but the sound commenced,
_Died on their gurgling lips_.”

Reaching his seat, he exclaimed in a tone that terrified the whole house, “Now let me hear what the honorable gentleman has to say to me.” There was no response, and the whole body was too much awed to laugh at the situation of the poor orator.

Yet he did not deal in the terrible and overpowering all the time. In a most eloquent speech in opposition to a measure that he believed violated the sanctity of the English home, he gave the following description of that privilege which is justly the proudest boast of an Englishman. A single passage is all that remains, but it will not soon be forgotten:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces
of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow
through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of
England cannot enter!—all his forces dare not cross the threshold of
the ruined tenement!”

Lord Macaulay, who was in no sense friendly to the great orator, gives him a glowing eulogy:

“His figure, when he first appeared in Parliament, was strikingly
graceful and commanding, his features high and noble, his eye full
of fire. His voice, even when it sank to a whisper, was heard to the
remotest benches; when he strained it to its full extent, the sound
rose like the swell of the organ of a great cathedral, shook the
house with its peal, and was heard through lobbies, and down
staircases, to the Court of Requests, and the precincts of
Westminster Hall. He cultivated all these eminent advantages with
the most assiduous care. His action is described by a very malignant
observer as equal to that of Garrick. His play of countenance was
wonderful; he frequently disconcerted a hostile orator by a single
glance of indignation or scorn. Every tone, from the impassioned cry
to the thrilling aside, was perfectly at his command.”

He was a truly extemporaneous speaker, and seldom attempted any other style. When he did he failed. His memory was strong and retentive, and his mind so fully stored with information on every subject that he was always ready for debate. Some of his grandest efforts were called forth by an unexpected circumstance, or a single glance of his eye. Once, while replying to Suffolk, he caught a view of the tapestry on which was painted some of the achievements of the ancestors of that lord, and instantly seized the hint it conveyed and gave expression to one of the noblest bursts of eloquence in any language. One of his contemporaries says:

“When without forethought or any other preparation than those
talents nature had supplied, and education cultivated, Chatham
rose—stirred to anger by some sudden subterfuge of corruption, or
device of tyranny—then was heard an eloquence never surpassed either
in ancient or modern times. It was the highest power of expression
ministering to the highest power of thought.”

WILLIAM PITT.

The manner in which the younger Pitt succeeded to the talents and position of the elder is one of the most wonderful things in history. His father trained him from his infancy in the models which he himself had imitated so successfully. Some of these means of improvement, which at least assisted in producing the peculiar character of the eloquence of father and son, are worthy of our attention. They both translated from the best classical authors, committed to memory choice passages from the poets, and prose writers they valued, thus acquiring great command of words. With such previous training, it would have been useless for them to write even in their most elaborate efforts.

When the younger Pitt had finished the traditional college course and was admitted to the bar, he also entered Parliament, being then only twenty-three years of age. He delivered his first speech, which was entirely unpremeditated, only about a month afterward. It took the house by storm. In the midst of that brilliant assembly, accustomed to the eloquence of Fox, Burke, and others worthy of any age, there was a universal burst of enthusiastic admiration. When some one remarked, “Pitt promises to be one of the first speakers ever heard in Parliament,” Fox replied, “_He is so already._”

When only twenty-four years of age he was made Prime Minister, and held the post for seventeen years. Although there is room for a wide difference of opinion regarding many of his acts during this time, there is none concerning his ability. Among other reforms that he advocated was the abolition of the slave trade. He made a speech on this subject that is still celebrated. Wilberforce said that “for the last twenty minutes he really seemed to be inspired.” Windham declares “that he walked home lost in amazement at the compass, until then unknown to him, of human eloquence.” Pitt died at the comparatively early age of forty-seven, holding the highest office in the gift of his country.

Brougham gives a glowing account of his power as an orator. “He is to be placed without any doubt in the highest class. With a sparing use of ornament, hardly indulging more in figures, or even in figurative expression, than the most severe examples of ancient chasteness allowed—with little variety of style, hardly any of the graces of manner—he no sooner rose than he carried away every hearer, and kept the attention fixed and unflagging until it pleased him to let it go; and then

“’So charming left his voice that we awhile
Still thought him speaking, still stood fixed to hear.’

“This magical effect was produced by his unbroken flow, which never for a moment left the hearer in pain or doubt, and yet was not the mean fluency of mere relaxation, requiring no effort of the speaker, but imposing on the listener a heavy task; by his lucid arrangement, which made all parts of the most complicated subject quit their entanglement and fall each in its place; by the clearness of his statements which presented a picture to the mind; by the forcible appeals to strict reason and strong feeling which formed the great staple of the discourse; by the majesty of the diction; by the depth and fullness of the most sonorous voice and the unbending dignity of the manner, which ever reminded us that we were in the presence of more than the mere advocate and debater, that there stood before us a ruler of the people. Such were the effects invariably of this singular eloquence; nor did anything, in any mood of mind, ever drop from him that was unsuited to the majestic frame of the whole, or could disturb the serenity of the full and copious flood that rolled along.”

Macaulay says: “At his first appearance in Parliament he showed himself superior to all his contemporaries in command of language. He could pour out a long succession of round and stately periods, without ever pausing for a word, without ever repeating a word, in a voice of silver clearness, and with a pronunciation so articulate that not a letter was slurred over.”

These men, father and son, were never excelled in debate. They were always ready. Every advantage that the occasion allowed was taken at the time, and the favorable moment never went by while they were preparing. They each attained a power they never would have possessed had it been necessary for them to use manuscript or depend on their memory. The time others have wasted in writing special orations, they employed in such wide culture, and in accumulating such vast stores of knowledge, that they were always ready. They were able to come to great intellectual contests with their minds fresh and un-fagged by previous composition.

But it may be said that with all their power they were destitute of polish and beauty. In such fragments of their speeches as have been preserved, it is true that gracefulness is less conspicuous than force, and the opponent of unwritten speech may imagine that this is a necessary consequence of the manner in which they spoke. The advantage they gained was worth the cost, even if this lack of the finer and more elegant qualities of speech was inevitable. But that this does not necessarily result from extempore speech, is abundantly proved by the example of their great rival—

EDMUND BURKE.

This prince of imaginative orators was an Irishman. He was born in 1730, and graduated in Dublin University at the age of twenty. For a short time afterward he studied law, but soon grew weary of it and turned his attention to philosophy and literature. The productions of his pen speedily won an enviable reputation. A “Vindication of Natural Society” was speedily followed by the celebrated “Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful.”

His appearance in Parliament, the great arena of British eloquence, was comparatively late in life, but as soon as elected he gave promise of the great brilliancy he afterward displayed. For more than thirty years he had no superior in that august body, and scarcely an equal. He stood side by side with Pitt in defence of America, and endeared himself to every lover of liberty in both hemispheres. The great impeachment of Warren Hastings was mainly brought about by his influence, and afforded room for all his powers. The war with France was the last great theme upon which his eloquence was employed, and in it his strongly conservative views alienated him from most of his former friends.

During all this time his eloquence was a wonder both to friend and foe, and in its own style was never equalled in the House of Commons, or in the world. His speech on the impeaching of Warren Hastings, made at the bar of the House of Lords, was an unparalleled effort. It extended over a period of four days, and bore everything before it. On the third day of this great speech, he described the cruelties inflicted on some of the natives of India by one of Hastings’s agents, with such vividness that one convulsive shudder ran through the whole assemblage, while the speaker was so much affected by the picture he had penciled, that he dropped his head upon his hands, and was for some moments unable to proceed. Some, who were present, fell into a swoon, while even Hastings himself, who disclaimed all responsibility for these things, was overwhelmed. In speaking of the matter afterwards he says: “For half an hour I looked upon the orator in a revery of wonder, and actually felt myself to be the most culpable man on earth.” Lord Thurlow, who was present, declares that long after, many who were present had not recovered from the shock, and probably never would.

Soon after, the great speech of Sheridan was delivered. Like Burke’s, it was extempore, and no report of it, worthy the name, remains. It was only inferior to the mighty effort that preceded it. A clergyman who came to the house strongly prepossessed in favor of Hastings, said at the close of the first hour, to a friend who sat by him, “This is mere declamation without proof.” When another hour had passed, he remarked, “This is a wonderful oration.” Another hour went by, and again he spoke: “Warren Hastings certainly acted unjustifiably.” At the end of the fourth hour he said: “Hastings is an atrocious criminal.” When the speech closed at the end of the fifth hour, he vehemently declared, “Of all monsters of iniquity, Warren Hastings is certainly the most enormous.”

For seven long years this unprecedented trial went on. More than one-third of those who sat on the judge’s bench when it began were in their graves. When, at last it drew to a close, Burke made to the Lords a closing charge worthy of his genius:

“My Lords,” said he, “I have done! The part of the Commons is
concluded! With a trembling hand we consign the product of these
long, _long_ labors to your charge. _Take it! Take it!_ It is a
sacred trust! Never before was a cause of such magnitude submitted
to any human tribunal.... My Lords, it has pleased Providence to
place us in such a stage that we appear every moment to be on the
verge of some great mutation. There is one thing, and one thing only
that defies mutation—that which existed before the world itself. I
mean JUSTICE; that justice which, emanating from the Divinity, has a
place in the breast of every one of us, given us for our guide with
regard to ourselves and with regard to others; and which will stand
after this globe is burned to ashes, our advocate or our accuser
before our great Judge, when He comes to call upon us for the tenor
of a well spent life.”

The effect of this speech upon the auditory was such that it was only after some time had elapsed, and after repeated efforts, that Fox, himself a giant in eloquence, could obtain a hearing.

The character of Burke’s eloquence is well summed up in the following account, given by Wraxall, one of his contemporaries:

“Nature had bestowed on him a boundless imagination, aided by a
memory of equal strength and tenacity. His fancy was so vivid that
it seemed to light up by its own powers, and to burn without
consuming the aliment on which it fed: sometimes bearing him away
into ideal scenes created by his own exuberant mind, but from which
he, sooner or later, returned to the subject of debate; descending
from his most aerial flights, by a gentle and imperceptible
gradation, till he again touched the ground. Learning waited on him
like a handmaid, presenting to his choice all that antiquity has
culled or invented, most elucidatory of the topic under discussion.
He always seemed to be oppressed under the load and variety of his
intellectual treasures. Every power of oratory was wielded by him in
its turn; for he could be, during the same evening, often within the
space of a few minutes, pathetic and humorous; acrimonious and
conciliating; now giving loose to his indignation or severity; and
then, almost in the same breath, calling to his assistance wit and
ridicule. It would be endless to cite instances of this versatility
of his disposition, and of the rapidity of his transitions,

‘From grave to gay, from lively to severe,’

that I have, myself, witnessed. . . . What he was in public he was
in private; like the star which now precedes and now follows the
sun, he was equally brilliant whether he

‘Flamed in the forehead of the morning sky,’

or led on with a milder luster the modest hosts of evening.”

A Frenchman gives a graphic description of one of his speeches. At first he was disappointed in his appearance.

“I certainly did not expect to find him in the British Parliament
dressed in the ancient toga; nor was I prepared to see him in a
tight brown coat, which seemed to impede every movement, and above
all, the little hat-wig with curls. . . . He moved into the middle
of the house contrary to the usual practice, for the members speak
standing and uncovered, not leaving their places. But Mr. Burke,
with the most natural air imaginable, with seeming humility, and
with folded arms, began his speech in so low a tone of voice that I
could scarcely hear him. Soon after, however, becoming animated by
degrees, he described religion attacked, the bonds of subordination
broken, civil society threatened to its foundation.... When in the
course of this grand sketch, (to show that England could depend only
on herself,) he mentioned Spain, that immense monarchy, which
appeared to have fallen into a total lethargy: ‘What can we expect,’
said he, ‘from her?—mighty indeed, but unwieldy—vast in bulk, but
inert in spirit—_a whale stranded upon the sea shore of Europe_.’
The whole House was silent; every mind was fixed; ... never was the
electric power of eloquence more imperiously felt. I have witnessed
many, too many political assemblages and striking scenes where
eloquence performed a noble part, but the whole of them appear
insipid when compared with this amazing effort.”

Burke was an extemporaneous speaker in the sense we have used the word in the preceding pages. He thought over the ideas of his speech as fully as his time permitted, and when he spoke, threw them into the language of the moment. At the conclusion of one of his speeches on the American question, his friends crowded around and urged him to write what he had said for the benefit of the world. He did so then, and also on five other occasions. Of the hundreds of other speeches he delivered only broken and imperfect fragments remain.

Burke exerted himself in conversation, and thus improved his powers of language in the method we have recommended. Dr. Johnson says of him in his oracular way:

“Burke is an extraordinary man. His stream of talk is perpetual; and
he does not talk from any desire of distinction, but because his
mind is full. He is the _only_ man whose common conversation
corresponds with the general fame he has in the world. Take him up
where you please, he is ready to meet you. No man of sense could
meet him by accident under a gateway to avoid a shower without being
convinced that he was the first man in England.”

MIRABEAU.

The career of Mirabeau more resembles a strange romance than a sober history. He was of a good family, but during his childhood and early manhood his father treated him like a brute. His very appearance was peculiar. His head was of enormous size, his body so much misshapen that his father, who persecuted him for his deformity, declared that he looked more like a monster than a human being. The whole of his early life presents a picture of dreariness and misery exceeding that of almost any other man who has risen to greatness. Several times he was imprisoned—once for three years and a half—by order of his unnatural parent. Finally he began to use his pen, and soon won general admiration. His father, having failed to crush him, now became reconciled, and allowed him to assume the family name, which he had not permitted before. By this time he had a wide experience of vice, and was deeply in debt. His struggles for several years were still severe.

But at length the great revolution came, and he found his true element. The powers of speech which had already been displayed to a limited extent, were now exercised in a noble field. The people soon recognized in him the qualities necessary for a leader, and elected him to the General Assembly of France. Here he was feared and respected by all. He had no party to support him, but worked alone, and often by the mere force of his genius bent the Assembly to his will. During his whole career there, he was not an extremist, and for a time before his death was engaged in upholding the crown and the cause of constitutional government against the party of anarchy and death. This lost him his unbounded popularity with the fickle populace of Paris, and they began to shout for his blood. He was charged in the Assembly with corruption, and treason to the cause of liberty. This only prepared the way for his triumph. The very tree was marked on which he was to be hung. But he did not quail before the storm. When he reached the hall, he found himself in the midst of determined enemies already drunk with blood, and with no friend who dared to speak on his behalf. But the mere force of eloquence prevailed. He spoke in words of such power that the noisy multitude was stilled, and the tide turned.

After this triumph he took part in every measure, and was really the guiding power of the state. The king leaned on him as the only stay of his reign, and the moderate of every party began to look to him as the hope of France. Sometimes he spoke five times in one day, and at the sound of his magical voice the anarchical Assembly was hushed into reverence and submission. But his exertions were beyond his strength. At last he was prostrated. Every hour the king sent to enquire of his health, and bulletins of his state were posted in the streets. It seemed as if the destiny of France was to be decided in his sick chamber. He died, and the whole nation mourned, as well it might, for no other hand than his could hold back the reign of terror. It is indeed a problem whether that terrible tragedy would not have been prevented, if he had but lived a few months longer.

Some of the speeches of this remarkable man were recited, but in these he never attained his full power. A French writer well describes him:

“Mirabeau in the tribune was the most imposing of orators, an orator so consummate, that it is harder to say what he wanted than what he possessed.

“Mirabeau had a massive and square obesity of figure, thick lips, a forehead broad, bony, prominent; arched eyebrows, an eagle eye, cheeks flat, and somewhat fleshy, features full of pock holes and blotches, a voice of thunder, an enormous mass of hair, and the face of a lion.

“His manner as an orator is that of the great masters of antiquity, with an admirable energy of gesture, and a vehemence of diction which perhaps they had never reached.

“Mirabeau in his premeditated discourses was admirable. But what was he not in his extemporaneous effusions? His natural vehemence, of which he repressed the flights in his prepared speeches, broke down all barriers in his improvisations. A sort of nervous irritability gave then to his whole frame an almost preternatural animation and life. His breast dilated with an impetuous breathing. His lion face became wrinkled and contorted. His eyes shot forth flame. He roared, he stamped, he shook the fierce mass of his hair, all whitened with foam; he trod the tribune with the supreme authority of a master, and the imperial air of a king. What an interesting spectacle to behold him, momently, erect and exalt himself under the pressure of obstacle! To see him display the pride of his commanding brow! To see him, like the ancient orator, when, with all the power of his unchained eloquence, he was wont to sway, to and fro in the Forum, the agitated waves of the Roman multitude. Then would he throw by the measured notes of his declamation, habitually grave and solemn. Then would escape him broken exclamations, tones of thunder, and accents of heartrending and terrible pathos. He concealed with the flash and color of his rhetoric, the sinewy arguments of his dialectics. He transported the Assembly, because himself transported. And yet—so extraordinary was his force—he abandoned himself to the torrent of his eloquence, without wandering from his course; he mastered others by its sovereign sway, without losing for an instant his own self-control.”

PATRICK HENRY.

The fame of this great man cannot soon be surpassed. He not only produced a great impression at the time he spoke, but had an agency, by his eloquent words, in bringing about the most important changes. He was more than the mouthpiece of the American Revolution. He not merely interpreted the feelings of the mass of the nation to itself, but in a large degree originated the enthusiasm that led them through war to independence. It is certain that the aristocratic and powerful colony of Virginia would have occupied a far different place in the struggle for liberty, if it had been deprived of his almost irresistible influence. It is hard to speculate on what might have been the result if temporizing measures had carried the day, and the union of the colonies been interfered with by want of cordial sympathy. The political wisdom of Franklin, and the military skill and constancy of Washington, did not contribute more to final success than the bold councils and fervent utterances of the country lawyer who is the subject of our sketch.

Patrick Henry was born in Hanover county, Virginia, in May, 1736. In childhood he acquired the common elements of education, and some knowledge of Latin and mathematics, and was not the ignorant youth that some of his admirers delight in representing him. But he was exceedingly fond of hunting and fishing, and would often spend the hours in this way, that might have been devoted to more useful employment. But he became a great day dreamer, thus at once revealing and exercising the unbounded imagination he possessed. He loved to wander alone, that he might give full play to the visions and reveries that floated through his brain.

When about fourteen, he heard the celebrated Presbyterian minister, Samuel Davies. His eloquence was the most powerful that Henry had hitherto enjoyed, and awakened in him a spirit of emulation. All his life Henry delighted to do him honor, and attributed the bent of his own mind to oratory and a large measure of his success to this man.

In business, the future statesman was uniformly most unsuccessful. He twice failed as a storekeeper, and once as a farmer. But all this time he was really studying for his future profession. He was fond of talk, and by indulging in it freely doubtless improved his power of language. He would relate long stories, and do it so well that those who thronged his counter took as little note of time as he did, and yielded their hearts as fully to him as larger audiences did afterward.