Knowledge thus acquired and opinions thus formed were, indeed, likely to be, in some respects, defective.Propositions which are advanced in discourse generally result from a partial view of the question, and cannot be kept under examination long enough to be corrected.Men of great conversational powers almost universally practise a sort of lively sophistry and exaggeration, which deceives, for the moment, both themselves and their auditors.Thus we see doctrines, which cannot bear a close inspection, triumph perpetually in drawing-rooms, in debating societies, and even in legislative or judicial assemblies.To the conversational education of the Athenians I am inclined to attribute the great looseness of reasoning which is remarkable in most of their scientific writings.Even the most illogical of modern writers would stand perfectly aghast at the puerile fallacies which seem to have deluded some of the greatest men of antiquity.Sir Thomas Lethbridge would stare at the political economy of Xenophon; and the author of "Soirees de Petersbourg"would be ashamed of some of the metaphysical arguments of Plato.
But the very circumstances which retarded the growth of science were peculiarly favourable to the cultivation of eloquence.From the early habit of taking a share in animated discussion the intelligent student would derive that readiness of resource, that copiousness of language, and that knowledge of the temper and understanding of an audience, which are far more valuable to an orator than the greatest logical powers.
Horace has prettily compared poems to those paintings of which the effect varies as the spectator changes his stand.The same remark applies with at least equal justice to speeches.They must be read with the temper of those to whom they were addressed, or they must necessarily appear to offend against the laws of taste and reason; as the finest picture, seen in a light different from that for which it was designed, will appear fit only for a sign.This is perpetually forgotten by those who criticise oratory.Because they are reading at leisure, pausing at every line, reconsidering every argument, they forget that the hearers were hurried from point to point too rapidly to detect the fallacies through which they were conducted; that they had no time to disentangle sophisms, or to notice slight inaccuracies of expression; that elaborate excellence, either of reasoning or of language, would have been absolutely thrown away.To recur to the analogy of the sister art, these connoisseurs examine a panorama through a microscope, and quarrel with a scene-painter because he does not give to his work the exquisite finish of Gerard Dow.
Oratory is to be estimated on principles different from those which are applied to other productions.Truth is the object of philosophy and history.Truth is the object even of those works which are peculiarly called works of fiction, but which, in fact, bear the same relation to history which algebra bears to arithmetic.The merit of poetry, in its wildest forms, still consists in its truth,--truth conveyed to the understanding, not directly by the words, but circuitously by means of imaginative associations, which serve as its conductors.The object of oratory alone is not truth, but persuasion.The admiration of the multitude does not make Moore a greater poet than Coleridge, or Beattie a greater philosopher than Berkeley.But the criterion of eloquence is different.A speaker who exhausts the whole philosophy of a question, who displays every grace of style, yet produces no effect on his audience, may be a great essayist, a great statesman, a great master of composition; but he is not an orator.If he miss the mark, it makes no difference whether he have taken aim too high or too low.
The effect of the great ******* of the press in England has been, in a great measure, to destroy this distinction, and to leave among us little of what I call Oratory Proper.Our legislators, our candidates, on great occasions even our advocates, address themselves less to the audience than to the reporters.They think less of the few hearers than of the innumerable readers.
At Athens the case was different; there the only object of the speaker was immediate conviction and persuasion.He, therefore, who would justly appreciate the merit of the Grecian orators should place himself, as nearly as possible, in the situation of their auditors: he should divest himself of his modern feelings and acquirements, and make the prejudices and interests of the Athenian citizen his own.He who studies their works in this spirit will find that many of those things which, to an English reader, appear to be blemishes,--the frequent violation of those excellent rules of evidence by which our courts of law are regulated,--the introduction of extraneous matter,--the reference to considerations of political expediency in judicial investigations,--the assertions, without proof,--the passionate entreaties,--the furious invectives,--are really proofs of the prudence and address of the speakers.He must not dwell maliciously on arguments or phrases, but acquiesce in his first impressions.It requires repeated perusal and reflection to decide rightly on any other portion of literature.But with respect to works of which the merit depends on their instantaneous effect the most hasty judgment is likely to be best.
The history of eloquence at Athens is remarkable.From a very early period great speakers had flourished there.Pisistratus and Themistocles are said to have owed much of their influence to their talents for debate.We learn, with more certainty, that Pericles was distinguished by extraordinary oratorical powers.