QUESTION:

18 Modern equal to Ancient Oratory?

THIS question resolves itself into two distinct considerations: I. Whether modern is equal to ancient Oratory in Style? and II. Whether it is equal in Aim and Effect?

As to Style (which includes all that is meant by composition) it may be said by the favourers of ancient Oratory, that nothing of modern times equals the style of Demosthenes, Eschines, and Cicero. The simplicity, the grandeur, the dignity, the power, the intellectual and moral force of these great orators, are altogether without parallel in modern ages. The orations of Eschines and Demosthenes "On the Crown," and the speeches of Cicero for Milo, may be instanced as containing the most perfect specimens of oratorical style that the world possesses. Demosthenes, for bold simplicity of thought, Eschines, for energetic statement and strength of denunciation, and Cicero for his exquisitely lucid, picturesque, and earnest style, are (it may be said) quite unrivalled by any subsequent orators.

In comparison with these great speakers as to style, it may be asserted that amongst modern orators, speakers are to be found who are as great in some separate qualities, if not in all. Thus it may be maintained, for instance, that Lord Chatham was as dignified and earnest as Demosthenes, that Fox was as simple and massive, and that Burke was as vehement and manly. So, also, it may be argued that Sheridan was as pointed and sarcastic as Cicero; Curran as lofty and dignified; Brougham as crushing and severe; Bossuet as impressive; and Canning as felicitous in illustration and argument. Granting, therefore, that no single modern orator is alone as great as either of the speakers referred to, it may be safely said, that they separately exhibit the same qualities and excellences of style.

It may be further said, on behalf of modern Oratory in general, that in richness of illustration and beauty of style (by beauty is here meant appropriateness of imagery, and elegance of language), the modern Orators far surpass their great progenitors. The vast accumulations of knowledge and the incalulable produce of new mines of thought which have been gathered together in modern times, have given to our Orators resources of reference, illustration, and proof which the Orators of old were entirely without. If a speech of Demosthenes' or Cicero's be perused by the side of a

speech of Brougham's or Macaulay's, it will be seen at once that where the olden Orator was obliged to appeal to abstract reason, the modern Orator is enabled to refer triumphantly to irresistible facts, in support of his position. As to aim and effect, it may be said by the favourers of ancient Oratory that the endeavours of Demosthenes to rouse effeminate Greece against the invader of her freedom, and the unceasing efforts of Cicero to keep inviolate the rights and privileges of his fellow-countrymen, are aims, as high, if not higher, than any seen in modern times. The effect these Orators produced is seen not merely in the applause and success which they immediately experienced, but in the intelligible and striking fact that they have remained the acknowledged masters and models of speech from their day to our own.

The favourers of modern Oratory may assert, on the other hand, that our own speakers have aimed higher and done more. They may point triumphantly to the efforts of Brougham to exterminate the slave trade; of Pitt, to procure the honour and independence of his country; of Chalmers, to connect, and mutually prove, natural and revealed religion; of Grattan, to demand right and justice for his injured nation; of Romilly, to reform our barbarous laws; and of Sheridan to keep pure the administration of justice.

A striking result in favour of Modern Oratory,

may be obtained by comparing the celebrated Oration of Cicero against Verres, with Sheridan's Invective against Warren Hastings. Cicero declaims against Verres because he has infringed the rights of citizenship, the peculiar privileges of the Roman State. His great point against the culprit is, not that he has condemned a Roman citizen to death, but to death like a slave. He calls on the Senate to chastise, not the cruelty, not the injustice, not the treason, of Verres, but his contempt and insolence. In a word, he speaks for Privilege and Pride.

But Sheridan, in his denunciation of Hastings, takes far loftier ground. Spurning the arbitrary distinctions of "citizen " and "slave," he takes his stand on the broad field of humanity, and demands equality of rights for all who bear the human form. He ranks the man above the citizen, and so shows himself the nobler Orator.

See BROUGHAM'S ESSAY ON THE ELOQUENCE OF THE ANCIENTS.-COLLECTED WORKS, vol. iv. SHERIDAN'S PANEGYRIC ON DEMOSTHENES. WHATELY'S RHETORIC.

HUME'S ESSAY ON ELOQUENCE.

QUESTION:

Is the Character of Napoleon Bonaparte to be admired?

No character being absolutely bad or good, we can only arrive at judgment of character by striking a balance between the good qualities and the bad ones; this must, therefore, be done in the case before us.

The points to be admired in Bonaparte's cha

racter are

I. His clear, keen, vigorous intellect.

This enabled him to see the position of France at the time of the Revolution, to profit by the emergency, and to raise upon the ruins of Faction, a strong and popular throne. It is seen in his choice of generals and statesmen, in his manner of disposing a field of battle, in his military manoeuvres, in his political government, in the celebrated Code Napoléon, in the rapidity of his conceptions, and the inexhaustibleness of his inventions.

II. His energy of purpose and action.

There was no trifling or wavering in him; he