noises. They went so far, in many instances, as to remove him by violence from the rostrum. During the first centuries of the christian era, the worshippers in christian temples were accustomed occasionally to make loud demonstrations of the pleasure or disgust with which their preacher affected them. But modern auditories do not make such emphatic expressions of their approbation or their dislike of the person, by whom they are addressed.

But besides the deliberative and the judicial orations of the Greeks and Romans, there was a third kind, the panegyrical. These were sometimes occupied with the praise of the gods, of departed heroes, of the fathers of the republic, and sometimes with important political discussions. After the downfall of republicanisin, they were devoted to the adulation of the divinity who presides over some public game, or to the praise of the game itself, or of the regent of the State, or to some other inferior purpose. There were also panegyrical orations delivered in honor of brave citizens who died for their country; there were some too, delivered in honor of private men, and called orationes funebres. When the orator endeavored to excite his hearers to an imitation of the men whom he extolled, or to the practice of the virtues which he recommended, his style of address resembled that of the judicial and deliberative orator, and partook therefore of the dramatic element. When he indulged in merely laudatory effusions, his style was akin to that of the lyric poet. When he narrated the exploits of departed worthies, he introduced into his composition some distinctive features of epic poetry.

It is evident that discourses from a christian pulpit are often in some respects analogous to the epic poem; for they often detail the truly poetical scenes of evangelical history. They have also an analogy to the lyric poem; for they often contain the outpourings of excited feeling, and merge the objective element into a subjective form. They have more of the lyrical character than the judicial and deliberative orators of the ancients; for they are pervaded by a deeper and stronger emotion. They have, however, not so much of the lyrical character as many of the panegyrical orations; for they must necessarily have more of a practical object, and aim at a more definite influence on the will. This aim to affect the voluntary principle gives to the sermon a likeness to the deliberative and judicial orations, and accordingly, a resemblance to the dialogue of the drama. Still, its resemblance to the drama is less than has been already ascribed to those orations. For the aim of the sermon is not so often to produce an immediate effect

1845.]

Usefulness of an Oration and Poem.

25

as a permanent one; not so often to influence the will at the instant, as to influence the whole character for all time. Hence it is not so exciting, and is not so passionate in its appeals, as those orations which are devoted to a single object, and which are of instantaneous interest. Moreover, the design of the preacher is not to be accomplished by a single discourse; he feels that he must produce his effect by a long series of sermons. This gives him more of a calm dispassionate air, than the orator can have whose whole success depends upon a single speech. An address from the pulpit, then, being less fervid than a deliberative or judicial oration of the ancients, produces a less obvious excitement among the hearers, and thus secures from them a less perceptible response. It is of course less decidedly analogous to the dialogue, but is not entirely devoid of this feature of dramatic poetry.1

5. Different degrees of attention paid by the Orator and the Poet, to the Subject-matter and to the Style of their compositions. The poet is inspired with the beauties of his subject. Being pleased himself, he expresses his pleasure with a genial freedom. He does not check his inspiration for the purpose of inquiring whether, or how far his readers will be interested in this or that figure of speech, but, if his own tastes are gratified with it, he uses it without hesitation. He writes as if he were independent of his fellow-men, and were actuated by some higher genius. He seems not to be constrained by this genius, but to be enlivened and inspired by it. There is no utilitarianism in his method of composition. Whenever and wherever he finds an object pleasing to the taste, he employs it; and does not, as a poet, inquire whether the object in its other relations be important or unimportant. It is very true that if a poem be written on a useful theme, the utility of the stanzas is associated in our minds with their beauty, and thus increases the pleasure which we derive from them. It also presents a new motive for the diligent study of the poem, and by our sharpened attention to it as a work of value, we may detect additional and otherwise hidden graces in it as a work of taste. Still the usefulness of the poem was not the chief and apparent design of its author. He regards, first of

It may be needless to state, that Prof. Schott's views of sacred eloquence, and indeed of inodern oratory in general, are derived from the tone and spirit of the German pulpit, and from the prevalent style of the orators under European despotisms.

all, the beautiful, or more properly the attractive, and makes every other consideration subordinate to that of taste. Hence the importance of the subject is with him secondary to the agreeable. ness of the delineation, and his own feelings, rather than those of other men, are the test of this agreeableness.

The orator, on the contrary, is not so independent of his fellow beings. He must persuade them, and therefore adapt his style to them; and many an explanatory or qualifying or amplifying phrase does he introduce, not for his own sake, but for that of his hearers or readers. His style therefore is not so free as the poet's. He designs to interest others in his subject, and hence avoids all those ornaments of language which attract attention to themselves, rather than to the practical aim of the discourse. With him, therefore, the pleasing is secondary to the useful. He does not neglect the tastefulness of description, he knows that the style must be attractive in order to secure a prolonged regard to the thought; but he introduces the beauties of form only as means to an end, and makes pleasure subservient to utility. A figure of speech, remarks Sauer, is with the poet a beautiful flower entwined into a lovely wreath, and exposed to the view of all who seek to be pleased; but with the orator, it is a ring in the chain by which he means to bind all who hear him. The eloquent writer endeavors to make his representations clear and precise, and thus to excite an intellectual interest in his mode of imparting truth. He also endeavors to avoid all allusions which may offend the sensibility to right and wrong, and thus to excite a moral interest in his writings. He endeavors, in the third place, to gratify the taste, and captivate the imagination and affections, and thus to excite an aesthetical interest in his style. All this he does of set purpose, but only so far as the persuasive influence of his discourse requires. He differs, then, from the poet, in making the usefulness of his subject more important than the attractiveness of its form; in making the influence of his words upon his readers a matter of deliberate design, of prominent regard; and in making this influence of his style subservient merely to the practical impression of his leading thoughts.

6. Regard paid by the Orator and the Poet to their personal Character and Relations.

As the object of the orator is to influence the will, he needs the confidence of his hearers. He cannot easily persuade them to

1845.]

Popular Respect for the Orator.

27

action, unless they are satisfied with his fitness to be their counsellor and monitor. Hence he must secure their respect for his talents and their trust in his virtue. The practical character of his address allows, and even requires him to pay this regard to his personal relations with his audience. But the poet has no such practical aim; he pours forth his emotions with actual and seeming freedom, and never concerns himself with questions in relation to his personal influence. His object being to gratify the taste, he is less dependent than the orator on the opinions which the community may entertain respecting him, and although he may, as a man, feel some solicitude for his good name, he must as a poet sacrifice this solicitude to the inspirations of his theme. One distinction, then, between eloquence and poetry is, that the one requires an author to shape his composition so as to recommend himself to his readers, as a man of talents and probity; while the other requires him to divest himself, while writing, of all references to the mode of ingratiating himself with the community.

It is necessary that an eloquent writer so construct his essay, as to win from those who peruse it a high esteem for his personal qualifications; for when we read a printed page, we instinctively associate the sentences and paragraphs with the character and even the person of their author. We imagine how he looks, speaks, and acts. It is still more necessary that one, who addresses us with the living voice, secure this confidence in his individual merits, especially when he endeavors to influence our will, and above all when he would persuade us to some important course of action. It is no light matter for a man to rise and claim our attention to his words, our belief in his statements, our compliance with his exhortations. He must possess and appear to possess many permanent excellences, or he cannot be entitled to make this demand upon our trains of thought, and upon our voluntary affections. He must appear to be capable of instructing us; else we shall look with distrust upon his reasonings. He must appear to be sincere and pure in his affections; else we shall guard ourselves against all sympathy with him. He must appear to be honest and benevolent in his purposes; else we shall not unite in his plans, nor conform to his solicitations.

But the query arises, how can the orator secure this deference for himself. In the first place, he sometimes finds that such deference is secured before he commences his address. By his whole intellectual and moral character, as it has been developed through

out his previous life, he has gained the confidence of men so much, as to meet with no obstructions in introducing his own thoughts into their minds, his own purposes into their wills. But in the second place, where he has not already obtained the confidence of those whom he addresses, he may often secure it by the structure of his speech and by the mode of his delivery. Certain forms of expression may attract or repel his hearers; encourage them to yield him their confidence, or to view him with distrust. He is not allowed to introduce irrelevant beauties into his composition, for the sake of concealing the real deformities of his subject. He is not permitted to pay compliments to his hearers, to flatter them, to extol such of their opinions or practices as cannot be praised either justly or appropriately. He is not authorized to take any advantage of the weaknesses, still less of the foibles of his audience, for the purpose of commending a project which he cannot justify by sound argument. All such tricks of oratory are foreign from true eloquence. We have already defined eloquence, as a well proportioned address to the intellect, affections, and will. Therefore, if a project be recommended without an adequate appeal to the reason and judgment, if it be so presented as to enlist only the blind passions in its behalf, then there is no proper proportion in the address, and of course there is no pure eloquence. The nature of an oration requires, that the orator excite the interest of his hearers in himself, only so far as to increase their interest in his theme; that he appear to them, in the first place, worthy of addressing them in general, and, in the second place, worthy of addressing them on the particular truths to which his oration is devoted; that he appear to be a good and worthy organ of a good and worthy subject. He cannot be truly eloquent, unless his whole manner be in fact and in appearance designed for the welfare of man.

He may excite an intellectual interest in his character. If he be the master of his subject, and capable of presenting it in lucid diction, he will often manifest a noble confidence in himself, which will gain by sympathy the confidence of others. When he has not penetrated into the depths of his theme, and has obtained no vivid conceptions of it, he will often manifest a self-distrust and a painful misgiving, which will prevent his hearers from relying on his statements. He may also excite a moral interest in his character. He may do this by manifesting a keen sensibility to all the motives of virtue, a lively regard to the happiness of the race, a high veneration for justice and religion. His whole