DEBATE.

WHICH DOES THE MOST TO MAKE THE ORATOR-Knowledge, NATURE, OR ART?

Eleven Speakers.

[By kind permission of Messrs. LONGMAN & Co.]

Opener. THE question which I have had the honour to propose cannot fail to be both interesting and instructive to us. I seek to know whether the Orator owes his power and success to his Knowledge, to his Natural genius, or to his study of the Art of Speech? I am of opinion that the Orator owes most to Nature. The gift of speech is as much a talent as the gift of music or any other talent with which a man is born. Experience is the ground on which I build my belief. How often do you see a man who knows a subject thoroughly, and yet cannot say five consecutive words upon it: whilst, on the other hand, how frequently do you find that a man, only slightly versed in the same topic, will make you a striking speech upon it, full of wit, grace, and eloquence! That the power of speech is a gift of Nature, is proverbial: and, in my opinion, justly so; for observation continually shews us that even in early youth, when knowledge is scanty, the faculty is often strikingly developed; whilst in the maturity of manly age, when knowledge is full, and (as far as earth can make it so) complete, the faculty is frequently altogether absent. And as to Art: How very common and numerous are the instances where, after instructing a young man in elocution, till he has practised as long (and almost as painfully) as Demosthenes, he stammers and stutters so dreadfully if he have a sentence or two to say, that you feel quite a pain and pity for him; whilst, on the contrary, you continually find that men who have never been taught the Art of Speech at all, become accomplished and striking Orators! These instances seem to me quite sufficient to prove that Oratory is a natural, and not an acquired power.

Second Speaker. Our friend who has opened this debate, has spoken so very slightingly of the Art of speech, that I feel (although the humblest champion of the cause) obliged to venture a word or two in its defence. In my opinion it is Art to which the Orator is mainly indebted for his success. I take as an instance of the value of Art, the case of Demosthenes. This great Orator, the greatest that the world has ever seen, was originally so vile a speaker, that his audiences

hissed him from their presence. Now he had genius, for a greater mind never existed: and Knowledge, for he had been instructed by the wisest philosophers: but being deficient in Art, he was so graceless and unpleasing that men would not listen to him. When, however, he devoted himself to the study of the Art, he conquered his defects, and won not merely contemporary applause (which is the total meed of most orators), but the applause and admiration of the whole world until now.

Third Speaker. Sir, I am of opinon that it is neither to Nature nor to Art that the success of an Orator is owing, but to Knowledge. Take three different men; a man of plain practical Knowledge, a man of lofty Genius, and a man of consummate Art; and give them a subject to debate. You will find, that whilst the man of Genius thrills and delights you with his eloquence, whilst the man of Art enchants you with his elegance of action and delivery, the man of Knowledge is the one who in the end convinces you. Genius without Knowledge is dazzling, but useless; Art without Knowledge is empty and vain; but Knowledge without either Art or Genius, can still be of service to truth, and still acquire respect from all men.

Fourth Speaker. Sir, I really cannot understand how the gentleman who spoke before the last speaker can fancy that Art is superior to Nature in Oratory. Why, what is Art? Simply the copy of nature. What is great, effective, elegant, striking, and graceful in natural speech has been formed into a code by observant men, and this is the derivation of the art of Oratory! Now, surely, the original must be greater than the imitation! Surely the Genius must be greater than the Art! Look to the rules of the Art themselves, and you will find the admission there. For what is the first maxim of the Elocution Teacher? “Be natural;” “Study nature; "Be in earnest." What is this but a direct admission that Nature is the great Orator, after all, and that Genius is greater than Art, and is its model? This is all I have to say, sir, on the subject.

Fifth Speaker. Sir, Power is of no value without impetus. A Steam Engine may be of great strength; but without fuel it is worthless, and without guidance it can do no work. Just in like manner, a man of genius is useless without Knowledge, and ineffective without Art. Mere greatness is nothing, and can do nothing; it is like a perfect lamp unfilled and untrimmed. Now, it is very difficult to say whether we are most indebted for the light to the lamp, to the oil, or to the

trimming. Without the oil the lamp could not be lighted; without the lamp the oil would be of no service; and without the trimming, the lamp would burn so ill as to be nearly useless, and very disagreeable. As I must choose between the three sources of the Orator's success, I give my vote for Knowledge. For as it is the oil which is the real source of light, no matter what the lamp may be, so it is Knowledge that is the true illuminator of speech, no matter who may be the

utterer.

Sixth Speaker. I think it is Rousseau who says that Oratory requires such a combination of qualities that he wonders how any man dares to open his mouth in public. "Combination of qualities:" mark that phrase! qualités, not acquirements, are needed by the Orator: qualities of genius, not qualities communicated by knowledge. Insight, judgment, comparison, method, boldness, and constructiveness; these are the qualities on which a man depends in Oratory; and these, you will observe, are all born gifts, and not acquired faculties. It follows, therefore, that to Genius, or Nature, the Orator is mainly indebted. Genius without Art will make a man a better speaker than Art without Genius: for Genius will always give eloquence, whilst Art at the most can only give fluency. Genius is the possession of mental power: Art is only the means of its development. Genius is the stream, and Art the channel: it needs no logic to prove that Genius must be the greater of the two: for as a stream will make itself a channel, whatever may obstruct it, so Genius will find for itself a means of development, however great and numerous may be the difficulties in its way.

Seventh Speaker. Sir, I am inclined to think that a very important cause of an Orator's success has been hitherto quite overlooked. I think that to confidence a speaker is very deeply indebted for his triumphs. Many a man who possesses all the other sources of power referred to- Genius, Knowledge, and the theory of Art is so abashed and confused when he begins to speak, that, with all his talent, his attempts end in failure; whilst, on the contrary, you often find that a man who possesses this quality of confidence succeeds in winning the attention and applause of his audience, although he is neither a man of Genius, nor of Knowledge, nor of Taste. Now, I presume, that this quality of confidence is a gift of nature, a peculiarity of constitution. Some men are naturally timid, others naturally brave: the timid ones, of course, will be nervous, apprehensive, and abashed when they address an audience; whilst the brave ones will be bold and courageous.

Oratory, then, depends mainly on nature, I believe as a man is naturally constituted, so will he be able, or unable to speak.

Eighth Speaker. The last speaker has told us, sir, that it is to confidence, and to mental and physical constitution, that the Orator owes most of his success: let me say a few words to you on this point. Now I think that confidence is not a gift of nature at all, and has nothing whatever to do with man's constitution. Confidence depends partly on Knowledge, and partly on Practice, or Art. Many men are nervous because they fear that they shall break down: this must result from a want of confidence in their knowledge. How can they fear failure, if they knew they could prove the truth of what they have to say? But I think that the chief cause of nervousness in speaking is want of practice. The voice sounds strangely to a young speaker: he does not know it: the many faces he sees before him, all looking at him, cause his bewilderment: memory fails him, he becomes perplexed, forgetful, and incoherent: hence he fails. But practice remedies all this. He gets used to the sound of his voice, and to the attention of his auditors: he feels less trepidation every time he speaks, his memory improves, and gathers strength by exercise: his thoughts arise more continuously and more regularly, and he becomes able at length to utter his thoughts with certainty and effect. The debt he owes to Art is a very great one, even in a physical point of view. Art improves, strengthens, and tunes his voice; drills his body into proper postures; gives elegance to his action and dignity to his appearance; and corrects the faults of his utterance.

Ninth Speaker. Sir, I think that success in Oratory depends more upon moral character than upon Genius, Knowledge, or Art. The man of truth, of rectitude, and of goodness, is the greatest Orator after all. For moral goodness gives consciousness of right; consciousness gives earnestness; earnestness gives eloquence; and eloquence never fails to find striking language and impressive action. How was it that the oratory of Paul made Felix tremble? Not because the apostle was an orator "stamped by nature," as one gentleman said; for he was a mean-looking, and, I believe, deformed man; but because he spoke with the fervour and earnestness which always attend conviction, of "righteousness and the world to come." There was no Genius in this: there was no Art in it: but it was simply the moral conviction of a truearted man flashing out of his soul. And thus you will ays find that earnest and good men are eloquent. men.

I do not say "fluent;" fluency is not eloquence, by any means: fluency belongs to words, eloquence to thought. Give a man a subject which engages his whole heart and soul, and whether he be educated or uneducated, a genius or an artist, a man of universal knowledge, or a man of limited experience, you will see that he will speak well and forcibly and effectively upon that subject whenever he treats of it. I have a far greater faith in moral conviction than in intellectual strength, stores of knowledge, or artistical perfection: the Orator who speaks from the heart is the only true Orator: the only Orator whose fame will really last. With these sentiments. Sir, I must be excused from giving a vote upon this question, Tenth Speaker. Sir, with all due respect to the gentleman who cited Demosthenes as a proof of the value of Art in Oratory, I must be allowed to express my opinion that the great Orator referred to owed less to Art than we (some of us) imagine. Art led him to conquer many natural defects and difficulties but it was the perception and conviction of the Genius within him, that induced him to study Art as he did. Unless it can be shewn that the same amount of study would make a man a Demosthenes, it must be admitted that Demosthenes was an Orator naturally superior to other men ; and consequently that on Nature, more than Art, oratorical success depends. When he said, "LET US MARCH AGAINST PHILIP LET US CONQUER OR DIE," it was not the blazing eye, not the energetic arm, not the loud voice, not the determined manner of the speaker that led the vast crowd he addressed to echo his appeal: it was the sentiment, the truth he uttered, that aroused his auditors. His soul saw and spoke to their souls: and the manner was nothing, as compared with the matter of his speech. Upon Nature, therefore, acting upon knowledge, the success of the Orator seems entirely to depend. These, sir, are my opinons on this subject.

Eleventh Speaker. Sir, it appears to me that Demosthenes himself opposes the arguments of his defenders and champions. They maintain that success in Oratory depends on genius; he on the contrary asserts that it depends on Art. What is the first requisite in an Orator? he was asked. Action, was his reply. What the second? Action. What the third? Action. By Action he here means Elocution, or the Art of delivery. If, then, it is the opinion of the greatest master of speech ever known, that Art does more for the Orator than Nature, how can we suppose or contend that Nature is superior to Art? To Art, therefore, I give the highest place. Taught by Art, the student will gather wisdom, enlarge his mind,