208 QUESTION X. Which does the most to make the Orator Knowledge, Nature, or Art? OPENER. Sir, Oratory has done so much for the cause of human progress and enlightenment, and the masters of Oratory have always been held so high in the world, that 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? Decision upon this point will clearly be of use to us; for, as we decide, so we shall act. -- I am of opinion that the Orator owes most to Nature. I think 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 shows 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 P humblest champion of the cause) I must 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. The next greatest Orator we know of- Cicero is another example of the truth of my argument. His devotion to the Art is so well known as to need no evidence in proof- the compilation of his great work De Oratore is evidence enough, at all events. And how wonderful was his success! Other instances as striking, if not so illustrious, might be cited without end, were it necessary: but these will suffice. They will suffice to show you that as oratory is most successful when the Art of oratory is most cultivated, it must be to Art that the success is mainly owing. THIRD SPEAKER.— - Sir, I am of opinion that it is neither to Nature nor to Art that the success of an Orator is owing — but to Knowledge. Were the object of oratory to astonish and dazzle the hearer with fine figures of rhetoric, and graceful streams or overpowering torrents of thought, then I might accord the palm to Genius. Or were the object of human speech to delight the ear with mellifluous cadences, and charm the eye with pleasing action and expression, then I should say that the power of oratory is in Art. But these are not the ends which oratory has in view: they are only the means. The sole proper object of all oratory is truth-persuasion conviction. He therefore who is master of his subject — who has the most thorough Knowledge of it — must be the best because the most effective speaker, after all. - Take these different men a man of plain practical Knowledge-a man of lofty Geniusand 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, without utility; 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. How often does it happen that in a debate speakers of great genius and power declaim in vain, whilst a stammering, hesitating, awkward man of fact convinces in a moment! It is quite true that Genius sometimes triumphs over Knowledge, and makes the worse appear the better reason; but the triumph is short-lived: the fallacy is soon exposed, and Genius is laughed at or despised: but Knowledge oftener triumphs over Genius, and always in the nature of things, keeps its ground. These, Sir, are my views upon this subject. 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" 66 Study nature" |