Слике страница
PDF
ePub

glory of Athens. It is this which Longinus, in his comparison of Demosthenes and Hyperides, declares to outweigh a thousand minor excellencies, and compensate for a thousand trifling defects. In short, the Treatise of the Sublime, seems to have been as much formed upon the practice of Demosthenes, as the rules of the Epopee were drawn from the models presented by the Iliad and the Odyssey; and the emotion with which we read his orations, is an experimental proof to us, that, as that justly celebrated critic affirms, the effect of the highest order of speaking is not persuasion only, but rapture and ecstacy.* An English reader may form some, though certainly not an adequate idea of the style of Demosthenes, by imagining a union of the lofty declamation of Lord Chatham, with the close, business-like, vehement and rapid debating of Fox.

In the comparisons which we have seen drawn by modern critics, between this matchless orator and Cicero, the two qualities mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but especially the last, are either entirely overlooked, or overlaid with a heap of insignificant generalities. What is most insisted on, is the vehemence and force of Demosthenes, and hence the idea which the generality of readers have conceived of Ciceronian eloquence is, that it is something extremely soft, agreeable, and polished, flowing equally on through sounding periods and a rich and rather exuberant diction, but never hurried away by the impetuosity of passion, or broken by it into irregularities and abruptness. But this is a mistake. We have seen from Cicero's own account of himself, that he was naturally inclined to an excessive violence of manner, and throughout all his orations, wherever the occasion is fitted to excite it, there are striking manifestations of this propensity. His declamation against Piso is fully as vehement, and if possible, more vituperative than any of the Greek orators. There is no term of reprobation-no form of expression which can convey an idea of disgust, contempt, indignation and hatred, but is put in requisition by him. The same thing may be said of the second Philippic, which, we may here remark, is the most Demosthenian of all his speeches. So too in the latter part of the defence of Milo, he rises into as passionate and powerful declamation as it is possible to conceive. He wreaks the "hoarded vengeance" of years of hostility, mortification and suffering upon the memory of Clodius. He pours out the vials of wrath and bitterness upon his accursed tomb. You

[blocks in formation]

+ Concinnus helluo, immanissimum et fædissimum monstrum, admissarius, asinus, furunculus, epicurus ex harâ productus-scelus, pestis, labes, furia, furcifer, pecus et putida caro, gladiator, &c. &c.

agree with the orator heartily in his opinion that it was a heroic exploit-a service for which a citizen might justly claim a statue, to rid society of such a pest, and your only wonder is how Milo could have been arraigned as a murderer with so much formality and seriousness. The same thing may be said of the orations against Verres, especially the last-of the first against Cataline, &c. &c. In short, there is nothing in the strictly judicial, or forensic eloquence of Demosthenes that surpasses or even equals in point of force, the master-pieces of the Roman orator. But his style is always more severe-in other words, more Attic-and the sublimity of his speeches from the Bema, are not rivalled by any of Cicero's harangues, either in the Senate or from the Rostra. Still the difference between them seems to result more from moral than intellectual characteristics-from taste and temper, and opinion, rather than from talent. Demosthenes is all force and sublimity. Cicero adds to these qualities others that, however rare and beautiful in themselves, still do not perfectly suit with the former, and thus weaken their effect. Instead of speaking with an eye single to the subject under discussion, he sometimes draws off the attention of his hearers to matters not necessarily connected with it. The Philosopher and even the Rhetorician, appear in him, united with, and occasionally perhaps predominating over the politician. He deals too freely in common places. Thus, in the oration for Milo, in the midst of that strain of irresistible eloquence, already alluded to, he has a dissertation about the order of Divine Providence, exceedingly beautiful, but to our tastes somewhat out of place.* In a word, there is a strong dash of the panegyrical style in his speaking, and the orator betrays too much his secret ambition, not only to carry his point, but to be considered as a fine speaker-not only to triumph over Hortensius or Sulpicius, but to rival Demosthenes, and to place his country upon a level with Athens in point of eloquence.

It is a remark of Plutarch that the characters of these two great men appear in their style of speaking—the one more remarkable for pride, the other for vanity-the one harsh, gloomy and morose-the other amiable, cheerful and sportive. The remark is quite just and may be generalized. What is it that distinguishes eloquent from able speaking-even supposing the latter to exist in its utmost splendor and perfection? Pectus estit is the soul-the same lively sensibility that in some men takes the shape of poetry-the same elevation of sentiment, which, when it appears in action, creates a hero. A similar remark may be made about the views of the orator. We have already said

C. 30-31:

enough on this subject in relation to Demosthenes, and shown how strictly he regarded eloquence in the light of a mere instrument. Cicero's idea of it seems to have been somewhat different. He is said to have studied oratory, it is true, as a means of political aggrandizement-but he, also, studied it as a branch of a finished education, and as essential to an accomplished character. He thought it, as we have said, a fine thing, especially in a Roman. So far it was an end to be pursued for its own sake, and this speculative notion of his art had a decided effect upon his manner of speaking, giving it in a slight degree a scholas tic and artificial air. He even goes so far sometimes, in his harangues, as to indulge in concetti, which would seem to be altogether at variance with the exquisite purity of his taste in all his other writings. We do not now allude to the endless punning upon the name of Verres, which he himself admits to be rather frigid-but in graver moods, he is occasionally betrayed into the same fault by a sportive and wanton genius revelling, as it were, and rioting in its own inexhaustible abundance. Thus, in the fifth oration of the second action against Verres (c. 35) he is declaiming vehemently about some enormities of that monster, and breaks forth into a string of exclamations-O tempus miserum! O casum illum ! O istius nequitiam! &c. Why? Una atque eadem nox erat quâ prætor, amoris turpissimi flamma, ac classis Populi Romani prædonum incendio conflagrabat! However, such decided blemishes as these are comparatively few, and do not appear in his later orations (which are certainly his best) but the artificial structure of his periods, or what Lord Monboddo calls concinnity, is a more obtrusive and prevailing fault with him. It is worthy of remark that all the Greek critics censure an excess in this particular as a notable vice of style in the business speech. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, declares that it is inconsistent with passion, as it certainly is-but it is a striking proof of the fastidiousness of Greek taste that the critic just mentioned finds fault, even with Demosthenes, upon this score, and what is still more wonderful, Theophrastus charges with it the proverbially chaste and Attic Lysias.†

*

Supposing, however, the execution of the details, as perfect as possible, the very blending together of two styles so different as those of the panegyrical and the agonistic or business speech is a defect. As there is a connexion, and so to speak, consanguinity, between all the arts, precisely the same principles of taste are found to run through them, and to govern the decisions of connoisseurs. Beauty and sublimity are in a picture

* Indic. de Isocr. c. 12.

+ Apud. Dion. Halicar. de Lysia. c 12.

or a statue precisely what they are in a poem, or an oration.Accordingly, no description which we could give of the manner and the merit of Demosthenes, as compared with those of Cicero, could afford so just and lively a conception of them to a mere English reader, as the remarks of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in reference to the two styles in painting, called the grand and the ornamental, and the effect of a mixture or composition of both. For Raphael substitute Demosthenes, and it presents a perfect picture of the austere simplicity and grandeur of his manner: but it would be degrading Cicero to talk of him with Tintoret or Paolo Veronese, or even with Corregio, though he belongs to a somewhat similar class.

We will quote some of his remarks concerning the grand style.

After many observations upon its general character, and the means of attaining to excellence in it, he goes on to say

"The usual and most dangerous error is on the side of minuteness, and therefore, I think, caution most necessary where most have failed. The general idea constitutes real excellence. All smaller things, however perfect in their way, are to be sacrificed, without mercy, to the greater. The painter will not inquire what things may be admitted without censure; he will not think it enough to shew that they may be there; he will shew that they must be there; that their absence would render his picture maimed and defective.

*

*

*

"Thus figures must have a ground whereon to stand; they must be clothed; there must be a back-ground; there must be light and shadow; but none of these ought to appear to have taken up any part of the artist's attention. They should be so managed as not even to catch that of the spectator. We know well enough when we analyze a piece, the difficulty and the subtilty with which an artist adjusts the background, drapery and masses of light; we know that a considerable part of the grace and effect of his picture depends upon them; but this art is so much concealed, even to a judicious eye, that no remains of any of these subordinate parts occur to the memory when the picture is not preThe great end of the artist is to strike the imagination. The painter, therefore, is to make no ostentation of the means by which this is done; the spectator is only to feel the result in his bosom. An inferior artist is unwilling that any part of his industry should be lost upon the spectator. He takes as much pains to discover, as the greater artist does to conceal, the marks of his subordinate assiduity. In works of the lower kind, every thing appears studied and encumbered; it is all boast ful art and open affectation. The ignorant often part from such pictures, with wonder in their mouths and indifference in their hearts.Discourses, vol. i. p. 82.

sent.

The same principles govern even the colouring

[ocr errors]

"To give a general air of grandeur at first view, all trifling or artful play of little lights, or an attention to a variety of tints is to be avoided;

a quietness and simplicity must reign over the whole work; to which a breadth of uniform and simple colour will very much contribute. Grandeur of effect is produced by two different ways. One is by reducing the colours to little more than chiaro oscuro, which was often the practice of the Bolognian schools; and the others, by making the colours very distinct and forcible, such as we see in those of Rome and Florence; but still the presiding principle of both these manners is simplicity," &c.ibid. p. 89.

His remarks upon the drapery, and his comparison of the ornamental and the grand style in a subsequent part of his work, are equally apposite and striking.

We have never read in any book, either ancient or modern, so good a description of the style of Demosthenes, which is, in eloquence, precisely what the gusto grande of Raffaelle is in painting. The inferiority of Cicero, we repeat it, appears to us to consist not in never rising to this style, but in mixing with it the ornamental and showy.*

But while we admit that in simplicity, earnestness and directness, the orations of Cicero (in the Senate and the Comitia) are in erior to the masterpieces of Demosthenes, we do not mean to call in question the superiority of the Roman over every other orator. Besides, in all the other essentials of able and even eloquent speaking, he is quite equal, in many superior to the Greek, and, perhaps his inferiority in the points just mentioned, may be, in some degree, accounted for by adventitious or extrinsic circumstances. In short, Demosthenes had several advantages over Cicero.

1. One of the old philosophers used to thank the gods for three things, of which two were, that he was born a Greek, and not a Barbarian-an Athenian, and not a Theban or a Lacedæmonian. Demosthenes enjoyed these privileges, and great, indeed, they were. He was of that peculiar race-that chosen people—to whom the image of ideal beauty was first revealed, and who cherished it ever as the highest, and holiest, and divinest of things, with a devotion in which it is hard to tell whether deep love, or just and exquisite discernment predominated. His genius was inspired and his taste disciplined by the Attie muse-ή μεν Αττική μουσα καὶ ἀρχαία καὶ αὐτόχθων—which was only another name for unborrowed and unblemished excellence in every art that addresses itself to an elegant imagination, and every science that tasks the powers of a subtile intelligence-in sculpture and statuary, in music and painting and architecture-in all the varieties of poetry and eloquence-in geometry and me

* Cf. Orator. c. 27. Isocrates Ελλένης εγκωμιον.

« ПретходнаНастави »