1845.]

Difference between Prose and Poetry.

19

of the prosaic writer are less highly excited than are those of the poet, and his style is less distinctively influenced by them. The imagination is employed in prose for the purpose of illustrating the judgment expressed; it is checked as soon as it has reflected light upon the thought. It is regarded simply as a means subservient to a more important end. It is employed by the poet for the sake of its aesthetical worth, and of the pleasure imparted by it. The writer of prose expresses the convictions of his understanding; the poet expresses ideas of the reason. The objects presented by the former are therefore strictly defined, measured and limited; the favorite objects of the latter are immeasurable and illimitable. Ideas, however, are not presented by the poet in an abstract form; they are combined with some sensible representation. They are made tangible and invested with a living reality. The idea is converted into an ideal. The prose writer represents objects as he finds them, the poet makes new combinations of ideas, is in a sense a creator; hence he is called nomins. The writer of prose adheres, in the arrangement of his thoughts, to the logical order suggested by his subject. He endeavors to present his theme in its various divisions and subdivisions, and to accommodate all his statements to the capacities of his readers. But the poet so adjusts his ideas as to present a single pleasing image to the mind. He conforms to his own inspired emotions, rather than to the mental necessities of other men. In describing an historical event, he does not, like the prose writer, follow the order of time, and of cause and effect, but plunges at once in mediam rem, and details the essential circumstances of the history, wherever he can do it with the least constraint and stiffness ; nor does he hesitate to beautify and to idealize the reality, whenever his feelings prompt him to deviate from literal exactHe gives the general impression of the scene, without being particularly accurate in delineating its minute characteristics. As all language is a transcript of the inner man, and as prose and poetry are prompted by very dissimilar states of the mind, so the words selected by the poet are different from those selected by the writer of prose. The former will prefer a figurative term to a literal one, where the latter will have an opposite preference. The former will choose bold expressions, new phrases, peculiar constructions, where the latter will adopt a more humble and familiar mode of speech. The poet delights in metre, in rhyme, while the orator is content with a certain numerus of style, and the prosaic essayist, historian or philosopher confines himself to

ness.

the easiest and simplest flow of language. The matter of a composition must determine the form of it, and as the object of the poet is to please, he must select such a class of words as will not appear hackneyed or tame or unmusical. His style must be free and unfettered, hence his license in the use of words. Po. etry may be defined the representation, in language, of that which is adapted to gratify the taste. Now a writer must be, and appear to be himself pleased with an object, in order to make that object pleasing to others. Hence the rules relating to the poet's selection and arrangement of thoughts and words, are less objective and more subjective than are the rules for the prose writer and the orator.

§3. Definition of Eloquence.

The object of prose, in its more extensive acceptation, is to instruct the intellect or to move the will. When it is adapted to the former purpose, it is called prose, in the more proper and narrow meaning of the word; when it is adapted to the latter purpose it is called eloquence. Eloquence implies, first, that a definite object be presented to the mind of the person addressed; secondly, that his inclination be excited to secure that object; thirdly, that he be convinced of the fitness of that object to gratify the excited inclination; and fourthly, that he be convinced of his ability to attain the end for which his desire has been aroused. In order to stimulate this desire, it is necessary to present the object vividly before the mind; and for this purpose to employ the imagination more than it is employed in the simple prosaic style. If we would move the will we must previously arouse the affections, and this also requires a more vigorous exercise of the imagination than is appropriate to the didactic prose. It requires, however, that the imagination be subsidiary to the excitement of volition, and that in eloquence it have a less predominant sway than it has in poetry. Simple prose being addressed to the intellect, and poetry being addressed to the imagination and feeling, eloquence is addressed to the three united, and that for the purpose of affecting a fourth power, the will. In prose the imagination is employed for the sake of illustration; in poetry for the sake of imparting pleasure and enlivening the feelings; in elo

The Romans often denominated a man disertus, who could speak perspicuously, and fluently, so as to satisfy common men; but they called the man cloquens who could captivate his hearers and influence their wills. The Germans make a similar distinction between Wohlredenheit and Beredsamkeit.

1845.]

64

Definition of Eloquence.

21

quence, for the sake, ultimately, of persuading to voluntary action. Eloquence presupposes the address to the intellect, to the imagination, and to the passions, but differs from prose and poetry in its ultimate aim; in making each and all of the above named faculties subordinate to that of voluntary action. It is, in its nature, intermediate between prose and poetry, and unites the perspicuity, the definiteness, the logical argument of the former, with the vividness, exuberance, and imaginative spirit of the latter. It combines these qualities in one harmonious whole, as means to a higher end. The definition of eloquence is therefore the following: Such an exhibition, in connected discourse, of the orator's thoughts, as is adapted to determine the human will by means of a suitably proportioned, a symmetrical appeal to the understanding and the reason on the one hand, and to the imagination and the feeling on the other." There may be eloquence, it is true, in a dialogue, as well as in a connected oration, but the latter is the more usually selected as the form for appeals to the will, and is the better fitted for such a rapid and vigorous flow of sentiment as is essential to the deepest impression on the voluntary power. It is necessary to specify, that the thoughts are exhibited in discourse; thereby we may avoid the objection which Quintilian makes to Cicero's statement, that eloquence is the art of persuading; for men may be persuaded by other means than by speech, by other means than by eloquence. It is also necessary to state that the understanding and reason must be addressed by the orator in fitting proportion to the other powers; thereby we avoid another of Quintilian's objections to Cicero's definition: for if eloquence be the mere art of persuading, then the seducer appealing to the weak passions of his victim may be eloquent, and thus the noblest of all arts may be degraded 'to a level with the mere tricks of a debauchee. Eloquence has often been associated, if not confounded, with dishonest artifice, with the power of beguiling and over-persuading; but according to the definition given above, there can be no perfect eloquence which does not contain a well proportioned appeal to the judgment and conscience of man. It is also better to define eloquence as that which is adapted to persuade the will, than as that which does in fact accomplish this purpose. Quintilian says, that if eloquence be as Cicero denominates it, the art of persuading, then its character is determined by the event, and if the speech be not actually successful in moving the will, it is not an eloquent speech. But the success of an appeal may be prevented by adventitious circumstances, and

the consequences which result from it cannot change its intrin

sic rhetorical character.

§ 4. Relation of the several kinds of Eloquence to the several kinds

of Poetry.

In lyric poetry the subjective element is conspicuous, and involves the objective within itself. In dramatic poetry the objec tive element is predominant, and the subjective is merged into it. In epic poetry, the subjective and the objective are both noticeable; past events are rehearsed as if present, and the author is conspicuous in relating them. The lyric poet uses the language of feeling; his own emotion is expressed in view of an object, but the object is noticed only through the emotion. The dramatic poet, on the other hand, describes a series of past acts as though they were performed at present, and does not himself appear in the description; the reader is not reminded of the man whose drama he is perusing, but is absorbed in the facts which are dramatically represented. The epic poet takes an intermediate position in regard to the other two. He brings the past into our ideal presence, but he also appears to bring it. Himself is prominent as well as the object which he describes..

Now the orator, in order to move the will of his hearers or readers, must exhibit vividly his own feelings, and in this disclosure of excited emotion he resembles the lyric poet. Still, eloquence demands that the affections be only coördinate with the other susceptibilities of the soul, and in this respect differs from lyric poetry, which requires the affections to be predominant. Again, in order to induce his hearers to act, the orator must often appeal to the past. If he would excite a nation to deeds of heroism, he must bring into fresh remembrance the exploits of olden time, and present to the sons a glowing portraiture of the honor of their fathers. This vivid description of past scenes is the particular, in which eloquence resembles epic poetry. But the resemblance is not complete, for the orator's description is regulated by its subserviency to excite an emulous spirit among his hearers, while the poet's verses are free, and are designed merely to gratify the

taste.

There is, also, one particular in which eloquence resembles dramatic poetry. The speaker acts on the hearers, and the hearers act on the speaker. He communicates to them his thoughts and feelings, and excites them to the same purposes which him

1845.]

Resemblance of Ancient Eloquence to Poetry.

23

self has formed. They hear his communications, and think, feel, will in correspondency with him. They doubt; he removes their scruples. They disbelieve; he convinces them. They resist; he overcomes their opposition. Their opinions and feelings are perceived by him; perhaps foreseen, perhaps detected in their countenances. These acts of the hearer have an effect upon the orator, and induce him to adopt a train of remark which he would otherwise omit. Thus the action is reciprocal between the two parties; that of the hearer is more silently but not always less evidently made known than that of the speaker. There is, as it were, a dialogue spoken between the orator and his audience; they determining him what arguments or motives to present, and he determining them what purposes to form. He and they are in a relative situation like that of the persons of a drama, and thus is eloquence in one respect similar to dramatic poetry. A lifeless, ineffective speech results from a want of this almost dramatic interest of the orator in his auditory. He must conduct an internal conversation with them, or he cannot speak to them with the appropriate power.

The ancient eloquence was more obviously and strikingly similar to poetic composition, than is the modern. Their judicial and deliberative orations were designed to produce an immediate effect, to persuade to an immediate act or purpose. This aim at instantaneous efficiency was itself exciting both to speakers and hearers, and led the former to make energetic appeals to the passions of the latter. The judicial and deliberative orations were, therefore, characterized by the display of imagination and warm emotion. The excited feelings of the orator were responded to by the audience, and thus arose a striking resemblance between these orations and dramatic poetry. The external circumstances in which the orations were delivered contributed much to increase this resemblance. The accused had his advocate (patronus causae), and therefore the complainant was answered by an opposing orator, and thus ensued a contest which was often compared by the ancient rhetoricians to a battle, or to a gladiatorial encounfer. The attack and the reply, the rejoinder and the surrejoinder possessed in themselves a dramatic interest, and the acquittal or condemnation of the accused was like the catastrophe of the drama. Sometimes also, the relatives of the man on trial presented themselves suddenly, and in the habiliments of deep mourning, before the judges. Sometimes the auditors expressed their gratification or their dissatisfaction with the speaker by tumultuous