صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

than satisfy expectation. They hold a high place in deliberative eloquence, yet they are not equal to the fame of Henry; and we know they were imperfectly reported, and never revised by him, as has been the case with many great speeches of modern times. The finer passages are nearly lost, as we know by the testimony of his contemporaries who heard them.

John Adams, the collossus of debate on the Declaration, was a great speaker, and yet we are not aware that even one fragment of all his speeches survives to show us the character of his eloquence. We judge him by his writings, and the effects he produced as an orator. So Henry has left us five or six speeches imperfectly preserved to verify his fame as an orator, while he wrote nothing but his messages that exhibit his talents; and we must in a great degree judge him as an orator by his fame and the marvellous effects he often produced as an orator from his first appearance in the Parsons' cause to the end of his career, whether he appeared at the bar or in public bodies like the old congress or the burgesses. We also fall back on those wonderful unreported speeches, whose fragments have floated down to our day, and the common fame of Henry in his own age, which assign him the highest place among orators. He seemed to have the conception of the poet combined with a delivery if possible equal to his fancy. We shall not attempt to describe Henry as a thinker farther than to say that, in the opinion of competent critics, who have studied his messages as Governor of Virginia as well as his correspondence, his writings will compare favorably with those of the very best of his contemporaries. Such is the opinion of Mr. Grigsby, of Virginia, and we must say that we have not read those writings except as they are embraced in the life of Henry, but should always think it safe to award the first place to Franklin and Jefferson of the pre-revolutionary period.

Dr. Alexander, who wrote his reminiscences of Henry in 1850, concurs in saying, from his observations of Henry and the American orators covering this period, that Henry was an extraordinary and consummate orator, and verifies the manner of his speaking and the power of his eloquence, and that they

were due to his emotion and passion, accompanied by a versatility which enabled him to assume at once any emotion or passion which was suited to his ends. Not less indispensa-. ble was his matchless perfection of organs of expression, including voice, intonation, pause, gesture, attitude and indescribable play of countenance. In no instance did he indulge in an expression that was not instantly recognized as natural; yet some of his penetrating and subduing tones were absolutely peculiar, and as inimitable as they were indescribable. These were felt by every hearer in all their force. His feelings were sometimes indicated and expressed by a long pause, aided by an eloquent aspect and some significant use of his finger. Henry owed much to his insight into the feelings of the common mind. In great cases he formed his estimate of the jury, and made his appeals to their predilections and character. He addressed the court with profound respect. Dr. Alexander, hearing him in 1794, in defence of three criminals, declared that his manner was such that he felt an instantaneous sympathy with his cause, and it was felt by every hearer.

Mr. Henry was above the common height, and in later years there was a slight stoop of the shoulders, but when animated he always straightened to his full stature. He wore a brown wig, and sometimes a scarlet coat, according to the fashion of the day, though, usually, his dress was black, and plain, and sometimes negligent. His features were strongly marked, and his complexion dark. His eyes were a hazel, or a blue grey, as the shadows fell upon his face, for they were small and deep set. The expression of his face was one of solemnity. Dr. Alexander says that he knew his sister, Mrs. Meredith, who was the finest conversationalist he ever met among ladies, and who had a native eloquence equal to Henry himself. So, if we go back to Dr. Robertson, the historian, and down to his kinsman, Lord Brougham, and his celebrated nephew, Wm. C. Preston, of Carolina memory, we discover that there is a native eloquence in the Henry family cropping out during the last century, scarcely inferior to that of the Pitts and Foxes of English renown. So we trace the native eloquence of Henry, and so we need not be amazed at the

strains of his untaught eloquence, for he was not an orator like Fox, after a long training in debate, and in spite of nature, as Pinkney said. Eloquence ran in his native wood notes. It ran in his blood, and burst out on the first occasion.

Henry was the man of the people. He sprang from and adhered to them. He stood by them and they by him. He was the most popular man in Virginia in a revolutionary age, and his popularity remains undiminished to this day. He was always a sincere republican and undaunted defender of liberty. George Mason and Henry led the Spartan band of Virginia, though Henry was an Athenian in eloquence. Mr. Jefferson was never so democratic in his sympathies and tastes. Henry even spoke against Jefferson's foreign tastes. His sturdy love of country and of mankind animated him through all his career, and thus he was an inflexible republican in character, who, like Brutus, would drive out every tyrant, and banish the Tarquins all. So his fame is peculiarly American, for he declared at the opening of the first congress, "I am no longer a Virginian, I am an American."

Henry was five times elected governor of Virginia, delegate to the first and second congress, delegate to the convention to ratify the constitution; declined to act in the convention that framed the constitution, also the office of United States senator; and refused the offers of foreign minister, secretary of state, and chief justice of the United States, by Washington. So the estimate of the people and of public men of that age leave no doubt that Henry was admirably qualified for high places in the government; but when he finally retired from his profession, in 1794, he sought only the repose of domestic quiet.

Such is but a faint sketch of this the great leader and orator of the American Revolution, whose virtues are still radient, and whose fame is undiminished at the end of the first century since the dawn of that Revolution. He only needed to have acted more extensively in the national councils, to have left a great and enduring fame among men; for, like Henry Clay, he had all the qualities of a great statesman as well as a great orator.

NOTICES AND CRITICISMS.

EDUCATION.

English Literature, considered as an Interpreter of English History. Designed as a Manual of Instruction. By HENRY COPPEE, LL.D., President of the Lehigh University. 12mo, pp. 448. Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger. 1873.

DR. COPPEE Considers the literature of England as an exponent and interpreter of its history, and advances the general principle, "that the life and literature of a people are reciprocally reflective." This method of treatment is shown in the subjects of the several chapters, as, "Literature a Teacher of History,' "Chaucer and the Early Reformation," "John Milton and the English Commonwealth." It is true, as the author remarks, that "merely to establish this historic principle it would have been sufficient to consider the greatest authors, such as Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and Pope," but it appears to us an inadequate treatment of these authors to consider them merely as illustrating any principle. They were living men-great men, as well as great authors-influenced by the character of the age, it is true, and leaving their impress upon it. Yet they are to be considered first in themselves and their writings, and secondly as exponents of their times. Literature is a teacher of history, and something more. As the poet and philosopher are greater than the chronicler, and Calliope takes the precedence of Clio, so literature, while it explains and illustrates history, has a higher value in itself.

The author seems to be aware of this, for he says that, while keeping this principle in sight, he has endeavored to give a connected view of the course of English literature for the use of students. But we could wish that, for their benefit, the historic theory had left more space for personal record of the great lights of literature, from which the young often draw most instruction and inspiration. The poetry of Chaucer is regarded by Dr. Coppee as "particularly fortunate," for his theory and instructive lessons are drawn from it in regard to the social condition of the English people, the changes in government, and the condition and progress of the English language. Much stress is placed upon the connection between the prose works of Milton and the political history of England; but in the discussion of his poems our author seems to entirely forget his theory. In fact,

nothing could be further removed from the times and circumstances in which they were written than Milton's poems. They are emphatically for all time. In Spenser's "Faery Queen" Dr. Coppee affects to find, not only symbols and allegories of the several virtues, but of the Virgin Queen and of English history in general. Shakespeare he cites as the writer whose works illustrate his position most strongly; yet he fails to draw any of these illustrations from the writings of the "myriad-minded." The historic theory is thus found to be neither so new nor so important as we were led by the preface to expect; yet it serves as a chain of association to bind together authors and periods in literature and morals as well as history.

Dr. Coppee's estimates of character and merit are generally just and accurate, although neither profound nor striking. He does not attempt to reverse the general verdict already passed upon English writers, and seems to have few favorites to praise or foes to disparage. But in some instances there is a lack of discrimination, and looseness in the use of terms. Thus, of Moore, he writes: "With a foolish lack of judgment he lost his hopes of preferment by writing satires against the regent." What is implied in a "foolish lack of judgment" we will not attempt to say. If such a thing exists, we might reasonably suppose its opposite, a wise lack of judgment, but this only leads us further into the labyrinth. This "foolish lack of judgment" consisted in writing satires against the dissolute regent, by which folly "he lost his hopes of preferment." Would the author have us infer that, if the poet had been base enough to fawn upon the profligate in power, he would have exhibited more wisdom? Again, in his comparison of Moore and Burns, he writes: "The one was polished and musical, but artificial, and insidiously immoral; the other homely and simple, but powerful and effective to men of all classes in society." When our author writes such a sentence, he challenges comparison on the scale of morality between two justly popular poets. This is the first occasion upon which we have seen Burns mentioned as a model of morality, in contrast to Moore. If the writings of the latter are "insidiously immoral," what can be said of both the life and writings of the former? The difference can only be that between one who is "insidiously immoral" and one who is openly and confessedly so. In a work designed for students, it is especially important that false impressions should be avoided.

Such may also be easily drawn from the article on Dryden, in which our author, in his anxiety to establish the historic theory, gives undue prominence to the poet's personal history and religious opinions. It is not these which now most concern the world; it is his poetry-not merely nor mainly as indicating changes in govern

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »