Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/553

 510

most brilliant debater the world ever saw. That was Webster's great quality. He was pre-eminently a debater. He did not have Fox's celerity, but he possessed far greater weight. Fox would lay down a proposition and repeat it again and again. He was often stormy in manner, and would sometimes also magnify trifles. His vehemence was so great that one occasionally suspects that he was diverting attention from the weakness of his argument. But he had no affectations. He was animated by noble ideas of political free dom, which comprehended not merely his own race or neighborhood, but embraced the peoples of distant lands, and regardless of literary form he would press those ideas home and strike by the most direct lines at the judgment of the listener. There was little quickness or mere dexterity about Webster, but it seemed impossible to impose upon his understanding, and his great guns would open upon the weak points of his adversary however artfully covered up. Xo man could excel him in the power to utterly destroy the sham structures of sophistry. He would never set up a man of straw, but would resolutely grapple With his opponent's argu ment in its full force. His vigilance was extraordinary, and when surprised, as he sometimes was in running debate, it is not difficult to detect in his tone the martial note as he would rush upon and capture the threatened position by a display of force simply portentous. It is not easy to compare Webster and Fox in the immediate effect produced by them, but there can be no doubt that the personality of Webster was more impressive, and, if we are to trust at all con temporary accounts, it is entirely safe to say that Fox never surpassed, if indeed he ever equaled, the tremendous effect produced by Webster in his greatest efforts. Between the speeches of the two men there can be no comparison in point of substance and literary form. Fox's speeches certainly contained one characteristic that he claimed was essen tial to good speeches, they do not read well. It is not difficult to see in the best of them

the evidence of his brilliant talents, but they do not strongly impress one with weight of matter or with the literary quality. In the half-dozen large volumes of Webster's speeches which have been collected together there is doubtless a great deal that is prosy. A man who always makes an eloquent speech is usually one who will never make a great one. Webster was not that sort of an orator, and only on exceptional occasions was he thoroughly aroused. But those volumes con tain a mine of information and reason for political students; they are good literature, and I doubt if in all of them a sentence can be found that is flippant or petty or mean. I have already spoken of Burke. He is, I think, superior to Webster as a political philosopher and also in breadth of informa tion and in imaginative power, but in the excellence of the great mass of oratorical work which he left behind him he does not much surpass Webster, if at all. He presents more gorgeous passages, but even his most glittering fabrics do not imply the intellectual strength shown in the simple solidity of Webster. But if it be admitted that Burke precedes Webster in the permanent value of his speeches, in their temporary effect I do not think he can be classed with him. He often shot over the heads of his audience, and some of his greatest speeches emptied the House of Commons. It was said of him that he always seemed to be in a passion. Webster never permitted himself to be in a frenzy, fine or otherwise. On the whole, I think it clear that Webster is not surpassed by Burke, and if he is equaled by any other English-speaking orator, he is equaled by Burke alone. But whether or not Webster was the greatest of all men in power of speech, he deserves a place among the half-dozen greatest orators of the world. To take rankin that chosen circle is indeed glory. F0r the transcendently great orator, who has kindled his own time and nation to action, and who also speaks to foreign nations and distant ages, must divide with great poets the