Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/400

Rh Chaitanya and some of the Sikh Gurus. In fact, it was the same wave of the ideal of human liberation which gave an impetus to the work of the Brahmo Samaj that moved Surendranath also to work for human freedom. The Brahmo Samaj, being primarily a religious body, approached the problem of emancipation from the side of spiritual and moral awakening and social reform, whilst Surendranath tackled the problem from the political view-point. But as emancipation is a comprehensive problem and all kinds of improvement and reform are inter-dependent, many members of the Brahmo Samaj have all along been zealous political workers and Surendranath counted some Brahmos among his most active political colleagues. As his autobiography shows, he appreciated in full the value of the work of the Brahmo Samaj.

Surendranath went to England also more than once on political missions and did valuable work there.

That he was a great orator is known to all. The kind of oratory in which he excelled has largely gone out of fashion. But no one in India could surpass or equal him in that magnificent and brilliant specimen of the art. Latterly his voice had lost its power. Therefore, those alone could judge of the quality of his eloquence who had heard him in the full maturity of his powers.

He had a marvellous memory. He delivered his long congress presidential addresses extempore without once looking at thè printed page. As editor of the Bengalee he would often dictate to an assistant at the office of that paper the full text of some speech of his, delivered at some public meeting, either before or after its delivery. We once saw him doing this at the Bengalee office before the delivery of an address.

Though not the founder of the Bengalee he made it the powerful organ that it once was, after purchasing it. The style of the editorials which he wrote was often naturally the same as that of his speeches. But as journalism to be quite effective often requires a less ponderous movement than the majestic variety of oratory, his journalistic productions were not always as forcible and smart as could be desired. It would, however, be wrong to suppose that he could not be argumentative or that he could not handle statistics with ease. which

he delivered in course of the Bengal Partition agitation, he refuted all the arguments which were brought forward by the bureaucracy in support of that ill-fated measure. That is only one example. As for statistic, his evidence before the Welby Commission and his congress presidential addresses show that he could use them to good purpose when he chose.

He had no taste or talent for niceties and subtleties. He went in for broad and large effects and succeeded to the full measure of his capacity.

Speaking generally, he was not an envious man nor an implacable hater. He could easily forgive and forget the endeavours made by his rivals or would be rivals to injure him or lower him in public estimation. He could be easily placated. There is an anecdote that once upon a time Upadhyay Brahmabandhab, the extremist leader, went