Los Angeles daily herald., 1875-02-19
Bulwer as a Speaker.


most Of Bulwer's speeches. Speeches
in the ordinary sense of the term these
compositions are not. 1t is not that
they are deficient in fire, in energy of
dicton, in vividness of metaphor, but
as we read them we see clearly enough
with how much care the fire has been
accumulated, what Industrious pre-
meditation has been expended on the
phraseology, how anxiously weighed
is the propriety of each trope. Yet,
after all, these would not have such
serious counterbalancing disadvan-
tages if Bulwer had possessed what he
never had, a vigorous and lifelike de
livery. This being the case, it is some
what strange to hear to what a degree
Bulwer was frequently carried away
by the impetuosity of his passion. The
Austrian poet Grillparzer, who saw
him one evening in the lobby of the
House soon after he had spoken on a
question of colonial policy, writes:
81 observed, on his leaving us, that
he staggered in his gait like a drunken
man, | presently learned, however,
that he had just been speaking and
that what i had taken for intoxication
was, in fact, the reaction of nervous
tanS;nnlO 1tf II sAifI .NAE C3 27IlI9Tl
In an interesting autobiagraphical
passage, Bulwer says of himself:
III have little repartee, my memory
is slow, and my presence of mind not
great; tthis, by the way, is seif-dis-
paragement Bulwer's presence of
mind was extraordinary my powers
of speaking are Very uncertain and
very iniperfectly developed. / have
eloduence in me, and have spoken
even as an orator, but not in the House
of Commons. / cannot speak without
either preparation or the pressure of
powerful excitement" 5blt t9 20
There is a passage in stMy Novep'
descriptive OF the difficul ties which
Randall Leslie found in holding the ear
of amixed audience, which is scarcely
less photographed than that just
quoted: 92sl3ill
I''If he (Randal Leslie) attempted to
speak at his own intellectual level, he
was so subtle and refining as to be
almost incomprehensible; If he fell
into the fatal error-not uncommon to
inexperienced orators L of trying to
lower himself to the intellectual level
of his audience, he was only elabo-
rately stupid. No man can speak too
we'll for q crowd, as no man can write
too well for the stage; but in no case
should he be rhetorical, or case in
periods the dry bones of reasoning. 1t
is to the emotions or to the humOrs
that the speaker of a crowd must ad-
dress himself; his eye must brighten
with generous sentiment, or his lip
must expand in the play of animated
fancy or genial wit. q 4
Bulwer failed as speaker, not be-
cause he omitted to bear these admo-
nitions in mind, but because, remem-.
bering we'll their import, he lacked
the art to conceal his consciousness of
their Importance. 1t is not exactly
easy to see what he means by not
being "rhetorical;' it is certain that
he aimed at avoiding the semblance
of rhetorical" effects, he was signally
unsuccessful. Bulwer's orations are
rhetorical, or they are nothing. The
truth Of the matter is probably this:
Many other speakers have prepared
their addresses quite as carefully as
the author of My Novel. Sheridan
certainly did so; and in all probability
did Canning: Tom Duncome made
one of the best speeches ever made in
the House of Commons, and that he
did not SO much prepare as learn, for
its real author was Henry De Ross
But then in each of these cases there
was no overwhelming. Now, Bulwer
was always overweighted, He had
intellectually meditated and digested
more than he could orally give forth
from his, treasure-bouse. Oratory is
not only an intellectual gift-it i'm
plies certain definite, physical qualifi-
cations. Between the art of the ora
tor and of the poet there is only a the
oretical affinity; but probably every
orator could be, If he had turned his
attentionft6 the stage, a great, actor,
Bulwer had not the physical qualifca-
tions of an actor or an orator. His
periods, as we read them on paper, are
admirable; when uttered, they sell
dom seemed natural. His self-con-
sciousness was excessive, and he was
without the skill to conceal his self
consciousness, or to merge his iden-
tity into that Of his hearers. His voice
was feeble, though his wit was ready
and his imagination, quick, His
speeches on The Crimean war;. the fall
oI NitTS, TIC SLdte Di tHe army D6IOTe
Sebastopol, are as literary efforts, ex-
treimely good. But they Will not hit
their mark rs speeches, It was al
ways difficult. when hearing him to
obliterate the, ,image-which, invariably
arose of the rehearsal before the mir
ror. The striving after effect was
perpetually visible, and because it was
visible the effect was not Forthcoming.
Hostile critics have charged Bulwer
with, dandyism and effectation even
the best of his novels. With the
present writer the accusation weighs
but lightly. Regarding Bulwer as q,
speaker the case is different. In his
oratorial efforts, so far as his influence
on the speaker can be taken as test
and it is probably the only possible
test-Bnlwer, patriot and philanthro-
pist though at heart undoubtedly he
was, was still to all appearance his
own Pelham, Fraser Magazine.
The Supervisors of Plumas county
have ordered a survey of q new road