Year: 1875

dh VI DulWer HpeecDeS. OpeecheR IN
the ordinary sense of the term these are
not. II is not that they are deficient in
fire, in energy Of JUNCTION, in vividness
OF metaphor, but as we read them we
see clearly enough with how much care
the fire has been accumulated, what in
dustrious premeditation has been ex-
pended on the phraseology, how anx-
iously weighed is the property of each
trope. Yet, after all, these would not
have such serious eounterbalancing dis.
advantages if Bulwer had possessed
what he never had, q vigorous and life.
like delivery. This being the case, it is
somewhat strange to hear to what de.
gree 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.


Il observed, on his leaving US, that he
staggered in his gait like drunken
man. | presently learned however,
that be hao just been speaking, and that
what | had taken for intoxication was
in fact the reaction of nervous tension"


In an interesting autobiographieal
passage, Bulwer says Of himself:


" have little repartee, my memory ia
slow and my presence Of mind not great;
this, by the way, is self-disparagement;
Bulwer presence of mind was extraor.
diuary;] my powers of speaking are very
uncertain and very imperfectly devel.
oped. i have eloquence in me, and have
spoken even as al orator, but not in the
House Of Commons. | cannot speak
without either preparation or the pres
sure of powerful excitement


There is a passage in Ny Novel de-
scriptive of the difference which Randall
Leslie found in holding the ear of
mixed audience, which is scarcely less
photographed than that just quoted:


If he (Randal Leslie) attempted to
speak at his own intellectual level, he
was so subtle and refining as to be al
most incomprehensible; if be fell into
the fatal error-not uncommon to mex
perlenced orators-of trying to lower
himself to the intellectual level of his
audience, he was only elaborately stupid.
No man can speak too well for a crowd,
as no man can write too we'll for the
stage; but in no case should he be
rhetorical, or case in periods the dry
bones of reasoning. 1t is to the emo.
tions or to the humors that the speaker
of a crowd must address himself; his eye
must brighten with generous sentiment,
or his lip must expand in the play of an
imated fancy or genial vii"


Bulwer failed as a speaker, not be.
cause he omitted to bear these admoni-
tions in mind, but because, remembering
well their import, he lacked the art to
conceal his consciousness of their i'm.
portance. Itis not exactly easy to see
what he means by not being rhetorical
it is certain that if he aimed at avoid
ing the semblance OF rhetorical ;"
effects, he was signally unsuccessful.
Bulwers 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; so in all prob
ability did Canning. Tom Duncome
made one OF the best speeches ever
heard in the House of Commons, and
that he did not so much prepare as learn,
for its real author was Henry DeRos
But then in each OF these cases there
was no overwhelming Now, Bulwer
was overweighted. He had intellectually
medltated and digested more than be
could orally give forth from his treasure
house. 0ratory is not only an intellec-
tual gift; it implies certain definite
physical qualifications. Between the
art Of the orator and the poet there is
only theoretical affinity; but probably
every orator could be, II he had turned
his attention to the stage,
great actor. Bulwer had not the
physical qualifications Of an actor
or au orator. His periods, as we read
them on paper, are admirable; when ut
tered they seldom seemed natural. His
selfconsciousnes was excessive, and he
was without the skill to conceal his SELF
consciousness, or 10 merge his identity
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 of Kars, the state
of the army before Sebastopol, are, as
literary efforts extremely good. But
they did not hit their mark as speeches
1t was always difficult when hearing him
to obliterate the image which invariably
rose Of the rehearsal before the mirror.
The striving after effect was perpetually
visible, and because it was visible the
effect itself was not forthcoming. Hos.
tile critics have charged Bulwer With
dandyism and affectation in even the
best OF his novels. With the present
writer the accusation weighs but lightly.
Regarding Bulwer as speaker the case
is different In his oratorical efforts, so
far as his Influence on the hearer can be
taken as test-and it is probably the
only possible test-Bulwer patriot and
philanthropist though at heart undoubt-
edly he was was still to all appearance
| his own Pelham.