BURKE AND WEBSTER.
Eloquence does not always display itself in the same form. In reading critically the speeches of Burke and Webster, we find quite a contrast in their styles, yet each ranks amongst the foremost orators of his nation. Each moved thousands by the power of his words, and each possessed a style peculiarly his own.
The first thing noticeable in Burke’s style is its remarkable clearness. He presents his thoughts in such a plain, simple manner that they are easily comprehended, although he handles the deepest subjects with which statesmanship deals. He leaves nothing obscure. We are never at a loss to know what words his relative pronouns relate to, or his conjunctions connect. Few authors could have expressed with such precision and perspicuity as Burke the thought contained in the following sentence: “This commercial motive never was believed by any man, either in America, which this letter is meant to soothe, or in England, which it meant to deceive.”
In regard to clearness, Webster’s style resembles that of Burke. The great American statesman seemed to possess the happy faculty of adapting himself to his audience. If he addressed the Senate of the United States, he was dignified and stately; if he spoke to an assembly of peasants, he made himself perfectly intelligible.
Burke frequently uses pointed satire and bitter sarcasm in his speeches. He says: “By such management, by the irresistible operations of feeble councils, so paltry a sum as three-pence in the eyes of a financier, so insignificant an article as tea in the eyes of a philosopher, have shaken the pillars of a commercial empire that circled the whole globe.” Again: “I conceal the ridiculous figure of parliament hurling its thunders at the gigantic rebellion in America.” In this kind of writing Burke is undoubtedly Webster’s superior.
Burke uses connectives with more skill, perhaps, than any other author in the English language. This is an art of which he was master. There is not space to give quotations illustrating this, but any one who studies his works cannot fail to observe it.
Webster, although he was not so skilful in the use of connectives as Burke, used them well, as the following extract from his speech in Faneuil Hall will show: “Do they find, and
do they admit, and do they feel, that money is scarce and dear?——And how in my judgment, further, so long as this sub-treasury lasts, so long as the tariff of 1846 continues, this state of accumulation by the rich, of distress of the industrious, and of the aggravated poverty of the poor, will go on from degree to degree, to an end which I shall not attempt to calculate.”—Webster is especially fond of beginning his sentences with ‘and.’ Burke and Webster do not use figures of speech to excess, and they use them very advantageously. Burke, in making comparisons, employs the Antithesis effectively. Thus: “Compare the two. This I offer to give is plain and simple, the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes. This is mild, that is harsh. This is found by experience effectual for its purpose, the other is a new project. This is universal, the other calculated for certain colonies only. This is immediate in its conciliatory operations, the other remote, contingent, full of hazard.” Burke at times uses the Climax also. The chief difference between Burke and Webster, as regards the use of figures, is that the former generally employs the strongest Metaphors, while the latter uses Similes more frequently. Note this as a sample of Webster’s style: “We shall see Carolina looming up like one of the Southern Constellations.” Burke, in his speech on
Conciliation with America, argues by means of strong historical illustrations. Webster, on the other hand, often reasons by means of interrogations, and then by appealing strongly to the feelings of his audience. It is said that a dash may be eloquent. This is well illustrated in Webster’s speech in Faneuil Hall.
On the whole, we may say that Mr. Webster was a strong, forcible speaker and writer. His style is smooth and flowing. His arguments are powerful and convincing. The great peculiarity of Burke’s style is that every sentence “grows in the very act of unfolding it.”
H. S.