The Art of Eloquence: Byron, Dickens, Tennyson, Joyce by Matthew Bevis

Abstract

MLR, 103.4, 2008 III7 TheArt ofEloquence: Byron, Dickens, Tennyson,joyce. By MATTHEW BEVIS. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. ix+302pp. ?50. ISBN 978-o-i9-925399-9. The influenceofEric Griffiths looms large in thisbook. In his 1989 study The Printed Voice of Victorian Poetry (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Griffiths examines the negotia tion between spoken and written language that is central to the reading ofVictorian poetry. In TheArt ofEloquence Matthew Bevis uses a similarly comparative approach to the languages of speech and writing as thebasis forhis analysis of the relationship between literature and political oratory.His central contention is that 'writingwards off the decisiveness of the tongue' (p. 265); that the subtleties ofwritten literary lan guage can modulate the strident rhetoric of political speakers into 'another type of eloquence' (p. I24), more measured and disinterested. The concept of disinterested ness is a key one forBevis. He argues that the literary texts thathe considers explore and weigh up the competing claims of differentpolitical stances, and that thisdisin terested approach means that the texts can 'be seen asmodels of responsible political conduct, for theirwillingness to engage with multiple and sometimes contradictory values can prepare theground fora richer political response in future' (pp. 8-9). Although the authors thatBevis discusses initially seem rather disparate, he suc ceeds in locating all four writers in thecontext of thepolitical culture of thenineteenth century,which he calls 'themost insistently parliamentary age inBritain's history' (p. i6). By examining Byron's speeches in theHouse of Lords, Dickens's early ca reer as a parliamentary reporter,Tennyson's view of his civic responsibilities as Poet Laureate, and Joyce's interest in thepolitical career of Parnell, Bevis shows that these writers were intensely aware of political ideas and language. He also makes effective use of sources such as Hansard, The Times, and Punch (which frequently satirized political figures by likening them to characters fromDickens) to demonstrate how literature and parliamentary politics consistently impinged on one another through out thenineteenth century.The impressive contextual research that isevident inThe Art of Eloquence is accompanied by a close attention to the linguistic and stylistic features that separate literarywriting from political speech, and the book is full of insightful readings of individual texts, such as an analysis of the parodies of parlia mentary debate thatoccur throughout The Pickwick Papers. However, Bevis isnot always successful inhis attempts to identify individual works of literature as responses to specific political questions, and at times his criticism lacks the disinterested quality thathe praises in other writers. It is one thing to say that 'Tennyson's "Ulysses" remains within ear-shot of political debates' about the abolition of slavery in the I830s (p. i66); but when Bevis goes on to assert that the speaker of the poem 'raises the twomain issues of the abolition debate (what is to be done with the slaves? and by whom?)' (p. i68), it is difficult for the reader to accede to thisunduly definitive description of thepoem's political concerns. On other occasions, Bevis's focus on thedisinterestedness of his authors fails to take sufficient account of thepersonal political opinions thatmay have informed theirwriting. For example, Byron's 'impatience with Parliament' and his 'admiration ofNapoleon' are mentioned (p. 56), but they are never reconciled toBevis's account of the political disinterestedness ofByron's poetry.Nevertheless, ifthe four writers discussed inThe Art ofEloquence were not always disinterested, theywere unquestionably concerned with politics, and this book provides a valuable and thought-provoking account of how theirwritings investigated and challenged the oratory that helped to shape the political concerns of their times. LINACRE COLLEGE,OXFORD GREGORYTATE ...