Western Characters | Page 8

almost all writers upon the Indian character, that he is
distinguished for his eloquence. But the same authors tell us, that his
language, the vehicle of the supposed eloquence, can express only
material ideas.[14] Now, if we knew no more of his character than this,
we should be authorized to infer (what is, indeed, true), that he
possesses no standard for the distinction of good and evil, and that his
imagination is bounded by the lines of his sensible experience. How
any degree of eloquence can be compatible with this state of things,
passes comprehension. And what reflection would conclude, a little
examination will confirm. The mistake has, doubtless, grown out of a
misconception of the nature of eloquence itself.[15] If eloquence were
all figure--even if it were, in any considerable degree, mere figure--then
the tawdriest rhetorician would be the greatest orator. But it is not so.
On the contrary, the use of many words (or figures) to express an idea,
denotes not command of language, but the absence of that power--just
as the employment of numerous tools, to effect a physical object,
indicates, not skill in the branch of physics, to which the object belongs,
but rather awkwardness. Of course, much must be placed, in both cases,
to the account of clumsy instruments; but the instrument of speech
differs from others in this: it is fashioned by, as well as for, its use; and
a rude, unpolished language is, therefore, an index, in two ways, of the
want of eloquence among the people who employ it.
In this view, the figurative elocution of the Indian, so far from
affording evidence of oratorical power, if it proves anything, proves the
opposite. It is the barrenness of his language, and not the luxuriance of
his imagination, which enforces that mode of speech.[16] Imagination
is the first element of oratory, simplicity its first condition. We have
seen that the Indian is wholly destitute of the former; and the stilted,
meretricious, and ornate style, of even his ordinary communications,
entirely excludes the latter from our conception of his character.[17]
For example: take the expressions "bury the hatchet," for "make peace,"
and "a cloudless sky," for "prosperity"--the latter being the nearest

approximation to an abstract idea observed in Indian oratory. Upon
examining these, and kindred forms of speech, we shall at once
perceive that they are not the result of imagination, but are suggested
by material analogies. Peace, to the savage, is, at best, but a negative
idea; and the state of peacefulness, abstracted from the absence of war,
finds no corresponding word in his language. Even friendship only
means that relation, in which friends may be of use to each other. As
his dialects are all synthetic,[18] his ideas are all concrete. To say, "I
love" without expressing what or whom I love, would be, so to speak,
very bad Indian grammar. He can not even say "two" correctly, without
applying the numeral to some object. The notion of absolute being,
number, emotion, feeling, posture, or relation, is utterly foreign to his
mode of thought and speech.
So, also, of the "cloudless sky," used to express a state of prosperity.
He does not mean, by the phrase, the serenity of mind which prosperity
produces, nor any other abstract inflexion or suggestion of the figure.
He is constantly exposed to the storms of heaven, in the chase, and on
the war path; and, even in his best "lodge," he finds but little shelter
from their fury. Clear weather is, therefore, grateful to him--bright
sunshine associates itself, in his mind, with comfort, or (that supremest
of Indian pleasures) undisturbed indolence. And the transition, though,
as we have said, an approach to an abstract conception, is easy, even to
the mind of a savage. His employment of such illustrations is rather an
evidence of rudeness, than of eloquence--of barrenness, than of
luxuriance of idea.[19]
From these considerations, it results, that even the very best specimens
of Indian oratory, deserve the name of picturesque, rather than of
eloquent--two characteristics which bear no greater affinity to each
other, than do the picture-writing of the Aztec and the alphabetical
system of the Greek. The speech of Logan--the most celebrated of
Indian harangues--even if genuine,[20] is but a feeble support to the
theory of savage eloquence. It is a mixture of the lament and the song
of triumph, which may be found in equal perfection among all
barbarous people; but, so far as we are aware, was never elsewhere
dignified with that sounding name. The slander of a brave and

honorable man,[21] which it contains, might be the result of a mistake
easily made; the wrongs of which this chief was the victim, might
render even a savage eloquent; and the mixture of bloody vaunting with
profound grief, is scarcely to be