Still in the confidence of children that tread without fear every chamber in their father’s house, and to whom no door is closed, we, in that Sabbatic vision which sometimes is revealed for an hour upon nights like this, ascend with easy steps from the sorrow-stricken fields of earth upwards to the sandals of God. _The English Mail-Coach_, 32. (5) Vehemence “Scopelian, when one of Polemo’s pupils said that his instrument was the drum, picked up the sneer with ‘the drum, indeed; but it is the shield of Ajax.’”[81] The passage is characteristic not only in allusion, figure, and ingenuity, but in grandiloquence. It is itself a drum-beat; and the sophistic harmony was fond of drums. The stylistic effects most sought are those most marked.[82] Scott’s deprecatory “The big bow-wow strain I can do myself”[83] has neither this aim nor this attitude. He is generously wishing that he could control the quiet sureness of Jane Austen. A sophist was complacent in his own style. He was anxious only that his bow-wow should always be big, or, to return to Scopelian’s more precise figure, that the audience should always hear the drum. It is the drum that marks sophistic. Few of the devices of style so carefully cultivated are sophistic in themselves. What is sophistic is the use of them all, as from a classified store, in excess and with insistent emphasis. The sophistic style cannot be escaped. It is always saying, Here is style. Such rhetoric is not worthless. Some of its technical skill is available for better ends. But as other arts, to survive and progress, must be more than technics, so especially the art of words cannot go far without being animated by power of conception.[84] Technic is promotive and educative only as it gives free course to motive and vision. As a system of education, therefore, sophistic was hollow. This is the issue raised by Plato; and he is justified by history. Sophistic could use its many devices only to exhibit skill, not to guide either the state or the individual. The only force that could revive rhetoric with the lore older than this spent tradition was a new motive. FOOTNOTES: [1] _De orat._ I. xiii. [2] 503. [3] 312. [4] 273-4. [5] ARP Chapter II, especially pages 9-11. [6] Cf. Tacitus, _Dialogus_, in ARP 88. [7] ARP 14-17. [8] See Hubbell. [9] This defect is discerned as early as the _Phædrus_ (264, seq.); but Socrates does not carry the remedy beyond logical analysis into cogency of sequence.