pears to say, "This deserves your admiration;-this is sublime;— this is pathetic, &c."

Attention connected with

But Speaking, i. e. natural speaking, when the Speaker is uttering his own sentiments, and is thinking exclusively of Speaking. them, has something in it distinct from all this: it conveys, by the sounds which reach the ear, the idea, that what is said is the immediate effusion of the Speaker's own mind, which he is desirous of imparting to others. A decisive proof of which is, that if any one overhears the voice of another, to whom he is an utter stranger-suppose in the next room-without being able to catch the sense of what is said, he will hardly ever be for a moment at a loss to decide whether he is Reading or Speaking; and this, though the hearer, may not be one who has ever paid any critical attention to the various modulations of the human voice. So wide is the difference of the tones employed on these two occasions, be the subject what it may." The difference of effect produced is proportionably great: the personal sympathy felt towards one who appears to be delivering his own sentiments, is such, that it usually Sympathy. rivets the attention, even involuntarily, though to a discourse which appears hardly worthy of it. It is not easy for an auditor to fall asleep while he is hearing even perhaps feeble reasoning clothed in indifferent language, delivered extemporaneously, and in an unaffected style; whereas it is common for men to find a difficulty in keeping themselves awake, while listening even to a good dissertation of the same length, or even shorter, on a subject, not uninteresting to them, when read, though with propriety, and not in a languid manner. And the thoughts, even of those not disposed to be drowsy, are apt to wander, unless they use an effort from time to time to prevent it; while, on the other hand, it is notoriously difficult to withdraw our attention, even from a trifling talker of whom we are weary, and to cccupy the mind with reflections of its own. Of the two brannches of Elocution which have been just menBoth reading tioned, it might at first sight appear as if one only, that and speaking, of the Speaker, came under the province of Rhetoric. But it will be evident, on consideration, that both must be, to a certain extent, regarded as connected with our present subject; not merely because many of the same principles are applicable to both, but because any one who delivers (as is so com

connected

with Rhetoric.

3 "At every sentence let them ask themselves this question; How should I utter this, were I speaking it as my own immediate sentiments?-I have often tried an experiment to show the great difference between these two modes of utterance, the natural and the artificial; which was, that when I found a person of vivacity delivering his sentiments with energy, and of course with all that variety of tones which nature furnishes, I have taken occasion to put something into his body and, as rela

tive to the topic of conversation; and it was surprising to see what an immediate change there was in his Delivery, from the moment he began to read. A different pitch of voice took the place of his natural one, and a tedious uniformity of cadence succeeded to a spirited variety; insomuch that a blind man could hardly conceive the person who read to be the same who had just been speaking.”—Sheridan, Art of Reading

monly the case) a written composition of his own, may be reckoned as belonging to either class; as a Reader who is the author of what he reads, or as a Speaker who supplies the deficiency of his memory by writing. And again, in the (less common) cases where a speaker is delivering without book, and from memory alone, a written composition, either his own or another's, though this cannot in strictness be called Reading, yet the tone of it will be very likely to resemble that of Reading. In the other case, that where the author is actually reading his own composition, he will be still more likely, notwithstanding its being his own, to approach, in the Delivery of it, to the Elocution of a Reader; and, on the other hand, it is possible for him, even without actually deceiving the hearers into the belief that he is speaking extempore, to approach indefinitely near to that style.

The difficulty however of doing this, to one who has the writing actually before him, is considerable and it is of course far greater when the composition is not his own. And as it is evident from what has been said, that this (as it may be called) Extemporaneous style of Elocution, is-in any case where it is not improper-much the more impressive, it becomes an interesting inquiry, how the difficulty in question may be best surmounted.

§ 4.

Artificial style of Elocution.

Little, if any, attention has been bestowed on this point by the writers on Elocution; the distinction above pointed out between Reading and Speaking, having seldom, or never, been precisely stated, and dwelt on. Several however have written elaborately on "good Reading," or on Elocution, generally; and it is not to be denied, that some ingenious and (in themselves) valuable remarks have been thrown out relative to such qualities in Elocution as might be classed under the three heads I have laid down, of Perspicuity, Energy, and Eloquence but there is one principle running through all their precepts, which being, according to my views, radically erroneous, must (if those views be correct) vitiate every system founded on it. The principa I mean is, that in order to acquire the best style of Delivery, it is requisite to fix the attention on the voice ;-to study analytically the emphases, tones, pauses, degrees of loudness, &c., which give the proper effect to each passage that is well delivered-to frame rules founded on the observation of these-and then, in practice, deliberately and carefully to conform the utterance to these rules, so as to form a complete artificial system of Elocution.

That such a plan not only directs us into a circuitous and difficult path, towards an object which may be reached by a shorter and straighter, but also, in most instances, completely fails of that very object, and even produces, oftener than not, effects the very reverse of what is designed, is a doctrine for which it will be necessary to

offer some reasons; especially as it is undeniable that the system here reprobated, as employed in the case of Elocution, is precisely that recommended and taught in this very Treatise, in respect of the conduct of Arguments. By analyzing the best compositions, and observing what kinds of arguments, and what modes of arranging them, in each case, prove most successful, goneral rules have been framed, which an author is recommended studiously to observe in Composition and this is precisely the procedure which, in Elocu tion, I deprecate.

Excellence in

matter and in

delivery to be aimed at in

opposite ways.

The reason for making such a difference in these two cases is this whoever (as Dr. A. Smith remarks in the passage lately cited') appears to be attending to his own utterance, which will almost inevitably be the case with every one who is doing so, is sure to give offence, and to be censured for an affected delivery; because every one is expected to attend exclusively to the proper object of the action he is engaged in; which, in this case, is the expression of the thoughtsnot the sound of the expressions. Whoever therefore learns, and endeavours to apply in practice, any artificial rules of Elocution, so as deliberately to modulate his voice conformably to the principles he has adopted, (however just they may be in themselves,) will hardly ever fail to betray his intention; which always gives offence when perceived. Arguments, on the contrary, must be deliberately framed. Whether any one's course of reasoning be sound and judicious, or not, it is necessary, and it is expected, that it should be the result of thought. No one, as Dr. Smith observes, is charged with affectation for giving his attention to the proper object of the action he is engaged in. As therefore the proper object of the Orator is to adduce convincing Arguments, and topics of Persuasion, there is nothing offensive in his appearing deliberately to aim at this object. He may indeed weaken the force of what is urged by too great an appearance of elaborate composition, or by exciting suspicion of rhetorical trick; but he is so far from being expected to pay no attention to the sense of what he says, that the most powerful argument would lose much of its force, if it were supposed to have been thrown out casually, and at random. Here therefore the employment of a regular system (if founded on just principles) can produce no such ill effect as in the case of Elocution: since the habitual attention which that implies, to the choice and arrangement of arguments, is such as must take place, at any rate; whether it be conducted on any settled principles or not. The only difference is, that he who proceeds on a correct system, will think and deliberate concerning the course of his Reasoning, to better purpose, than he who does not he will do well and easily, what the other does ill, and with more labour. Both alike must bestow their attention on the Matter of what they

4 See Part III. Chap. iii. § 4.

say, if they would produce any effect; both are not only allowed, but expected to do so.

The two opposite modes of proceeding therefore, which are recommended in respect of these two points, (the Argument and the Delivery,) are, in fact, both the result of the same circumstance; viz., that the speaker is expected to betow his whole attention on the proper business of his speech; which is, not the Elocution, but the matter."

§ 5.

Natural style of Elocution.

When however I protest against all artificial systems of Elocution, and all direct attention to Delivery, at the time, it must not be supposed that a general inattention to that point is recommended; or that the most perfect Elocution is to be attained by never thinking at all on the subject; though it may safely be affirmed that even this negative plan would succeed far better than a studied modulation. But it is evident that if any one wishes to assume the Speaker as far as possible, i. e., to deliver a written composition with some degree of the manner and effect of one that is extemporaneous, he will have a considerable difficulty to surmount since though this may be called, in a certain sense, the NATURAL MANNER, it is far from being what he will naturally, i. e., spontaneously, fall into. It is by no means natural for any one to read as if he were not reading, but speaking. And again, even when any one is reading what he does not wish to deliver as his own composition, as, for instance, a portion of the Scriptures, or the Liturgy, it is evident that this may be done better or worse, in infinite degrees; and that though (according to the views here taken) a studied attention to the sounds uttered, at the time of uttering them, leads to an affected and offensive delivery, yet, on the other hand, an utterly careless reader cannot be a good one.

CHAP. II.-Artificial and Natural Methods compared.

Reading.

WITH a view to Perspicuity then, the first requisite in all Deliv. ery, viz. that quality which makes the meaning fully understood by the hearers, the great point is, that the Reader (to confine our attention for the present to that branch) should appear to understand what he reads. If the composition be,

5 Style occupies in some respects an intermediate place between these two; in what degree each quality of it should or should not be made an object of attention at the time of com

posing, and how far the appearance of such attention is tolerated, has been already treated of in the preceding Part.

in itself, intelligible to the persons addressed, he will make them fully understand it, by so delivering it. But to this end, it is not enough that he should himself actually understand it; it is possible, notwithstanding, to read it as if he did not. And in like manner with a view to the quality, which has been here called Energy, it is not sufficient that he should himself feel, and be impressed with the force of what he utters; he may, notwithstanding, deliver it as if he were unimpressed.

§ 2.

The remedy that has been commonly proposed for these defects, is to point out in such a work, for instance, as the Lit Sheridan. urgy, which words ought to be marked as emphatic,—in what places the voice is to be suspended, raised, lowered, &c. One of the best writers on the subject, Sheridan, in his "Lectures on the Art of Reading," (whose remarks on many points coincide with the principles here laid down, though he differs from me on the main question as to the System to be practically followed with a view to the proposed object,) adopted a peculiar set of marks for denoting the different pauses, emphases, &c., and applied these, with accompanying explanatory observations, to the greater part of the Liturgy, and to an Essay subjoined; recommending that the habit should be formed of regulating the voice by his marks; and that afterwards readers should "write out such parts as they want to deliver properly, without any of the usual stops; and, after having considered them well, mark the pauses and emphases by the new signs which have been annexed to them, according to the best of their judg ment," &c.

To the adoption of any such artificial scheme there are three weighty objections; first, that the proposed system must necessarily be imperfect; secondly, that if it were perfect, it would be a circuitous path to the object in view; and thirdly, that even if both these objections were removed, the object would not be effectually ob

tained.

Imperfection of the artificial

First, such a system must necessarily be imperfect; because though the emphatic word in each sentence may easily be pointed out in writing, no variety of marks that could be invented-not even musical Notation—would suffice to indicate the different tones in which the different emphatic words should be pronounced; though on this depends frequently the whole force, and even sense of the expression. Take, as an instance, the words of Macbeth in the witches' cave,

system.

6 See note,ch. i. § 3. It is to be observed, however, that most of the objections I have adduced do not apply to this or that system in particular; to Sheridan's, for instance, as distinguished from Walker's; but to all such systems generally; as may be seen from what is said in the present section.

7 See Appendix [N].

8 And even in Music, the Notation, though so much more complete than any that could be adapted te Speaking, yet leaves much to be supplied by the intelligence, taste, and feeling of the performer.

9 See first note, ch. i. § 3.