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, general rules have been framed, which an author is recommended studiously to observe in Composition: and this is precisely the procedure which, in Elocution, I deprecate.

Excellence in

matter and in delivery to be aimed at in op

posite 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 thoughts not the sound of the expressions. Whoever therefore learns, and endeavors 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

*See Part III. Chap. III. § 4.

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 labor. Both alike must bestow their attention on the Matter of what they 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 bestow his whole attention on the proper business of his speech; which is, not the Elocution, but the matter.*

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

$5.

When however I protest against all artifiNatural Style cial systems of Elocution, and all direct atof Elocution. tention 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.

$ 1.

Reading.

WITH a view to Perspicuity then, the first requisite in all Delivery, 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, 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

Sheridan.

a work, for instance, as the Liturgy, 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,"*

* 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.

(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 judgment," &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 those objections were removed, the object would not be effectually obtained.

Imperfection of the artificial system.

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 fre

See Appendix, [N].

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

See first note, Ch. I. § 3.