LECTURE XIV.

Elocution considered as a Science-Mr. Thelwall's Opinions-The_Knowledge of Human Nature and the Philosophy of Mind-The Theory of the Poise-Ancient and Modern Authorities on the Poise of the Voice in Reading and Speaking-Steele's "Prosodia Rationalis"-The Laws of Quantity-The Proper Observance of the Poise essential to good Reading and Speaking-Special Function of the Larynx in reference to Poise-Neglect of the Observance of Poise a frequent Source of Stammering and Stuttering-The Laws of Rhythm-Pauses-Rhetorical words-Mr. Herbert Spencer's Views on Rhythm.

REMEMBER well that the first Lecturer on Public Reading and Speaking who was appointed in this College, the late Rev. A.S. Thelwall-whose name I have already quoted on a former evening-never spoke in his Lectures of the "art" of Elocution, as people are generally in the habit of calling it; but he always termed it the "science" of Elocution, and claimed for it invariably the rank and dignity of a science. And if we are to take the word "science" in the sense of its original (scientia), as meaning knowledge, I think that a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge on any important subject may fairly be said to reduce such a subject to a science.

I think I should be strongly inclined to follow the example of my late excellent predecessor when lecturing here, and, like him, speak of Elocution as a science. For any instruction that really deserves that character ought to be founded on truly scientific principles, upon an intimate knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the organs of voice and speech, and an accurate acquaintance with the principles of spoken language. Mr. Thelwall always contended (and here I quite agree with him) that a scientific study of Elocution must involve some consideration of the principles of music; for unless we understand so much of that science as to be able to discern how far the principles of music apply to spoken language (as indeed they do in a measure to all vocal sounds), and wherein the music of speech differs from the music of song, we shall not only be destitute of any sure foundation for those rules by which the management of the voice must be regulated, but we shall be liable to many errors and mistakes, and unable to show how various defects are to be remedied. And, moreover, we must have continually to make some reference to a higher and nobler science still, viz., the knowledge of human nature and the philosophy of mind. Indeed, without due attention to this, how shall we be enabled fitly to express, and intelligibly and effectively to communicate to others, the various passions,

emotions, sentiments, and convictions of the human mind? There is nothing more certain than that if the principles we define and the rules we lay down have not constant reference to this high and important department of human knowledge and study, they will most assuredly be in constant danger of failing to have their foundation in truth and nature: for it is mainly by means of spoken language that mind in this life here communicates with mind; and therefore it necessarily follows that not only the words which we employ to express in language our manifold thoughts and feelings, but the manner in which we pronounce such language so as to produce its fullest effect, must have continual reference and adaptation to the nature and constitution of the human mind.

Now, when it has been shown that the principles by which the inflection, modulation, and poise of the voice must be regulated, especially in public reading and speaking, and that the rules by which the errors, mistakes, and defects into which so many readers and speakers fall, are to be corrected and overcome, involve a constant reference to those branches of science to which reference has been made, in order to investigate, ascertain, and point out the true foundations on which they rest, it neither can nor will be long a matter of surprise if Elocution claims and receives the rank and dignity of a science. No doubt it is indeed perfectly true that, when those rules have once been investigated and laid down, and when the scientific principles on which they are founded have been clearly ascertained, it will, generally speaking, be quite sufficient to give to the pupil the result, without entering at large with each individual into the whole logical process of examination and reasoning by which we have arrived at it. Yet still, an educated and scientific instructor should always be prepared to explain fully the rationale of every rule laid down for inflection, modulation, and other elements of Elocution, whenever occasion may require; though of course there is no need of his burdening the mind of every pupil who comes to him for practical instruction, with all the details of the whole process of reasoning by which he has himself come to his conclusions.

When Mr. Thelwall delivered his introductory lecture on Elocution in this college many years ago to a large and distinguished audience, at which I had the honour and advantage of being present, he said, when closing his argument in support of his favourite proposition, that Elocution was a science

"Let me consider that if Elocution claim to be considered as a science, it must, first of all, have its clear definitions. We cannot lay down our rules for the management of the voice without using certain terms of art, which, in the ordinary course of instruction, will continually recur; and those terms should be clearly defined and strictly appropriated.

"To illustrate this general principle, I need only refer to Euclid, or to any work on any particular branch of mathematics. When these are opened, it will be seen at once that they regularly commence with definitions. If these be not distinctly set forth in the first instance, and strictly adhered to in what follows, there will be endless confusion. Especially it is evident that, if the same word were continually used to express

things essentially different, there would soon be such confusion and uncertainty, that all hope of coming to clear and satisfactory conclusions would be utterly at an end. Only imagine a teacher of mathematics who should insist on using the same word to designate an angle and a circle! what could be expected as the result but endless confusion?

"These remarks are very important in connection with our present subject. For though, in regard to sciences in general, they are so obvious as almost to deserve the title of mere truisms; yet, with reference to Elocution and the phenomena of spoken language, they have been most strangely and lamentably forgotten; insomuch that many able and learned men have got thoroughly into the habit of confounding things which ought to be distinguished (because, indeed, they are, in their very nature, distinct); and this habit has laid the foundation of many rooted prejudices. Hence it has come to pass that those who have attempted to mark out a wiser course and to proceed upon truly rational and scientific principles in treating of Elocution, have heretofore found too much reason to complain that, even from men of science and learning, they could scarcely get so much as a patient hearing. "For example: What confusion has there been on the subject of accent and quantity! And the term accent itself has been used, and is still continually used, to express ideas which are totally distinct-ideas, indeed, which it is of the highest importance to distinguish—if we would really understand the nature and the principles of spoken language.

"We speak of accents as acute, grave, and circumflex. This mode of speaking has evident reference to the rising and falling of the voice in the musical scale. And when we speak of an Irish accent, a Scotch accent, a provincial accent, or a foreign accent, we have, generally, a reference to the peculiar tones of the voice, which characterise persons who come from different countries or provinces (though sometimes, perhaps, we speak more vaguely, and include, under the term accent, all the peculiarities of pronunciation by which such persons are distinguished; but this is evidently a vague and incorrect way of speaking).

"But when we speak of the accented syllable of a word-when we say that constant, parent, and teacher, are accented on the first syllable, and that exalt, detect, and avoid are accented on the last, is it not evident that we use the word accent in a totally different sense? We commonly call the first syllable in the former words and the last syllable in the latter that on which the acute accent falls; and we use the note or sign of the acute accent, to mark what we call the accented syllable. But has this really anything to do with acute and grave ?—with the rise or fall of the voice in the musical scale? Let us endeavour to bring this to the test of careful observation."

Mr. Thelwall then gave his audience an illustration by pronouncing the two following short interrogative sentences:—

"Is that a mán?"

“Are you contént ?”

Pronouncing these two sentences in the proper way as laid down in the rules of inflection, he said reasonably enough that the individual in his audience must have a very dull or unpractised ear, who did not

perceive that the speaker's voice rose to a higher note on the last syllable of each of the two sentences he had just uttered. But who, among his hearers, he went on to say, did not perceive with equal clearness, that when the sentence is affirmative the note on the final syllable is wholly different? that the voice descends in the musical scale.

"Yes, that is a màn."

"I am contènt."

And this essential difference between an affirmative and an interrogative sentence is so essentially rooted in the very nature of things, he continued, that we all make the distinction naturally; and naturally, too, we all perceive and feel it. So that when the very words, and the order in which the words are placed in the sentence, are in every respect precisely the same, one speaker will make them sound like an interrogation, and another like an affirmation by the mere inflection of the voice according as it is rising or falling at the end of the sentence. "The king comes here to-night."

This, now, so pronounced, is merely a simple affirmation. But supposing, for a moment, that the sentence was not fully heard or understood at first, the question for further information or assurance of the fact might be asked in precisely the very same words, but with another inflection, the rising instead of the falling.

"The king comes here to-night ?"

And yet some persons will speak of these inflections under the name of accent.

I was so much impressed with a sense of the learning, labour, and research exhibited by Mr. Thelwall in the portion of his lecture which more immediately followed in reference to this subject, that I waited on him afterwards, and had a very long and interesting conversation with him on this, as well as other questions in connection with Elocution. He very kindly gave me a copy of his lecture, and shortly afterwards it was printed and published by him under the title of "A Lecture on the Importance of Elocution, delivered at King's College, London, on entering upon the duties of Lecturer on Public Reading, Jan. 30, 1850." Thirty years have elapsed since then. Mr. Thelwall is now dead, and his lecture is, I believe, now entirely out of print. I am sure, therefore, you will consider it a valuable addition to your information, if here I give you Mr. Thelwall's own language from the copy still in my possession. "Now it is evident that the words king and night in these two cases have equally that stress upon them, which is commonly denoted by what (in speaking of polysyllables) is called the acute accent (as, when we say kingly or nightly, the first is commonly called the accented syllable, and it is marked in Pronouncing Dictionaries with the sign of the acute accent accordingly); and yet, to speak correctly of the musical inflection, in the affirmative sentence we pronounce them both with a grave accent, and must do so in order to convey our meaning; and, in the interrogative sentence, by merely using the acute accent on each, we at once convey, even to the dullest ear, the unmistakable impression of a question.

"Is there not, then, some strange confusion, in denoting two things

so entirely distinct in their nature as the stress that is laid on particular syllables, and the rise of the voice in the musical scale, by one and the same term?

"The fact is, that we want other terms to express the distinction between what are so commonly, but very improperly, called the accented and unaccented syllables. And for the adoption of such terms I must earnestly plead; for we commonly find that confusion of terms leads to confusion of ideas. And, in reference to all discussions respecting spoken language, this has been continually the case.

"We must have, in the very outset of all our inquiries on this subject (if we would ever hope to bring them to a satisfactory issue)—we must have clearly before our minds a threefold distinction.

"1. QUANTITY has reference to the comparative length of syllables; and includes the differences of long and short, or longer and shorter.* It may be sufficient in all ordinary cases to denote these distinctions by the usual marks of - for long, and for short. If more accuracy is required, the musical notes of quantity • Semibreve, Minim, Crochet, the Quaver, will serve every purpose; especially if (when needful) we add a dot to the right, which makes the note half as long again. Thus

f = f=
CC and CCC

2. ACCENT has reference to the rise and fall of the voice in the musical scale, or to musical inflection; it includes acute ('), grave (), and circumflex (^). (Adopting the usual notation.)

"3. Let us, then, confine these words to their proper meanings. And when we are clear as to the meaning of our terms, we are then prepared to enter upon the discussion of the question, How far there is any necessary connection between quantity and accent? or in other words, Whether or not the long syllable is necessarily, or naturally, acute, or the short grave?

"But we must have a third term to express a third set of differences; namely, that which we observe between the first and second syllables of the words, patience, glory, conflict, pitfall; or delight, consists, maintain, pronounce.

"This distinction is expressed by the thesis and arsis of the Greeks; which had, I conceive, reference to the planting and lifting up of the

"I say longer and shorter, and not merely long and short, for it is a great mistake to suppose that all long syilables are equally long, and all short syllables equally short. An able and learned author, to whom reference is subsequently made, has clearly shown that English syllables differ in length, in all the varieties of from eight to one. That is to say, if the longest syllable in spoken language be denoted by a semibreve, there are other syllables continually used, of which the quantity can only be fitly denoted by a quaver. My late father had come to the same conclusion, before he had even heard the name of the author alluded to. This author also aptly illustrates the various length of syllables, which are all called short, by reference to the primary meaning of the word dactyle: dákтuλos, a finger, is indeed long and two short; but who does not see, by looking at his own finger, that the two short joints are not equally short? We have, in fact, long, short, and shorter."