business of his speech, which is, not the Elocution, but the Matter.*

§ 5.

When however I protest against all artificial systems of Elocution, and all direct attention to Delivery, at the time, it must not be sup- style of posed that a general inattention to that point

Natural

Elocution.

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

*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.

time of uttering them, leads to an affected and offensive delivery, yet, on the other hand, an utterly careless reader cannot be a good ore.

Reading.

CHAP. II.

Artificial and Natural Methods compared.

§ 1.

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 a work, for instance, as the Liturgy, which words ought

Sheridan

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,) adopts a peculiar set of marks for denoting the different pauses, emphases, &c. and applies 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

* See note p. 256. 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.

+ See Appendix, [ I.]

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 frequently the whole force, and even sense of the expression. Take, as an instance, the words of Macbeth in the witches' cave, when he is addressed by one of the Spirits which they raise, "Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!" on which he exclaims, "Had I three ears I'd hear thee;” no one would dispute that the stress is to be laid on the word "three;" and thus much might be indicated to the reader's eye; but if he had nothing else to trust to, he might chance to deliver the passage in such a manner as to be utterly absurd; for it is possible to pronounce the emphatic word "three,” in such a tone as to indicate that "since he has but two ears he cannot hear." Again, the following passage, (Mark iv. 21.) "Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed," I have heard so pronounced as to imply that there is no other alternative: and yet the emphasis was laid on the right words. It would be nearly as hopeless a task to attempt adequately to convey, by any written marks, precise directions as to the rate,

the degree of rapidity or slowness, with which each sentence and clause should be delivered. Longer and shorter pauses may indeed be easily denoted; and marks may be used, similar to those in music, to indicate, generally, quick, slow, or moderate time; but it is * See note, p. 256.

evident that the variations which actually take place are infinite-far beyond what any marks could suggest ; and that much of the force of what is said depends on the degree of rapidity with which it is uttered; chiefly on the relative rapidity of one part in comparison of another for instance, in such a sentence as the following, in one of the Psalms, which one may usually hear read at one uniform rate; "all men that see it shall say, this hath God done; for they shall perceive that it is his work; "the four words "this hath God done," though monosyllables, ought to occupy very little less time in utterance than all the rest of the verse together.

ness of the

artificial

system.

2dly, But were it even possible to bring to the highest perfection the proposed system of marks, Circuitousit would still be a circuitous road to the desired end. Suppose it could be completely indicated to the eye, in what tone each word and sentence should be pronounced according to the several occasions, the learner might ask, "but why should this tone suit the awful, — this, the pathetic,—this, the narrative style? why is this mode of delivery adopted for a command, this, for an exhortation, — this, for a supplication?" &c. The only answer that could be given, is, that these tones, emphases, &c. are a part of the language; that nature, or custom, which is a second nature, suggest spontaneously these different modes of giving expression to the different thoughts, feelings, and designs, which are present to the mind of any one who, without study, is speaking in earnest his own sentiments. Then, if this be the case, why not leave nature to do her own work? Impress but the mind fully with the sentiments, &c. to be uttered; withdraw the attention from the sound, and