facts are familiar to us all. If it be said, "And are not men perfectly consistent in preferring that order of instrumentality which they find most adapted to impress them?" we reply, Surely, they are;" but not at all consistent if they do not carry out the same principle to the utmost, and avail themselves of every means of rendering the instrumentality, which they acknowledge thus widely differs in adaptation and efficacy, as perfect as possible. All the familiar facts which we have mentioned above, are so many admissions that the instrumentality, which is yet to be connected with supernatural influences, may be better or worse fitted to its end; that the conditions on which conviction and persuasion depend may be imperfectly complied with in different cases; that, however men may be pleased to say that they require nothing but the simple truth, they do in fact require much more; and that, however firmly they believe that the preaching of the gospel is accompanied by a supernatural agency, they at the same time admit that its efficacy is also made dependent on the perfection of the subordinate machinery. Now the principle they practically admit, we would consistently and systematically act upon; we would have the whole instrumentality as perfectly adapted to its end as the imperfections of human nature will allow; so that, as we have already said, the question is reduced to this general one,Are the studies in question likely to render the instrumentality more perfect?—is a knowledge of the true principles of public speaking a probable means of making a more effective public speaker? And if the affirmative be admitted generally true, in reference to other public speakers, it must be equally admitted in reference to the preacher. The objection, that the deliberate application of such principles is derogatory to the glory of the gospel, cannot for a moment be maintained by those who, as we have seen, admit, in so many other forms, the important influence of circumstances comparatively trivial on the efficiency of the means employed. If the objection were true, it would be equally derogatory to the glory of the gospel that its success should in anywise be dependent on such circumstances, and perfectly disgraceful to the piety of those who urge the objection, that they should attach the slightest importance to them.

That the study of the principles of public speaking in general is likely to make a more efficient speaker is now pretty generally recognised; and how it should ever have been doubted may well excite our surprise. To possess a clear apprehension of the laws of man's moral and intellectual nature, and the conditions on which conviction and persuasion usually depend-to be aware of the prejudices which usually oppose the admission of unwelcome truth, and the best modes of encountering them-to know what are the species of argument which may be best adapted to popular

address, the most effective modes of combining and arranging them, and the proprieties of style on which clear and forcible expression depends-to be early told of those who are the truest and the severest models of simple and powerful eloquence, and to be compelled to familiarize the mind with them-to be informed of the vices of those who have failed of excellence, and to receive timely warning by their failure-to have faults, or tendencies to faults, pointed out, and severely corrected-one would think could be no other than highly beneficial to any one who was about to undertake the difficult and responsible office of a public speaker. Let us try the matter by the test of a few plain examples. The ordinary, and to a greater or less extent, universal faults of young speakers are such as these: they like to shew their learning and their ingenuity, by employing as many arguments as possible, instead of the fewest which will answer the purpose, and they lay most stress just on those which are most out of the way and most difficult, rather than on the simplest and the plainest; they prefer the most abstract and general terms they can find, instead of the most special and popular, foolishly thinking that they thereby give their discourses a more philosophical aspect, and forgetting that they in that proportion remove them from common apprehension; they turn with disgust from the homely vernacular, and prefer the more elegant, as they think, because more unfamiliar, terms of foreign origin, ignorant that they thereby sacrifice both perspicuity and vividness of expression; they prefer the turgid to the simple, the florid to the severe; they delight in glittering images and ambitious ornaments, however preposterous in relation to the subject and the occasion; instead of surrendering themselves wholly to their subject, perhaps reluctant, from youthful vanity or the love of applause to do so, they seek to create an interest foreign to it, and to extort the admiration of their audience by the originality of such an idea or the brilliancy of such an image. These faults, and faults like these, more or less cling to every young speaker, and they spring partly from the ignorance which is inseparable from youth, and partly from the imperfections of character, common to our corrupt nature-imperfections which religion may have repressed, but has not yet eradicated. Every speaker who becomes worth anything, overcomes them in time by experience and practice. But is it nothing to be distinctly and frequently told, before vicious habits have been formed or become inveterate, that they are in absolute defiance of all the soundest maxims of common sense and good taste, of universal experience and the examples of the best models, and, above all, imply criminal forgetfulness of the great end which the speaker professes to have in view, and to which everything should be subordinate? Can it be of little benefit to a youth to hear these maxims not merely insisted upon,

but the reasons of them clearly and repeatedly enforced, and any violations of them discoverable in his own compositions faithfully pointed out, and, if need be, severely rebuked?

We are persuaded that no rational mind will answer these questions in any way but one; nor would a doubt ever have existed upon the subject, were it not for two circumstances. The first is, that the tendency to some of the faults in question is so strong in the youthful mind, that it resists for a time the most strenuous and judicious corrections, and cannot be wholly eradicated till experience and practice have reinforced instruction. By a singular infelicity, the faults which have existed in spite of instruction, have often been attributed to it; much as if the inflammatory symptoms which phlebotomy, medicine, and spare diet had merely abated, but had not wholly subdued, should be attributed to the doctor's remedies.-The second circumstance is, that, too often it must be confessed, the principles of eloquence have not been taught in the right way. The system has too often been one rather of minute rules, than of comprehensive principles-fettering, rather than aiding the operations of the mind. Now, in our opinion, it is essential to the value of any system of rhetoric, that it should be characterized by just the opposite qualities; that its principles should be few in number, and therefore readily remembered and readily recalled; obviously founded upon the great laws of human nature, and therefore perfectly intelligible, and recognised as reasonable; and for all these reasons, easily incorporated with the habits of thought, and insensibly suggested when there is occasion to use them, without distinct consciousness, or a deliberate and operose application of them. Such a system, operating upon the processes of thought without interrupting them, modifying without controlling them, silently suggesting the right and the wrong, is far removed from a system of petty rules to secure petty proprieties; rules which, from their number and minuteness, must be laboriously recalled, and mechanically applied at every step. There is as great a difference in the two cases as between the natural channel of a river, which adapts itself, even while it restrains the waters within bounds to all their course of sinuous freedom and beauty, and an artificial canal on a dead level, into which the waters are mechanically admitted.

It is essential to the value of any such system, that the mind, at the time, be unconscious of its influence. This is out of the question, where the rules are so numerous as to be with difficulty recalled, or so minute that the reasons on which they are based are not obvious. It is far different with those great principles which, by their very comprehensiveness, readily take their place in the mind, insensibly pervade its habits, and influence without controlling it. The moment there is the mechanical application of

principles, however sound in themselves, the current of thought and emotion is interrupted, and absorption in the subject is at an end.

The same reasons which have thus led us to advocate an increased attention to the principles of pulpit eloquence, induce us to say, that we think much more attention ought to be paid to elocution, by which we mean the proprieties of delivery, whether as respects voice or manner. We would not here be misunderstood. We more than doubt the value of any system which shall attempt to "teach the graces." We are quite of Whately's opinion, that a system of minute instruction, where to lay the emphasis in this case and in that, what are the tones and cadences and gestures appropriated to the expression of such and such emotions respectively, is likely to be far more mischievous than beneficial in the immense majority of cases. We e agree further with him in thinking, that even if such a system were not at all mischievous it is, at best, a very circuitous way of learning those proprieties which nature herself infallibly teaches to every one who is in earnest-which every man, under the influence of real passion, uniformly exemplifies, not excepting even the vulgar and uneducated; and that there is, therefore, a more excellent way" of acquiring what may be called the positive excellences of elocution than this slow and cumbrous process, and that is, by learning to abandon ourselves to our subject, and seeking to be heartily in earnest.

66

But the method above censured is not only circuitous,-it generally fails of its object, and that for reasons which are very obvious. The process is a long one, and by the time the scholar has pretty nearly finished his laborious task, and got his system of accents and cadences familiar to him-by the time he has learned to travel through a passage with a due observance of all the artificial finger-posts, which tell him that his voice is to rise here, and fall there-that his arms are to be projected now at this angle, and now at that--he has been so accustomed to forget his subject, while attending to the intonations of his voice and the balancing of his body and the management of his palms, (which, indeed, he was obliged to do for a time,) that what was designed only as temporary practice has become, in a great measure, his habit for life. Another circumstance which aids this result, is, that in learning this system, it is impossible to disjoin the efforts necessary to acquire it from the processes of mind to which it is to be applied, so that the acquisition and the application of the art shall be two distinct things. While a man is learning how to give proper expression to a given sentiment or emotion, he must utter it, and yet must abstract his mind from the sentiment or emotion itself; that is, while he is learning the form, he is to forget the substance. This duly practised for a

sufficient time leads to habit, and the form is permanently retained, while the substance is in measure forgotten. This may serve as an answer to an objection sometimes made, that if it be possible to acquire and apply the principles of composition, why is it not possible to acquire and apply a system of elocution? The answer is, that the acquisition of principles of composition, and the act of composition itself, are two perfectly distinct things; the necessary processes are not required to be simultaneously performed. We have already consistently affirmed, that in the act of composition itself there ought to be no deliberate, conscious application of the principles of composition, however comprehensive or judicious they may be. We may well imagine what an odd mixture any composition would be, if the mind had to acquire the rules of composition during the very act of composition itself.

By advocating greater attention, therefore, to the subject of the delivery of sermons, we by no means advocate that system of artificial elocution, against which Whately has said so much. We agree with him that, in a large majority of cases, it produces either a habit of pompous spouting, or airs of self-complacency, which alike indicate the absence of true feeling and of passionate earnestness. Even the vehemence of men initiated in this system always appears to us to be rather the mimicry of passion than passion; rather an imitation of the tones and gestures of nature than the tones and gestures of nature itself.

But in justly denouncing this system of artificial elocution, it appears to us that the abovementioned writer has forgotten that much may still be done by attention to this subject, not, as we have said, to impart excellences, but to remedy defects; not to teach men so much how they ought to speak, as how they ought not to speak. The value of any system of elocution appears to us, like that of any system of rhetoric, to be rather negative than positive; but the benefits which either the one or the other may impart may be very great notwithstanding. Within these limits, we confess, we think that elocution ought to have been much more cultivated. There can be no doubt, that a weak voice may be strengthened, acquire greater compass, a better tone, and more firmness; that a husky or indistinct articulation may be rendered more clear; that that crying vice of monotony may be got rid of, and numberless awkwardnesses of manner corrected. Of many of these faults the very parties chargeable with them are ignorant till they are told of them; to know them is to endeavour to correct them; and the endeavour will always be attended with some success. adopted with a view to their detection. One of the best is, to Various methods might be prescribe frequent exercises in reading, under the eye of a judicious instructor. As we have contended that, in admitting can