The Augustan Reprint Society

THOMAS SHERIDAN

A DISCOURSE

BEING INTRODUCTORY

TO HIS COURSE OF LECTURES

ON

ELOCUTION

AND THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

(1759)

Introduction by

G. P. Mohrmann

PUBLICATION NUMBER 136

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

1969

GENERAL EDITORS

William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles

Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

David S. Rodes, University of California, Los Angeles

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan

James L. Clifford, Columbia University

Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia

Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago

Louis A. Landa, Princeton University

Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles

Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota

Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles

Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

James Sutherland, University College, London

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles

Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Mary Kerbret, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

INTRODUCTION

Thomas Sheridan (1718-1788) devoted his life to enterprises within the sphere of spoken English, and although he achieved more than common success in all his undertakings, it was his fate to have his reputation eclipsed by more famous contemporaries and eroded by the passage of time. On the stage, he was compared favorably with Garrick, but his name lives in the theatre only through his son Richard Brinsley. A leading theorist of the elocutionary movement, his pronouncing dictionary ranks after the works of Dr. Johnson and John Walker, and his entire contribution dimmed when the movement fell into disrepute.[1]

Sheridan attained his greatest renown through his writing and lecturing on elocution, and the fervor with which he pursued the study of tones, looks, and gestures in speaking animates A Discourse Delivered in the Theatre at Oxford, in the Senate-House at Cambridge, and at Spring-Garden in London. This lecture, "Being Introductory to His Course of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language," displays both the man and the elocutionary movement. Throughout the work, Sheridan exhibits his missionary zeal, his dedication to "a visionary hypothesis that dazzled his mind."[2] At the same time, he presents the basic principles of elocutionary theory and reveals the forces that made the movement a dominant pattern in English rhetoric.

It is difficult to account for Sheridan's millennial approach to elocution, but his absorption in language study is most understandable. His father, Dr. Thomas Sheridan, was a minister and teacher, judged to be "a good classical scholar, and an excellent schoolmaster."[3] He supervised his son's early education, and Sheridan was being pointed toward a career as school master. His exposure to, and interest in, English were reinforced by his godfather, Dean Swift, who was long an intimate of the elder Sheridan. In later years, Sheridan was eager to acknowledge that his attitudes had been profoundly influenced by those of Swift.

To some degree Sheridan's dedication to language study is evidenced in his theatrical activities. As an undergraduate, he wrote a play that was later published; and almost immediately after taking his M.A. at Trinity College, he made his professional acting debut in Dublin. This was 1743, and forty years later he was taking part in Attic Entertainments, performances "consisting of recitation, singing, and music."[4] A selective chronology suggests his involvement with the stage: 1744, acting in London with Garrick; 1750, acting and managing in Dublin; 1760, acting in London; 1780, acting manager for his son at Drury Lane.

Successful as an actor, Sheridan appears to have missed greatness because he could not overcome an inflexibility and obstinacy in personality; and the same characteristics helped to precipitate a number of squabbles and riots that marred his managerial efforts. However, much of his frustration in the theatre must be attributed to the more compelling attraction to the theory of delivery in speaking. The stage provided a practical outlet, but Sheridan's fascination with elocutionary theory dominated and deflected the interest in theatre.

That elocution was his primary concern is demonstrated in his major publications: British Education, 1756; Lectures on Elocution, 1762; A Plan of Education, 1769; Lectures on the Art of Reading, 1775; and A General Dictionary of the English Language, 1780. In all of these works the central argument remained unchanged after its initial statement in the complete title of British Education.[5] There, Sheridan suggested that a revival of the art of speaking would improve religion, morality, and constitutional government; would undergird a refining of the language; and would pave the way for ultimate perfection in all the arts.

Having posited this thesis in 1756, Sheridan was reiterating it still in the material prefatory to his pronouncing dictionary in 1780, and he never rested with publication alone. As early as 1757 he lectured on the principles of education, and he first presented his course of lectures on elocution in 1758-59 at Oxford and Cambridge. Over the years the course proved to be both popular and financially rewarding, and Sheridan sometimes presented the lectures in order to relieve financial embarassment. Nevertheless, his devotion to the cause was the crucial factor. His interest in language somehow became an almost blind devotion to spoken English, and through his course he could carry his message to influential audiences in England, Ireland, and Scotland; the Edinburgh Select Society sponsored two series in 1761, and Sheridan was lecturing on elocution as late as 1785.

The Discourse typifies Sheridan's simplistic interpretation and the evangelistic ardor with which he addressed his audiences. He was not content to fault an overemphasis in the study of Latin, nor was he satisfied to argue that "the support of our establishments, both ecclesiastical and civil" rests upon public discussion. Many in his audiences would have agreed, and few would have taken issue with the contention that the "art of elocution" needed further cultivation. But Sheridan pressed on to insist that the written language, being an invention of man, "can have no natural power," and he argued that the "highest delights" of aesthetic pleasures must wait upon the perfection of spoken English. He even went so far as to suggest that the study of "grammar, rhetorick, and oratory" explained the outstanding artistic achievements of Greece and Rome.

Moreover, "other benefits to society" would add to "the glory of the nation" and to the "ornament of individuals, and of the state in general" through a loosing of silent tongues. Sheridan dreamed that the study of elocution, with a voice "far sweeter than the syren's song," would so entrance young students that they would linger long in native academic groves, avoiding the baneful influence of travel abroad "at the most unfit and dangerous season of life." Thus, individual and social perfection had to be predicated upon the study of spoken English, and Sheridan implied that to slight this study was to offer an affront to the divine plan for earthly progress.

This panacean outlook prompted Hume to remark that "Mr. Sheridan's Lectures are vastly too enthusiastic. He is to do every thing by Oratory."[6] And it is not surprising that the critical, the Johnsons and Humes, should have been distressed by Sheridan's enthusiasm, an enthusiasm that permitted him to posit such unlikely goals and to see himself as the sole authority on elocution. Yet, for every negative reaction, the elocutionists enlisted countless believers. Sheridan and other theorists capitalized upon a number of intellectual currents and social pressures of the era that centered attention upon delivery in speaking and that helped aggrandize this facet of rhetorical training. A number of forces can be isolated, but most relate to the classical inheritance, to the belief that tones, looks, and gestures constitute a natural language of the passions, and to the methodology of science.[7]

The classical inheritance was important to the elocutionists because of the impetus given to all language study. Sheridan did no more than echo a common complaint when he worried over the "many bad consequences" attending a neglect of the English language; countless writers addressed themselves to a determination of phonology and pronunciation in the attempt "to methodize" the language. Furthermore, the example of ancient oratory spoke loudly to a people striving to perfect both the individual and social institutions. Any educated man was expected to be able to express himself well in public, particularly if his vocation found him "in the pulpit, the senate-house, or at the bar." The pulpit was a favorite target, and critics regularly lamented the atrocious state of speaking "in the very service of the Most High." The elocutionists and others appear to have been convinced that the doubt and scepticism of the age would be much relieved if only the preachers would learn to speak properly. Theirs seemed the best of all possible religions, and it needed but a vitalization through adequate pulpit oratory to transcend anything accomplished by the Popish devotees on the Continent. Certainly Sheridan's references to the Continent also reflect a strong overlay of nationalism, and the same spirit creeps into his worship of Greece and Rome; but he and the other elocutionists knew that they owed a profound debt to classical rhetorical theory. Beyond supporting language study generally and beyond encouraging an interest in public speaking, ancient rhetoric justified a concentration on delivery.

After centuries of a chameleon-like existence, the complete Ciceronian rhetoric emerged in England just in time to meet a savage onslaught from the methods of science and the new epistemology.[8] Eventually, rhetoricians such as Campbell and Blair were to successfully blend the old and the new, but the elocutionists found fertile ground in delivery alone. They began, as Sheridan did, with the testimony of Cicero and Quintilian because actio, or pronuntiatio, was one of the five established canons of classical rhetoric. A favorite citation, though Sheridan did not use it, was Demosthenes' reputed response when asked to name the three most important parts of rhetoric: "Actio, actio, actio." The endorsement of antiquity lent powerful support to the study of delivery, and this was the one canon that had not been subjected to regular exhaustive analyses throughout the rhetorical tradition. Here was a topic ripe for further investigation, and by Sheridan's day, the tones, looks, and gestures of delivery had achieved commonplace status in discussions of man's emotions.

Sheridan spoke as if this natural language of the passions were "hardly ever thought of," but the belief that tones, looks, and gestures were external signs of internal emotions was firmly established by the middle of the eighteenth century. The notion has received some attention throughout western thought, but most speculation appears to date from Descartes' Les Passions de l'ame in 1650. The increasing concern with mind-body problems encouraged inquiries into the nature and function of the natural language in all areas relating directly to man's emotion and its expression. The topics were as various as religion and physiognomy, but discussions of the natural language construct centered upon human communication, particularly in the arts.

The construct became especially significant in analyses of painting and sculpture. Examples of its impress can be seen in Le Brun's sketches of the passions,[9] in Hogarth's having embraced "the commonly received opinion, that the face is the index of the mind,"[10] and in Dryden's contention that "to express the passions which are seated in the heart, by outward signs, is one great precept of the painters." Dryden added that "in poetry, the same passions and motions of the mind are to be expressed,"[11] and the natural language found its way into most discussions of tragedy and the epic. Other examples of literary analysis in which the construct operated include Steele's Prosodia Rationalis, Say's An Essay on Harmony, Variety, and Power of Numbers, and Kames' Elements of Criticism. In sum, it was almost universally accepted that the creative artist was to observe and record the natural language of the passions. In Sheridan's words, he was to perceive and delineate the "operations, affections, and energies, of the mind itself ... manifested and communicated in speech."

The methodology of science was indirectly responsible for giving added support to this facet of elocutionary rationale. When British empiricism was pressed to the limit, considerable doubt and scepticism resulted; and the Scottish common sense philosophy was, in large part, a counter response. The operation of the natural language became one of the first principles of common sense; and in their discussions of philosophy, aesthetics, and rhetoric, the Scots argued for the study of elocution.[12]

Science contributed directly to the movement by providing the framework for analysis. Without the empirical approach and the confidence in scientific methodology, theorists simply would not have attempted to isolate and describe the elements in the external signs of the emotions. Science forced Sheridan to think in terms of empirical observation and categorization, and science permitted him to call for "sure and sufficient rules" in order that "the art of speaking like that of writing ... be reduced to a system." It is even symptomatic that he should have referred to the design of the "Great Mechanist."

Almost as enthusiastic as Sheridan, a number of other elocutionists expressed similar views and found their theories invigorated by the same forces. James Burgh in the Art of Speaking (1761), John Walker in Elements of Elocution (1781) and a number of other works, and Gilbert Austin in Chironomia (1806) were among the more influential elocutionary theorists. Numerous other writers in both England and America participated in making the study of elocution an established part of the English rhetorical tradition.

In America, the study gained acceptance at all levels of education, and the class in elocution became a standard course in colleges and universities. Elocution centered upon oral reading and public speaking, and written composition came to be the exclusive province of the rhetoric class. The resultant distinctions between oral and written discourse played a significant role in the eventual development of separate departments of speech and English in American colleges and universities.[13]

Although speech departments grew out of elocutionary studies, elocution disappeared from the curriculum because of an association with an excessive emphasis upon performance as performance. Reaction was compounded by a sophistication in psychology that made early theory seem naïve, but neither later excesses nor seeming naïvety should be permitted to distort the main thrust of the elocutionary movement. Concentrating upon language in use, the elocutionists encouraged and anticipated analyses now being vigorously pursued in a range extending from linguistics to nonverbal communication. Their contribution has for too long been ignored, and it is happily foreshadowed in Thomas Sheridan's enthusiastic Discourse.

University of California,
Davis

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The text of this reprint of Sheridan's Discourse

is reproduced from a copy in the

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.

A

DISCOURSE

Delivered in

The Theatre at Oxford,

IN

The Senate-House at Cambridge,

AND

At Spring-Garden in London.

By THOMAS SHERIDAN, M. A.

Being Introductory to

His Course of Lectures

ON

Elocution and the English Language.

Ut enim hominis decus ingenium, fic ingenii ipsius

lumen est eloquentia.

Cic. de Orat.

LONDON:

Printed for A. Millar, in The Strand;

J. Rivington and J. Fletcher, in Pater-noster-Row;

J. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall; and sold by

J. Wilkie, in St. Paul's Church yard.

M.DCC.LIX.

TO

The two learned Universities

OF

Oxford AND CAMBRIDGE,

The following Discourse

(As a small token of gratitude

For the candour with which they received,

And the generosity with which they encouraged,

His attempt

Towards improving Elocution,

And promoting the study of the English Language)

Is,

With all humility,

And the most profound respect,

Inscribed,

By their

very faithful

and devoted servant,

Thomas Sheridan.

A

DISCOURSE

Delivered in

The Theatre at Oxford,

IN

The Senate-House at Cambridge,

AND

At Spring-Garden in London.

It has been a long time since all men, who have turned their thoughts to the subject, have been convinced, that the neglect of studying our own language, and the art of speaking it in public, has been attended with many bad consequences; and some of our most eminent writers have freely delivered their thoughts upon this head to the world. Amongst the foremost of this number are Milton, Dryden, Clarendon, Locke, Addison, Berkley, and Swift; besides multitudes of less note. But as they have only pointed out the evil, without examining into its source, or proposing an adequate remedy; as they have shewn the good consequences which would follow from the introduction of those studies, only in theory, without laying down any probable method, by which their speculations might be reduced to practice, their endeavours in this way, however laudable, have hitherto proved but of little benefit to mankind.

Any attempt, therefore, towards a practicable plan, whereby such studies may be introduced, will well deserve the attention of the best and wisest men; and, if it should meet with their approbation, will necessarily also obtain their encouragement and assistance.

This consideration it was, which emboldened me to appear before this learned assembly; and though, when I reflect on the knowlege, wisdom, and nice discernment, of my hearers, I am filled with that awe and reverence which are due to so respectable a body, yet, as candour and humanity are the inseparable attendants on wisdom and knowlege (for as the brave are ever the most merciful, so are the wise the most indulgent), I can have no cause to fear the submitting my opinions to the decision of such judges as are here assembled. Whatever shall appear to be founded in reason and truth cannot fail of producing its due effect in this region of true philosophy: and whatever errors or faults may be committed, as they cannot escape the penetration, so will they be corrected and amended by the skill and benevolence of such hearers. A point to be wished, not dreaded; as to an inquirer after truth, next to the being right, the thing most to be desired is the being set right. In either way, a person engaged in a new undertaking is sure to be a gainer, where honour, and certainty of success, will follow judicious approbation; where benefit, and the means of succeeding, will attend just censure.

Encouraged by these reflections, I shall therefore, without farther preface, enter upon my subject.

That the English are the only civilized people, either of ancient or modern times, who neglected to cultivate their language, or to methodize it in such a way, as that the knowlege of it might be regularly acquired, is a proposition no less strange than true.

That the English are the only free nation recorded in history, possessed of all the advantages of literature, who never studied the art of elocution, or founded any institutions, whereby, they who were most interested in the cultivation of that art; they whose professions necessarily called upon them to speak in public, might be instructed to acquit themselves properly on such occasions, and be enabled to deliver their sentiments with propriety and grace, is also a point as true as it is strange.

These neglects are the more astonishing, because, upon examination, it will appear, that there neither is, nor ever was a nation upon earth, to the flourishing state of whose constitution and government, such studies were so absolutely necessary. Since it must be obvious to the slightest enquirer, that the support of our establishments, both ecclesiastical and civil, in their due vigour, must in a great measure depend upon the powers of elocution in public debates, or other oratorial performances, displayed in the pulpit, the senate-house, or at the bar.

But to leave the public interests out of the question; is it not amazing that these studies have never been established here, even upon selfish principles, which, in all other cases seldom fail of having their due force? since it can be shewn, that there never was a state wherein so many individuals were so necessarily and deeply concerned in the prosecution of those studies; or where it was the interest, as well as duty, of such numbers, to display the powers of oratory in their native language.

There is not a single point, in which the study of oratory was necessary to the ancients, wherein it is not equally so to us; nor was there any incitement to the knowlege and practice of that art, whether of pleasure, profit, or honour, which with us is not of equal strength.

We, as well as the ancients, have councils, senates, and assemblies of the people (by their representatives) whose deliberations and debates turn upon matters of as much moment, where oratory has fields as ample, in which it may exert all its various powers, and where the rewards and honours, attendant on eloquence are equal. "If we look into the history of England, for more than a century past, we shall find, that most persons have made their way to the head of affairs, and got into the highest employments, not on account of birth or fortune, but by being, what is commonly called, good speakers."

Nor is oratory less necessary to us at the bar, than it was to the ancients; nor are the rewards of profit, fame, and preferment, less attendant on it there; as has been experienced by all in that profession, who took pains to improve their talents in that way.

But there is one point, a most momentous one, in which oratory is essentially necessary to us, but was not in the least so to the ancients. The article I mean, is of the utmost importance to us; it is the basis of our government, and pillar of our state. It is the vivifying principle, the soul of our constitution, without which, it cannot subsist; I mean religion.

"As the religion of the ancients consisted chiefly of rites and ceremonies, it could derive no assistance from oratory; but there is not the smallest branch of ours which can be well executed, without skill in speaking; and the more important parts, calculated to answer the great ends, evidently require the whole oratorial powers."

Let it be observed, that in this profession alone, there are more persons employed throughout these realms, than there were citizens of Athens, at any given period.

Since, therefore, we have so much stronger motives to the cultivation of this art, what can be the reason that even an attempt towards it has never hitherto been made? One would imagine, that in a country where the ancients are admired, revered, nay, almost adored, that we should certainly follow their example, and adopt all their wise institutions, so far at least as they coincided with the spirit of our government, and were of equal necessity to the well being of the state. But on the contrary, we seem to have made it a law, that we should sit down contented with seeing and admiring their excellence, but that we should never attempt to use the means, by which alone we might be enabled to rival them. If it were difficult to come at the knowlege of those means; if the method taken by the ancients, in educating their youth to qualify them for such great performances, had not been handed down to us; or if there were any thing in the method itself, which would be found impracticable in these times, there might be some excuse for not taking the same course. But on the contrary, when many of their most eminent writers have minutely described to us the precise course of education, passed through by all who were liberally trained; when they tell us, that both at Athens and Rome, one of the chief studies was that of their native language in each country; and that the art most assiduously sought after, and practised in both, was that of oratory: shall we be surprised that their languages were more polished and beautiful, and consequently that all works which depended upon the elegance and charms of language, should be more finished than those of a people, who never took any pains in that way? or that oratory, and all the arts dependant on it, or connected with it, together with all the benefits and advantages resulting from it, should appear in a more conspicuous light, in regions, where that art was cultivated with the utmost pains and labour, than in a country where it has been utterly neglected. Is there any natural impediment in our way, is there any invincible obstacle to the pursuit of these studies, and to the attainment of these arts? Have we not a language to study as well as they? and do we not, on many accounts, stand in more need of studying that language? Have we not the same organs of speech, the same features, the same limbs, muscles, and nerves, that the ancients had? What want we then, but to apply ourselves to the regulation of these, and to study their true use in enforcing and adorning our sentiments, when delivered by speech, to rival or even excel them in their favourite art? How did the ancients attain this art? By study, and practice. Would not the same means bring us to the same end? And have we not the advantage of all their lights to guide us in our enquiries? Have we not the foundation of their experience to build upon, ready to our hands, whenever we are wise enough to set about raising the noble edifice? Did the ancients possess any advantages over us from nature, either in point of intellectual faculties, or the animal œconomy? With respect to the mental powers, it is undoubtedly clear, that we have carried our discoveries much farther than they did, both in the physical and moral world. And with respect to the bodily organs, true philosophy must deride any attempts, to shew that we are not framed exactly in the same manner. In all the sciences, to which we have applied, we have far outdone them; and if they still excel us in many of the arts, it is either because we have wholly neglected their cultivation, or where we have made the attempt, we have taken a wrong course; and unwisely deserted the method pointed out by the ancients towards their attainment, and which, with them, had been always crowned with success.

In short, the difference between the ancients and us, arises from one obvious cause. In the course of education, we have pursued most of the studies, which they did; but some we have wholly omitted. In all studies, which we followed in common with them, we have far excelled them: that they have excelled us in those which were peculiar to themselves, cannot be a matter of wonder. The chief points in which they differed from us, were the study of their native language, and oratory. And it can be indisputably shewn, that they possessed no advantage over us, but what arose, either immediately, or consequentially from their knowlege, skill, and practice; in grammar, rhetorick, and oratory. Now, as we have excelled them far, in all the studies to which we have applied, there can be no good reason assigned, that with a due degree of attention and pains, we might not surpass them in these also? On the contrary, I hope, on another occasion, to be able to prove, that from certain lights furnished by time, from peculiar advantages arising from our pure and holy religion, and from the nature of our admirable constitution, we might, with moderate pains, and in no long space of time, as far surpass them in those arts, and all that depend upon them, or have a connection with them, as we have already done in the sciences.

But though, upon trial, we should not find ourselves able to surpass the ancients, let us not shamefully suffer ourselves to be outdone in those arts by the moderns. If the Briton should own himself unequal to the contest with Greeks and Romans, let him not yield the palm to Frenchmen also. If, in despair of victory, he should say like Mnestheus in Virgil, "Non jam prima peto," let him add to his countrymen, "extremos pudeat rediisse!"

Believe me, there is no time to be lost. The Italians, the French, and the Spaniards, are far before you. Their languages and authors are well known through Europe, whilst yours have got admission only into the closets of a few. You have but to rouze yourselves from your lethargy, and to exert your native vigour, soon to outstrip them all. Should you set about refining and ascertaining your language, with the same spirit of industry, which you have often exerted on less important occasions, the work will not be long accomplishing; and you will not only immediately raise your credit in the eyes of Europe, but hand down to your posterity, one of the noblest legacies which it is in your power to bequeath. If the task should be accomplished, how will that posterity wonder, that their ancestors should have been for more than two centuries in possession of so rich a jewel, without once examining its value; and that, merely through a neglect of polishing, they should have suffered a diamond of the first water and magnitude, to be outshone by the cut glass, or pebbles, of their poorer, but more industrious neighbours.

The true source of the neglect of these studies, will, upon examination, be found to be this; that from the first introduction of letters into this kingdom, the minds of all trained in the knowlege of them, have to this hour, from early institution, got a wrong biass with respect to language: in consequence of which, the universal attention of the natives of this country, has been turned from the natural, the more forcible, and more pleasing kind, to that which is artificial, weaker, and accompanied with no natural delight.

I do not doubt, but that this proposition will excite no small surprise in my hearers; nor do I suppose, they will easily comprehend my meaning, till they recollect a distinction, which is hardly ever thought of, and yet, which ought often to be had in remembrance, that we have two kinds of language; one which is spoken, another which is written. Or that there are two different methods used of communicating our ideas, one through the channel of the ear, the other through that of the eye.

It is true, that as articulate sounds are by compact symbols of our ideas, and as written characters are by compact symbols of those articulate sounds, they may, at first view, seem calculated to accomplish one and the same end; and from habit, an opinion may be formed, that it is a matter of indifference which way the communication is made, as the end will be equally well answered by either.

But, upon a nearer examination, it will appear that this opinion is ill founded, and that, in whatever country it prevails, so far as to affect the practice of the people, it must be attended with proportional bad consequences, both to individuals, and to society in general.

In order to prove this, it will be necessary to shew, that the difference between these two kinds of language is not more in form, than in substance; in the means of their communication, than in their end: that they widely differ from each other, in the nature, degree, and extent of their power; that they have each their several offices and limits belonging to them, which they ought never to exceed; and that, where one encroaches on the province of the other, it can never equally well discharge its office.

All these points will be made sufficiently clear, only by examining the nature and constitution, of these two kinds of language.

First, as to that which is spoken. Speech is the universal gift of God to all mankind. But as in his wise dispensations, in order to excite industry, and make reward the attendant on service, in the most excellent things of this life, he has only furnished the materials, and left it to man to find out, and make a right use of them; so has he laid down this just law, in regard to the great article of speech; which in all nations must prove either barbarous, discordant, and defective; or polished, harmonious, and copious, according to the culture or neglect of it. As the chief delight and improvement of a social, rational being, must arise from a communication of sentiments and affections, and all that passes in the mind of man; the powers of opening such a communication are furnished in a suitable degree, and with a liberal hand. In proportion to their acquisition of ideas, men will find no want of articulate sounds to be their symbols. In proportion to their progress in knowlege, they will find adequate powers in the organs of speech, to communicate that knowlege. In proportion to the exertion of the powers of the intellect, or the imagination, the various emotions of the mind, the different degrees of sensibility, and all the feelings of the heart; they will find, upon searching for them, that in the human frame there are tones, looks, and gestures of such efficacy, as not only to make all these obvious, but to transfuse all those operations, energies, and emotions into others: without which, indeed, the mere communication of ideas would be attended with but little delight.

A wise nation will therefore, above all things, apply themselves to advance the powers of elocution, to as high a degree as possible; and they will find their labours well rewarded, not only by opening a source of one of the highest delights, which the nature of man is capable of feeling in this life, but also by the extraordinary benefits and advantages thence resulting to society, which cannot possibly be procured in any other way. "It has pleased the All-wise Creator to annex to elocution, when in its perfect state, powers almost miraculous! and an energy nearly divine! He has given to it tones to charm the ear, and penetrate the heart: he has joined to it actions, and looks, to move the inmost soul. By that, attention is kept up without pain, and conviction carried to the mind with delight. Persuasion is ever its attendant, and the passions own it for a master. Great as is the force of its powers, so unbounded is their extent. All mankind are capable of its impressions, the ignorant as well as the wise, the illiterate as well as the learned."

Such is the nature, such the constitution, such the effects, of cultivated speech. Let us now examine the properties of written language. "That is wholly the invention of man, a mere work of art, and therefore can contain no natural power. Its use is to give stability to sound, and permanence to thought; to preserve words that otherwise might perish as they are spoke, and to arrest ideas that might vanish as they rise in the mind; to assist the memory in treasuring these up, and to convey knowlege at distance through the eye, where it could find no entrance by the ear. In short, it may be considered as a grand repository of the wisdom of ages, from which the greatest plenty of materials may be furnished, for the use of speech, and the best supplies given to the powers of elocution."

Here we may see, that these two kinds of language essentially differ from each other in their nature and use: and, from this view, we may plainly perceive the vast superiority which the former must have over the latter, in the main end aimed at by both, that of communicating all that passes in the mind of man; inasmuch as the former works by the whole force of natural, as well as artificial means; the latter, by artificial means only. In the one case, many hundreds may be made partakers at one and the same time, of instruction and delight; in the other, knowlege must be parceled out only to individuals. In the one, not only the sense of hearing may receive the highest gratification, from sounds the most pleasing, and congenial to the organs of man; but the sight also may be delighted with viewing the noblest work of the Great Mechanist put in motion, to answer the noblest ends: and, whilst the charmed ear easily admits the words of truth, the faithful eye, even of the illiterate, can read their credentials, in the legible hand of Nature, visibly characterized in the countenance and gesture of the speaker. In the other, none of the senses are in the least gratified. The eye can have no pleasure in viewing a succession of crooked characters, however accurately formed; and the ear cannot be much concerned in silent reading.

If any doubt remains about pre-eminence with regard to these two, the dispute may, at once, be settled in the same way that Cicero determined the controversy between oratory and philosophy; "Sin quærimus quid unum excellat ex omnibus, docto oratori palma danda est: quem si patiuntur eundem esse philosophum, sublata controversia est. Sin eos disjungent, hoc erunt inferiores, quod in oratore perfecto, inest omnis illorum scientia, in philosophorum autem cognitione, non continuo est eloquentia." In like manner it may be said, in this case, that he who is master of speaking cannot, on that account, be retarded, though he may be much advanced thereby in knowlege of written language; whereas he who is master of the written language only, is by no means advanced thereby in the art of speaking. Indeed, the one should be considered only as an handmaid to the other, and employed chiefly in such offices as she cannot do in her own person.

But should any nation be so unfortunately circumstanced, as from habit, or institution, to bestow all their labour and pains upon cultivating the artificial language, the invention of man, to the utter neglect of that which is natural, and the gift of God, it must be allowed, that they are in a wrong course; and that they must necessarily lose some of the greatest blessings that can be enjoyed by rational, social beings, and which can flow from no other source but that of cultivated speech. Whether this be not our case, is well worth considering; and the point may be settled by the establishment of a few facts. In order to this, let us take a view of the perfections, and imperfections, of each kind of language; see in which of them we take most pains to attain the one, and avoid the other; and, in consequence of such pains, which of them is at this day in the best state amongst us.

The chief object of both, is the communication of ideas and emotions from mind to mind, but they use different mediums for this purpose. Speech makes use of sound, and reaches the mind through the ear: writing makes use of characters, and conveys knowlege through the eye. The ideas that rise in the mind of the speaker, together with the operations, affections, and energies, of the mind itself, are manifested and communicated in speech, by articulate sounds, combined, or separated in various proportions; by rests of the voice in certain places; by accents, emphases, and tones. The same is attempted in writing, by different combinations of letters, according to stated rules, and by certain points, stops, and lines. But that it cannot be done with equal success in the latter case, is clear from this, that sound contains in itself a natural power over the human frame, in rousing the faculties of man, and exciting the affections, as is clearly proved by the force of music.