INTRODUCTION.

In an elementary treatise of this kind, it would be out of place to say much on Elocution, not only because such a dissertation would unfit it for a school, but because we have been collecting materials for a larger and a more critical work, in which such observations can more properly be included. But the view which we have taken of the rules for the inflection of the voice being new, a few words on the subject cannot be deemed superfluous. It may be observed, that, while almost all the arts and sciences have experienced very important, and, in many instances, unlooked-for improvements, the arts of Reading and Speaking seem destined to have no share in the general progress towards perfection. The causes, with the means for their removal, is a subject particularly worthy of attention. But whatever causes may be assigned for this unequal progress, we must not imagine that the difficulties of the subject are the only barriers in the way of their march towards improvement. Mentioning, as we do, difficulties, we wish neither to magnify nor to diminish them. We merely think, with those who have considered the subject, that, to excel much in this department of an Orator, requires no ordinary share of attention, even though nature may have highly favoured the individual. To prove this,

B

it is not necessary to quote authorities. We have only to look at the few of the thousands who have surpassed their fellow creatures. In several places, Blair alludes to this subject: "How little reason to wonder," says he, after speaking of the qualifications of an Orator, "that a perfect and an accomplished Orator should be one of the characters that is most rarely to be found!" All the world knows the opinion of Demosthenes, which we need not quote here. In noticing an accomplished Orator, it is evident that we do not mean to assert, that all, or even many, can, by assiduous application, become accomplished Orators, neither indeed is it necessary; but "there is a wide interval," as Blair observes, "between mediocrity and perfection." Waving the subject of difficulties, we are of opinion, that the little improvement, or the very ordinary mediocrity, in which this department of an Orator exists among us, must be attributed to other causes. Without any circumlocution, we think it is in a great measure owing to our present system of education. We have, of course, no hope of a general improvement, till there be a change of system. If we take an extensive glance of this system, it will at once appear that there is one grand object, for the attainment of which, all our guardians, and parents, and schools, appear determined, we were about to say, to sacrifice every other object, every other consideration. The question with them is not, Which are those branches of education that are likely to be most useful to our children in the situations for which they are destined? But the mode of con

ducting their education seems to be nearly as absurd and ridiculous, as the professional conduct of that surgeon who applies one kind of medicine to every disease. The question of the prudent surgeon is, What is the disease? He

then prescribes an appropriate medicine. So should the parent or guardian. But in place of this, we have the following absurd and ridiculous advice, deduced from the present system of education. If he is to be a grocer, give him Latin; if a mechanic, give him Latin; if a farmer, give him Latin; if a clerk or merchant, give him Latin; in fine, if any thing, give him Latin. This direction must, like the universal nostrum of the quack, sometimes happen to be proper; but the chances are a thousand to one. Further, the question is not, What particular quantum of Latin-since Latin he must have-may be useful to him? But in place of this rational inquiry, we have the following recipe:-If the pupil cannot get as far as Livy or Horace, give him Virgil; if time does not admit of reading Virgil, give him Sallust, Ovid, or Cæsar. But the ignorance of our parents and guardians may prevent them from regulating, by the names of the books, the progress of their son's education; this recipe is then put into our handsIf you cannot give him four, five, or six years of Latin, give him one, two, or three; at all events, give him Latin. But some upstart may ask, What has all this to do with reading or elocution? We said that, for the attainment of a certain object, our present system seems determined to sacrifice every other consideration. Among these we number the knowledge of our own language. What knowledge of English is requisite for a pupil before he enters upon the study of Latin ?—and since Latin is necessary, ornamental, or useful, how might the study of his native tongue be combined with the study of Latin? might be thought very proper and very rational questions. But are they so? Our system says, by all means, let him learn to read his native tongue. But what kind of reading

is it? It is, let him read in such a manner as will most unavoidably secure the disgust of all those who know what good reading is-let him murder words or sentences, drawl or sing, hem or ha; accompanied with a long list of eccentric and monstrous tones, to which are very often joined uncouth, vulgar, and disgusting gestures. While the system says, beware of giving him time to correct these, or of putting him under a master capable of correcting them; it adds, let him know that there is a grammar of his own language, but see that he does not understand it, or rather that it is not necessary to be understood. Let him know, of course, that his native tongue is a language, but that is all. To sum up the whole, it is so trifling, useless, and even ungrammatical, if grammatical at all, by no means equal to the Latin, that the less knowledge of it the better. Now, let any unprejudiced literary spectator, for a moment, look at the thousands that are yearly ushered into the Latin, and we have no doubt of these observations receiving an unconditional confirmation. But whatever may be said, we affirm, they cannot be denied. With such a state of things before us, how is it possible that the pupil, hurried as he is away so prematurely from the study of his native language—a language, which, in all its connections-its structure-its eloquence -its poetry-its prose-its philosophy-its politics-its excellencies in every department, is unrivalled by any, either of ancient or modern times?-how is it possible, that such a pupil can become master of that knowledge which alone can enable him to know how, when, or where, to inflect with propriety a single sentence, or even to read with any tolerable decency without the knowledge of the hows, whens, or wheres?-how, we ask, can such a pupil,

without grammatical knowledge, in which is included elementary composition, indispensable to enable him to become an Elocutionist in the proper sense of the termhow is it possible, that such a pupil can be a fit subject for the Elocutionist? As well may you tell the Arithmetician that two and two make eight,―tell the Mathematician that the three angles of a triangle are not equal to two right angles,-tell the Agriculturalist that any kind of soil will grow any kind of grain,-or the Politician that he must never yield to popular whim, as tell us that such a system of education is not fitted to injure the interests of Reading and Elocution, and most evidently those of Oratory. But it would be endless to enumerate the baneful effects, and the wide-extending destructive ramifications of such a system, or trace its influence over the pulpit, the bar, and the transactions of mercantile, domestic, and every-day life. We should probably have said more, had we not perceived some excellent observations in the Edinburgh Review, connected with the same subject; to which we beg leave to refer our readers.*

Now that we have dismissed our observations on system, at least for the meantime, we come to that view of the

* A few months ago, we lectured publicly in Aberdeen on Education, in which we noticed some of the ideas connected with this subject,—the neglect of our own language in despite of its superior importance, this neglect attributable to our present system. The first number of the Edinburgh Review which appeared after our Lecture, happened to contain ideas completely the same as those delivered in that Lecture. From this article of the Edinburgh Review, which owes its origin to the proposed London University, we have taken two extracts, the pages of which will be seen by looking at the Index. The subject is pregnant with importance. All those who have children to educate should, as well for their, as their own interest, peruse the whole of the article carefully.—Ed. Rev. No.86.