what the ear seemed to demand, nor a name to call it by. Surely if any thing can be ranked among the unquestionable facilities of improved education, it is the aid arising from the analysis and the nomenclature furnished by Dr. Rush, in this hitherto intricate branch of elocution.

I may be permitted, I think, to enter here still farther into detail; as this is a point involving the business of actual tuition. A "school" tone, as it is called, in other words, a mechanical and unmeaning tone, in reading, arises commonly from using, too uniformly, the rising wave through the intervals of the third and the fifth, and consequently the downward wave in proportion, as the ear, even when not what is called "musical," is, in all cases, so attuned as inevitably to produce this correspondence. A false and unmeaning echoing of its own notes is thus entailed on the voice, causing it to move through a whole passage or piece with a regular march of alternate climbing and descending; as if the utterance of sentiment were a thing altogether inferior to a uniform rising, culminating, and sinking of tone. To correct this faulty habit, the teacher must have it in his power to designate the false intervals which it forms, and to contrast them with those of the tone and "ditone" which are to be interspersed with them, or occasionally substituted for them; and the student must be practised on these definite intervals, till he can command them at pleasure. Something, it is true, may be done on the old plan of guess work and imitation. But how imperfectly in comparison !

Every intelligent teacher of elocution must feel that he is under a strong personal obligation to the individual whose philosophic spirit of investigation has shed a clear light on his path, where formerly he grasped in obscurity, or ventured at random. I feel assured that my friend who preceded me in lecturing on our present subject, could never have questioned either the accuracy or the utility of Dr. Rush's analysis, had he fully investigated its merits; but that, on the contrary, where he has now bestowed most censure, he would have found reason for the warmest commendation.

I will not dwell on the very strong terms in which the author of the lecture on elocution has indulged, in speaking on the point under discussion; although I cannot but regret that one of the original achievements of American intellect, in the department of scientific investigation, should be scouted by an American student; and that a theory grounded on profound

and extensive research, not only in the science in question, but in its kindred sciences and arts, a theory built up with all the rigor and circumspection of genuine philosophy, should be assailed by one whose attention to the subject has been so slight.

The author of the lecture proceeds to say, on the topic now before us, "Geometrical measurement by lines and angles is really as applicable to a smile or a frown, as a plan of musical notes to the voice of one speaking in earnest." Here is evidently a mistake in regard to the design of the Philosophy of the Voice. That work was not meant as a manual of instruction by which the teacher or the student was to regulate the voice. The author of that treatise demonstrates that many of the varying tones of the human voice, in speech, admit of a musical notation, and that such notation may be useful for the purposes of instruction, or as a means of referring to the tones of successful speakers. And it is for the very reason that "the expression of the voice is often as delicate and evanescent as that of the countenance," that the apparatus furnished by Dr. Rush, for seizing and embodying such fugitive phenomena, is invaluable to the instructer, to the student, to the curious inquirer, or to the lover of the art of elo

cution.

So far as it is in my own power to speak, from long critical observation, and many years' practice in instruction, I can freely declare, that there is no quality of voice, used in the most poetic passages of recitation, and in the most delicate and ethereal utterance ever occurring, even in these, that may not be distinctly and exactly presented to the eye, or to the mind, by means of the characters and the nomenclature exhibited in the Philosophy of the Voice. But to attempt the demonstration of such points, at present, would lead far beyond the limits of a lecture.

The lecturer on Elocution must have quite misapprehended the author of the Philosophy of the Voice, if he supposes that Dr. Rush would not have the voice "often rise and fall in correspondence with the equable increase or diminution of feeling. "The value of the system adopted by Dr. Rush, is, that it enables us distinctly to ascertain the phenomena of the voice as they shift and vary in successive utterance, that it traces even the finest and most delicate, and designates these as distinctly as the musician does the most subtle and evanescent modulations in singing.

tone.

The language of the lecturer is plausible but altogether vague, when he says, "The impossibility of fixing the degree of emotion by any artificial rules, involves the impossibility of fixing its expression." It is not so much the degree, generally speaking, as the quality of emotion that determines But even the degree of emotion, is, in some instances, the very measure of intonation; as is evident in the use of the "wave" in surprise, which is expressed by a transit through the interval of a third, a fifth or an octave, according to the degree of feeling. The context of a given passage always indicates, with sufficient clearness, the extent of emotion implied; and, in such a case as that just mentioned, would perhaps forbid the octave as a caricature, or the third as an inadequate expression; or, again, might demand the octave, as the only effective one, or the third as the chaste and appropriate utterance, in a particular passage, according to the character of the emotion which it embodied.

"Real emotion," says the lecturer on Elocution, "always suffices of itself to regulate its expression by proper tones; and it only can regulate them with perfect precision. To admit the interference of art in the matter must be worse than useless." Farewell, then, to all instruction in elocution! For elocution is art; and it is in the expression of emotion that cultivated taste and feeling are most effective. The ancient orators surely" disquieted themselves in vain," in their arduous endeavors to attain perfection in the utterance of emotion. There must evidently be a radical error, here, in the views of the lecturer. Were we all educated from infancy on perfect models of example, we should fulfil the condition which he demands. But till then, ninety-nine in the hundred will, by the period of adolescence, have contracted false or defective tones, even in the utterance of sincere and intense feeling. Witness the irresistibly ludicrous tones which mingle with the expression of ordinary emotions, in the colloquial inflections of local dialect in Switzerland, in Scotland, and in New England. Without that cultivation which genuine art prescribes, an individual of the highest order of endowment and of acquisition, may have his whole delivery disfigured by such faults.

But in this, as in several other instances, the design of Dr. Rush's system has been misunderstood. It was not intended to prompt, or to measure, or to interfere with emotion, but to fornish an exact exposition of its phenomena, and an appropriate designation of them. The teacher and the student

must settle the question of application between themselves, according to the meaning of given passages, and the constitution and habits of the individual who practises. To enable them to do this effectually, the author of the Philosophy of the Voice offers them a classification of tones, and an intelligible designation of them.

I need not dwell longer on positions which are evidently assumed through misapprehension on the part of the gentleman whose lecture was, in general, characterized by judicious observation and discriminating taste. I entertain no doubt that a few days' study and practical application of the principles of the work which he condemned, would remove every objection which he has advanced to its authority, and prove, to his full conviction, the value of that volume, as the only true fountain of instruction on the art of elocution. Were that book appreciated according to its merits, as a profound and original work on the theory of one of the noblest arts, it would be used as the text book in all our high places of instruction; teachers would make it their great study; it would be claimed as a national production, reflecting honor on the community in which it originated. Had its author lived in those times when eloquence was cherished as an attainment almost divine, and they who contributed to facilitate its acquisition were rewarded as distinguished benefactors of mankind, neither statue nor votive wreath would have been wanting to his honor.

Regarding the theory of Gesture as properly coming within the range of a lecture or elocution, the gentleman who pre. ceded me on our subject, advanced objections to the great standard work on gesture, Austin's Chironomia. To these I wish to offer a brief reply, before entering on the general topics embraced in my subsequent remarks.

Justice to the work of Mr. Austin requires, although my friend who lectured on the subject of elocution disposed of it so summarily, that we should advert to the facts of the case as to its acknowledged authority. The Chironomia is used as a book of reference, by many of the most eminent public speakers of Great Britain. It is universally regarded as a competent treatise on its subject, as a production embodying the most valuable results of extensive learning and of cultivated taste, and as a rich contribution to the treasury of the fine arts. But in the case of this work, as in that of Dr. Rush

the lecturer has formed an erroneous idea of the design of its author. The Chironomia, like the Philosophy of the

Voice, is an analysis of the subject of which it treats. It classifies and designates gesture, on a plan equally ingenious and clear. It contains with a single exception, no recipe for, the acquisition of gesture in given passages. It shows us merely what the corporal frame does in the act of expression, so far as relates to that part of oratory, which is addressed to the eye. Like the work of Dr. Rush on the voice, it offers the invaluable aid of classification and nomenclature. But it never was intended as a manual of directions. It enables the teacher to detect faults in gesture and position, and to point them out to the student, by specific and intelligible illustration or direction, as a particular instance may require. It arranges gesture most skilfully, according to its character and import, but prescribes nothing. The author takes care, on the contrary, to remind the student, even in the passage in which he gives an example of the application of his method, that the proper delivery of the piece which he has selected, is by no means limited to the attitudes and action which he has indicated. His purpose was not to substitute rules of art for the promptings of nature, but to observe and teach what action is leaving the student to judge, to select, and to apply, for himself.

The lecturer is in error when he says that, in the Chironomia, "gesture is taught by diagrams." Designated, not "taught," should have been the word. The diagrams in that work serve the same purpose that diagrams do in any other; they render ideas definite and tangible, clear and intelligible. The instructer and the student are to decide, in any instance, what gestures are appropriate, what to select or to apply; and, for this purpose, nomenclature and diagrams are an invaluable aid, as giving clearness and precision to the details of instruction and practice.

When the author of the Chironomia says, in the instance already referred to, "The manner of delivery is such as occurred, and might have been varied in a thousand ways," he only shows us the more conclusively how far his intention was from prescribing any series of gesture in the delivery of a particular piece. The natural hyperbole in his expression regarding the allowable variety of action in a single passage, will hardly mislead an attentive and reflecting reader.

The lecturer proceeds to say, "In another part of his book, having treated of certain gestures which he terms non-significant, he says: "These may be used in any part of an ora