PREFACE. THIS book is a result of several facts and inferences from them, appealing to thought in an order somewhat as follows: In many schools and colleges, for various reasons, usually because of a lack of means with which to pay separate instructors, Elocution and Rhetoric are taught together. Might it not be well to prepare a book, or a series of books, meeting the requirements of this arrangement? Not only, however, are these two branches taught together, but, as a result of teaching them thus, many have come to hold a theory that, even aside from any question of convenience, they ought to be taught thus. This theory may be owing in part to that accommodation of thought to fact, at which, under the slightest stress of necessity, certain minds always have a happy faculty of arriving; but it is owing in part also to something else. This is the observation, that, as a rule, aptitude for Elocution is accompanied by aptitude for Rhetoric; and that, even when this is not so, the one, after a time, usually creates an aptitude for the other, as in the cases of many clergymen, lawyers, and lecturers who, beginning by being merely good elocutionists, come, in time, largely because they know just where to pause for breath, and to bring in accents, to have rhythmical styles of writing, which readily accommodate themselves to the natural requirements of easy reading. Besides this, almost everybody knows that a good literary style is cultivated better by reading good literature than by studying Rhetorics, however excellent; and he knows also that V no small part of the beneficial influence of this literature, whether oratory or poetry, is derived from reading it aloud, which involves getting the benefit of its distinctively elocutionary effects. Now, might not systems of Rhetoric, more largely than at present, avail themselves of inferences that may be legitimately drawn from facts such as these? Might not these elocutionary effects of composition, and the methods of producing them, be taught? Why should not text-books begin to cultivate good style in a manner analogous to that in which it is now so often cultivated by reading? The moment that these questions are asked, they suggest another. Does not all that has been said thus far indicate that there is some connection between Elocution and Rhetoric more deeply grounded than any that we have so far considered? Is there any such radical difference between the two as to justify the radically different methods in accordance with which they have hitherto been taught? May they not, in fact, be radically alike? Let us consider this question for a moment. Elocution and Rhetoric both give expression to thought, and often, as in oratory, to the same thought. If this be so, the only difference between them must lie in the form in which the thought is expressed. What is this difference? Both use words; but in the one case they are used as tones, and in the other case as symbols; and, as will be shown presently in the Introduction, this is the only invariable distinction. between the two. But now, when we recall the fact that words, in order to be what they are, must, all of them, be both tones and symbols, it certainly does not seem that there should be any great difference in principle between their appropriate use in an art which emphasizes the one. fact and in an art which emphasizes the other. Why should not words as symbols be related to each other in a way analogous to that in which words as tones are related to each other? If we admit that this must be the case, another thought suggests itself. Inasmuch as Elocution is the simpler art, and therefore the more easy to understand, might it not be wise to avail ourselves of our understanding of this, and apply it to the solution of the more intricate problems of Rhetoric? Might it not be especially wise to do so at the present time, in view of the very great progress, not paralleled in the case of Rhetoric, that has been made of late years in our understanding of the laws of Elocution? Within the memory of most of us, the methods underlying the effects of the latter art have been so satisfactorily studied that their essentials are now practically beyond dispute. Moreover, they have been so analyzed to their elements, so grounded upon first principles, and so comprehensively yet succinctly stated, that they are few in number, readily remembered, and easy to apply. The sixteen rules, for instance, for the use of the downward and upward inflections, not all of them together beginning to cover all possible exceptions, which were given in the latest and best book upon Elocution published in England, when, in 1876, an examination was made of their literature upon the subject, are all contained in an American manual published in 1879, in a single fundamental principle and its converse, and to this principle there can be no exceptions. The principles of Elocution, moreover, because of the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the analyses and generalizations to which they have been subjected, are all put into positive form. None of these facts are true of Rhetoric. Its rules are numerous, difficult to remember, hard to apply; and many of the more important of them are put into merely negative form. They tell the student, for instance, that his style should be elegant and energetic, and that, therefore, he should not use colloquial, vulgar, weak, or verbose phraseology. Yet, as everybody must recognize, he could refrain from using all these, or even from suggesting them, and still have a style very far from either elegant or energetic. As has been said, it is owing to the influence of thoughts like these, and of inferences from them, that the present book has been prepared. It covers all the ground that is thought necessary for elementary instruction in this branch; and the exercises which, for the best results, should be written by the pupil partly in his own home and partly in the recitation-room under the eye of the instructor, are designed to make the book, above all things, practical. Indeed, in preparing it, the one object in view has been to furnish something that will teach writing itself, rather than merely give information about writing. For this reason the explanations in the text have been so worded, and the ordinary rhetorical terms so subordinated, that it is hoped that they will produce upon the pupil the impression that he is dealing not with the names of things, but with the things themselves, and not with methods of avoiding, in a negative way, grammatical defects, but of introducing, in a positive way, artistic excellencies. Thus, possibly, there may be developed in him that interest and prompting to initiative to which there is always some tendency wherever, for laws that may merely repress, there are substituted principles not expected to fulfil their mission except in the degree in which they have been applied. GEO. L. RAYMOND. CONTENTS. PAGE. ·Elocution and Rhetoric Correlated. Gesture and Punctuation - Comparison and Contrast as expressive of thought-Elocutionary Time, and Rhetorical Grouping, Movement and Rhythm- Elementary Pitch, and Rhetorical Key, Relevancy, Reference and Equivocacy - Elocutionary STYLE. EFFECTS CORRESPONDING TO THOSE OF ELOCUTIONARY TIME. LESSON II. — Time: Rate of Movement. Rapid, used Imitatively - LESSON III. Time: Changes in Movement. Invariable Use of LESSON IV. - Time: Rhythm. Poetic Feet or Measures - Prose - EFFECTS CORRESPONDING TO THOSE OF ELOCUTIONARY PITCH. LESSON V. - Pitch: Key and Relevancy of Form to Form. Low and High Key, as represented by Letter-Sounds - Relevancy of Form to Form- Purity and Barbarisms: Slang, |