A. Beway

ART. II.-1. Philosophy of the Human Voice, embracing its Physiological History; together with a System of Principles by which Criticism in the Art of Elocution may be rendered Intelligible, and Instruction Definite and Comprehensive. To which is added a brief Analysis of Song, and Recitative. By JAMES RUSH, M. D. Philadelphia. 1827. J. Maxwell.

2. Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery, as applied to Reading and Speaking. By EBENEZER PORTER, D. D., Bartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in the Theological Seminary, Andover. 1827. Mark Newman.

WE take all due shame to ourselves, that two works on Elocution, like those now before us, should have remained so long unnoticed in our pages. We have thought it singular, and we are willing to confess our share in the fault, that works as creditable to our literature as these are, and in a department of knowledge, which, as matters now stand, is positively of greater importance to the body of our scholars than any other, should have been ushered into the world without receiving a hearty welcome from any leading Journal among us. The Rev. Dr Porter's book, we perceive, has been suffered quietly to slide into a second edition; and from that circumstance we presume it is gaining, unpraised and unnoticed, the estimation it deserves among our Academies and Colleges. As to Dr Rush's work, we venture to say that not one in a hundred of our literary men has ever read it, or known anything about it.

We have in these suggestions struck the key-note; but the strain of our complaints is yet to come. It is a small matter, comparatively, that these books on Elocution have been neglected in our Journals, or by our scholars. The great evil is the evil indicated by this fact. The great evil is, that the subject itself has fallen into neglect. The art of Rhetorical Delivery is regarded with a more amazing and unaccountable indifference among us than ever befell any other art, in circumstances so apparently favorable to its cultivation. This, and nothing but this, accounts for the fact adverted to. One of the works, in question, it is true, is only a Manual, and might not be thought to crave much discussion. But the other is a stout octavo on the Philosophy of the Human Voice. An analysis of the voice, in many respects novel, and running through

more than five hundred pages, is a pretty serious matter. It must be a very weak production, indeed, to deserve to fall into utter neglect. If such a work, a work of such size and pretensions, of whatever character, had been thrown out among the ancient rhetoricians, we imagine that they would have turned it over, and handled it, till they made something of it. But now, if we should please to assert that this work of Dr Rush surpasses all that the ancients have done,-surpasses all the rhetorical works in the world; we presume, that not one in a hundred of our scholars and public speakers, could give any good reason for contradicting us.

Our plan is, first, to take notice of these publications, and, then, to offer some remarks on the general neglect of elocution among us, the want of good speaking, and the almost absolute futility of the common methods, devised for its improvement.

We confess our obligations to the distinguished gentleman, at the head of the Andover Institution (as we understand, according to a late arrangement of the officers), for the popular and most valuable treatise on the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery,' which he has presented to the public. We are obliged, we do not say to his condescension,-for we hold that to descend to labors like these, is to rise; but to the well known professional zeal, which, amidst ill health and the arduous duties. of his station, has given us a work, evidently requiring much thought and attention. It is, beyond all comparison, the best work of the kind, that has appeared in our language. We do not now bring it into any comparison with Austin's Chironomia, which is too elaborate and expensive for common use; and in the department which forms its principal distinction from other rhetorical works, that of action, too artificial, perhaps, to be safe as a manual. It were to be wished, by the by, that half a dozen copies of this work were placed in all our college libraries. Sheridan's and Steele's works had, and have, their value; but they are too speculative, and go too much into detail, for the purpose now in view. The same may be said of Walker's Elocution; though a great advance on previous undertakings, yet characterized by something of the vagueness and obscurity, and what now seems to us the unnecessary minuteness, incident to the investigation and establishment of new principles. Rome was not built in a day, and those who rebuild and improve, often do it out of the hard-wrought works of their predecessors. Campbell's invaluable Philosophy of Rhetoric,' which is, in

deed, the philosophy of language with reference to its rhetorical uses, does not fall within the range of our present comparison.

We consider Dr Porter's work, therefore, as supplying a most material deficiency in our works on Elocution; and it is in all respects exactly what was wanted. The Analysis of Principles,' is sufficiently philosophic, and yet very practical. It is a condensed summary; the work, manifestly of an experienced hand, the result of much observation; clear, judicious, and discriminating. We have read, and re-read the whole, and can find no fault with it. We did, indeed, venture to question whether some of the exercises on inflection,' given to illustrate the fifth rule on that head, did not more properly belong to the ninth; and we suppose that there is some debateable ground' between these rules. Where the sense is suspended; and what constitutes an emphatic succession of particulars,' questions which determine whether the rising, or the falling inflection should be used, may in some cases be a matter of doubt. But the more we have examined these exercises, which occupy more than half of the volume, the more we have found it hazardous to dissent from so respectable an authority. We have only to add that the style of this work, that is, of the original part, is admirable; and that those who have had the pleasure of listening to Dr Porter as a preacher, will meet here with the simplicity, perspicuity, and elegance, together with the pith and energy of expression, with which he is wont to deliver himself. More we might say, and strongly say, if it were proper, of the rhetorical qualifications of this gentleman, for the task he has fulfilled; but lest praise should become intrusion, we leave the subject; again expressing our hearty thanks to Dr Porter, for a work, which, however simple in its character and claims, we are satisfied will do more to raise the tone of speaking in our academies and colleges than anything else that has issued from our press.

We turn now from this manual of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery,' to the much larger and more elaborate work on a single branch of the subject, the Philosophy of the Human Voice.'

This, we do not hesitate to say, is the partment in the whole science of oratory. principal organ of the soul; it is that by and immediately pours forth its thoughts.

most important deThe voice is the which the mind first Articulate speech is

the grand instrument of the orator; the most accurate, flexible, delicate, exquisite, and powerful. It is from this, that eloquence derives its name. We can bear any defect in a speaker, better than a bad, or a badly modulated voice; none so directly interferes with the just and forcible expression of his thoughts. We dwell upon this a moment, partly for the sake of inviting attention to the importance of the subject which Dr Rush has chosen for his essay; and partly because it is not an uncommon idea, that gesture is the principal thing to be taught in our courses of rhetorical instruction. We believe that the culti vation of the voice is entitled to this preeminence, as, at once, the most essential, the most difficult, and the most practicable of all the labors of the rhetorician. It is the most practicable at the same time that it is the most difficult, because while, on the one hand, no man ever became a perfect reader without much practice and deep study, on the other, no one ever failed to improve his voice by daily and careful practice. This is more than can be said of gesture, which depends much on the general manners of the speaker; whereas to. cultivate the voice requires nothing but sense, feeling, and patient study. And yet nothing, much as it has been studied both in ancient and modern times, has been the subject of so many vague ideas and descriptions, as the human voice.

But, not to wander too far from our object, we return to the essay before us. We have had some difficulty in deciding what course to pursue in presenting this work to the notice of our readers. But we have not been long in determining that we cannot find space for any minute criticism on the work. We cannot let our readers far into the mysteries of its nomenclature and notation. We cannot go much into detail, in reviewing a book of details. Almost every page is crowded with discriminations, requiring more deliberation and experiment than we are wont to solicit for our own pages; if it were possible, indeed, to find place in them for discussions of this nature. We shall endeavor, therefore, to give such a notice of this treatise as may, we hope, induce others to read it, rather than attempt to supply them with an abstract so full as to lead them to think a perusal of it unnecessary. We read it with great satisfaction. We considered it as going far beyond any former analysis. of the voice. It is from an honest and hearty impulse, therefore, that we recommend it to others;-not having read the book, to review it, but reviewing it because we have read it.

Of all subjects for philosophical analysis, Dr Rush has taken up the most difficult. This arises from the flexible, variable, vanishing nature of the voice. It is ever changing. It does not stand still to be the object of attention. It does not pause to be listened to. He who hunts in this field, to use the huntsman's phrase, must shoot flying.' It is like examining objects which pass swiftly before the eye, and almost instantly vanish from sight; making it nearly impossible on both accounts to distinguish them. And, indeed, the only method of examining the voice, is artificially to lengthen out or prolong its tones; just as we should cause the object of vision in the case just supposed, if we wish to examine it, to move more slowly or to pause before our eyes. It is for this reason, that the singing voice is more easily analyzed, and has been so much more accurately defined. It is not a continuous flow of sound, but it skips from note to note, pausing upon each one, and giving time for the listener to mark and describe it. The speaking voice is like a stream; the observer perceives, that there are undulations in it, that it rises or falls, that its current is stronger or feebler, that its sound is higher or lower; but all minuter discrimination is lost in its continual flow.

Observations of this sort, indeed, pursued, not into detailed and accurate descriptions, but into more vague diffuseness, are by all that we obtain from the ancients. Julius Pollux, as quoted by Austin, enumerates (Lib. II. c. 4.) no less than thirty-seven qualities of voice. Our readers may be curious to know what they are. The following is the catalogue; high, powerful, clear, extensive, deep, brilliant, pure, sweet, attractive, melodious, persuasive, tractable, flexible, executive, mellow, sonorous, distinct, perspicuous, obscure, dull, unpleasing, small, thin, faint, indistinct, confused, discordant, unharmonious, unmanageable, not fitted to persuade, rigid, harsh, cracked, doleful, hoarse, brassy, shrill. What can be more wonderful,' says Mr Walker in a note to his Observations on the Greek and Latin Accent, than that, among so many of the ancients who have written on the causes of eloquence, and who have descended to such trifling and childish observations upon the importance of letters and syllables, we should not find a single author who has taken notice of the importance of emphasis upon a single word? Our Inodern books of elocution abound with instances of the change produced in the sense of a sentence by changing the place of the emphasis; but no such instance appears among the an