even a duplicate of the orator himself? They forgot the secret of his power, which lay in experiencing passion, while they merely imitated its external manifestations.

Again-great orators have generally appeared during times of high excitement-when liberty or religion were contending for their rights. Then all the powers of the soul are led on by the highest energies of passion; then the poor tricks of art are despised, and nature speaks. In addition to this, we find that all men are orators when under the strong movements of noble passion. Compassion, benevolence, patriotism, religion, in their genuine and commanding influences unloose the tongue as they open the heart of any man. Some of the most brilliant displays of oratory are made by the untutored savage, simply because he feels deeply and speaks only as he feels.

We mention another fact. In Greece and Rome the decline of oratory began with and in the schools of the rhetoricians. The great masters of oratory were formed under the hand of nature. But when in the power and consideration which they attained, the value of oratory was seen, then numerous teachers sprang up and endeavored to rival nature by the rules of art. But as the true motive and the plastic energy were wanting they produced merely showy forms of elaborate finish, without life or expression, which gained popularity only when the occasions of genuine eloquence had ceased, and persevering pomp and pretension had succeeded in corrupting the public taste.

It is to be noticed, also, as a fact of no uncommon occurrence, that orators whose power we are compelled to acknowledge are, notwithstanding, obnoxious to criticism. This admits of only one explanation. Their bad pronunciation, their awkward gesticulations, their harsh and provincial tones, although forming serious defects, cannot prevent the language of the passions from reaching the heart.

Contrasted with this is the fact, that those who have practiced with care under what is esteemed the best instruction fail to affect us. They, indeed, may be considered beyond criticism. The emphasis and inflexions are all made at the proper places. The intonations are clear and elegant. The bursts of passion apt and striking, and the gesture graceful. We admire the speaker, but we do not feel the power of eloquence. Instead of giving effect to thought, the thought becomes only the occasion and instrument of personal display. In the former instances, all the graces and proprieties may be wanting, but the presence of the soul of oratory compensates for their absence. In the latter instances, all the graces and proprieties are present, but the soul of oratory is wanting, for which nothing can compensate.

There is still another fact: the professed teachers of otatory

are rarely found to exert the powers of oratory. They are, indeed, nice in criticism, and often elegant and pleasing in their recitations, but still they are mere imitators, or, at the highest, actors. If mere imitators, then their rules have most signally failed with respect to themselves. They have not attained to the language of the passions. Or, suppose them to have gained the high and fascinating power of acting, still this is not oratory. They do not present us the example of speaking one's own sentiments with a truth and power to electrify and subdue. Imitation and acting not only fail in presenting us oratory in themselves, they do not even contain the discipline of oratory. Why do not those who are great in both exert the power of oratory? Why do they not control the bar, surround the pulpit with conviction, hold the assemblies of the people in silence by the majesty of truth, and fill the senate with their thunders? If imitation and acting formed the discipline of oratory, those who are accomplished in both ought to give us the illustrations in their own persons. But it is not difficult to prove that the habits induced by these arts are unfavorable to oratory. With respect to the first, namely, imitation, can an artificial discipline of the voice prepare it for speaking the tones of nature? Can the affected utterance of the sentiments of another, which you do not feel, prepare you for the impassioned utterance of your own sentiments? No more than the heart can be taught to feel by affecting feeling, or the countenance be made to express the genuine emotions of the soul through the grimaces of hypocrisy. Oratory and imitation are not the same in kind, they are opposites. Their resemblance is only the resemblance of the counterfeit to the real; but the counterfeit can never be transmuted into the real.

With respect to acting, it also is not the same in kind. The actor imagines a character and circumstances, and then speaks under the influence of passions awakened by these imaginations. He thus becomes habituated to speak out of his proper self. He is Richard or Hamlet. The more complete the transformation, the better for his purpose. But how different is this from speaking on a real occasion, where the subject is connected with the speaker's heart, without the intervention of the imagination. It is easy to perceive that the habits of mind, generated by the real, cannot assimilate with those generated by the imaginary occasion. The first is direct thinking and feeling, connected with present and visible interests, and actual responsibilities, and, therefore, sustained and flowing on. The other is without original thought, with feelings limited to the remote, attended with no sense of responsibility, and evanescent as a dream. Could Garrick have taken the place of Chatham ?—were his habits of thought and feeling such as to fit

him for the oratory of Chatham? As well might Chatham have taken the place of Garrick.

The enquiry will here be made: If it be true that the language of passion cannot be taught, then ought not Elocution, as a branch of education, to be exploded? Elocution, according to the current acceptation, ought to be exploded; but in its place, the true study of oratory can be introduced.

All will agree that the study of oratory can relate to only two things-the qualities of the voice and the qualities of the thought. Now, our argument is, that the qualities of the voice depend upon the qualities of the thought, so that the former can be developed only through the latter. The peculiar manner of delivering language, was at first inspired and fixed by the sentiments. Now, although we may form rules by watching the voice, when under the energies of passion, yet there must be an insurmountable difficulty in the way of reducing them to practice, inasmuch as when we watch the tones, in order to conform to the rules, we divert the mind from the inspirations of the sentiment. An ar gument in favor of cultivating the tones of passion, has been drawn from the astonishing effects which cultivation produces on the voice with respect to musical execution. The cases, however, are by no means parallel. Music, although capable of adaptation to sentiment, is not the expression of it. Language, on the other hand, is the direct expression of sentiment. In music, the voice is not obeying any particular passion or sentiment, but is passing through changes by fixed scientific connec tions. In oratory, the very condition is, that the voice obey the passion and sentiment. The one is the law of melody, and the other the law of the heart.

There is a cultivation, however, to which the voice may be submitted, of a very important character. If it be defective or weak, it may be corrected and strengthened by judicious exercise, without reference to sentiment. This was the case of Demosthenes; his efforts were not to acquire the tones of passion, but to cure physical defects, namely, weakness and stammering. Music may be cultivated in reference to the inflexions and compass of the voice, as preparatory to oratory. A clear articulation and a correct pronunciation are capital qualities, which are also to be cultivated as preparatory to oratory. Those modifications of the voice which have reference to the intelligibility of language, such as emphasis, and the rising, falling, and circumflex inflexions, should be cultivated by exercises in reading. This is necessary, especially for two reasons: first, when taught to read in childhood through injudicious instruction we acquire habits of intonation which are anything but natural. These are apt to adhere more or less to the individual afterwards. Now these, or any other errors, as respects intelligible speaking,

may be corrected by reading exercises, and the voice restored to the influence of nature. Secondly reading has an elocution of its own, which we may attend to without conflicting with the higher power of oratory. In mere correct reading we give a peculiarity to the tone which indicates that we are expressing the sentiments of another, we do not attempt to imitate or to act. Now it is important that we do this with a good articulation and intelligibly; and this may be attained by practice. But if the piece to be read contain the language of passion, then at once art will fail, and the inspirations of passion must be relied upon. To read such a piece by rule, however elegantly, is treason against nature, for which we shall receive a retribution in the production of artificial habits.

Declamation also, with certain restrictions, may be introduced into our educational system. The pieces selected may be of the narrative or descriptive kind, where the speaker is not required to assume a character, but where he may speak under the influence of his own naturally-awakened feelings. But then he ought not to speak such pieces, unless, upon trial, he finds his own feelings readily entering into them. The sentimental are the best, but the sentiments should be such as the speaker feels interested in, such as he can easily make his own, such as he feels he would himself have written had he possessed the ability. The principle is, to select such pieces as will lead to the habit of expressing our own sentiments with unaffected interest. But what shall we think of the practice of mounting the stage and, in the character of Hannibal or Bonaparte addressing an army on the eve of battle; or in the character of Antony making a speech over the body of Cæsar; or in the character of Hamlet uttering a soliloquy; or in the character of satan making a speech to the fallen spirits in Pandemonium? If this were action it would not be oratory. But it cannot be action. No imagination is vivid enough for the performance. It is nothing more than a miserable, absurd, and ridiculous attempt at imitation. If oratory cannot be gained in this way, why practice it? It is worse than no instruction to learn what must be hereafter unlearned when we come upon the great theatre of the world, where every man must act his own character, and where, not frothy declamation, but burning thought must speak to men.

Another method of cultivating oratory, is the speaking of original compositions. This cannot be followed with too much assiduity. If performed carelessly it avails little; but if the compositions be prepared with pains and a laudable ambition, if the subject be one in which the writer is interested, and which he feels desirous to impress upon his hearers, there will be in the whole performance a salutary discipline, both as respects eloquence of style and genuine oratory.

Forensic debates are superior to all other exercises, when properly conducted. The speaker should speak only from his own convictions, he should make ample preparation in the thought, and then yield himself to the interest and ardor of discussion. Such exercises may give birth to oratory; they certainly will prepare the way. Here mind comes in conflict with mind, and the studied gesture and artificial tone are forgotten. The arts and tricks of a spurious oratory could not be made to appear more despicable than by introducing them into the forum.

In forming the orator, however, the principal discipline relates to the thoughts and feelings. Oratory is composed of the tones which thought and feeling inspire, and the thought and feeling contain the only true measure of the oratory. The loftier thought, the nobler and more glowing feeling of one mind will mark the superiority of his oratory, if he speak inartificially. But still the humbler thought, and the less soaring passion of another, will have its measure of oratory.

Whilst, therefore, all that direct attention should be paid to oratory which has been remarked above, let it be remembered that the finished and disciplined intellect, the purified and exalted heart, and a thorough acquaintance with language, form its springs. One of the strongest objections against popular elocution is, that it deludes its pupils into the belief that they have become orators by the cultivation of the voice, while as yet its fountains have not been opened in the soul. Oratory is not an accomplishment of the schoolboy, but the attribute of a ripened and godlike mind.

As a specimen of oratory, let us take the oratory of Lord Bacon, as described by Ben Jonson: "There happened in my time one noble speaker who was full of gravity in his speaking. No man ever spoke more neatly, more pressly, more mightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but consisted of its own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look aside from him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had his judges angry or pleased at his devotion. The fear of every man that heard him was, that he should make an end."

There is but one thing more that we shall mention as a part of this discipline and preparation for oratory. It is this, to enter into the world neither as an isolated nor as a selfish being, but with all the generous sympathies of humanity, feeling that the great interests of the world are common interests in which all must bear a part. These interests are expressed by a few words, but how vast their relations! Art, science, law, politics, and religion. He that will enter the world to prosecute these in truth and righteousness, must think, and feel, and speak; and then thought will be the birth of wisdom, and feeling will be the soul of speech, and such speech will be oratory.