Part 2

There is not a single point, in which the study of oratory was necessary to the ancients, wherein it is not equally so to us; nor was there any incitement to the knowlege and practice of that art, whether of pleasure, profit, or honour, which with us is not of equal strength.

We, as well as the ancients, have councils, senates, and assemblies of the people (by their representatives) whose deliberations and debates turn upon matters of as much moment, where oratory has fields as ample, in which it may exert all its various powers, and where the rewards and honours, attendant on eloquence are equal. "If we look into the history of England, for more than a century past, we shall find, that most persons have made their way to the head of affairs, and got into the highest employments, not on account of birth or fortune, but by being, what is commonly called, good speakers."

Nor is oratory less necessary to us at the bar, than it was to the ancients; nor are the rewards of profit, fame, and preferment, less attendant on it there; as has been experienced by all in that profession, who took pains to improve their talents in that way.

But there is one point, a most momentous one, in which oratory is essentially necessary to us, but was not in the least so to the ancients. The article I mean, is of the utmost importance to us; it is the basis of our government, and pillar of our state. It is the vivifying principle, the soul of our constitution, without which, it cannot subsist; I mean religion.

"As the religion of the ancients consisted chiefly of rites and ceremonies, it could derive no assistance from oratory; but there is not the smallest branch of ours which can be well executed, without skill in speaking; and the more important parts, calculated to answer the great ends, evidently require the whole oratorial powers."

Let it be observed, that in this profession alone, there are more persons employed throughout these realms, than there were citizens of Athens, at any given period.

Since, therefore, we have so much stronger motives to the cultivation of this art, what can be the reason that even an attempt towards it has never hitherto been made? One would imagine, that in a country where the ancients are admired, revered, nay, almost adored, that we should certainly follow their example, and adopt all their wise institutions, so far at least as they coincided with the spirit of our government, and were of equal necessity to the well being of the state. But on the contrary, we seem to have made it a law, that we should sit down contented with seeing and admiring their excellence, but that we should never attempt to use the means, by which alone we might be enabled to rival them. If it were difficult to come at the knowlege of those means; if the method taken by the ancients, in educating their youth to qualify them for such great performances, had not been handed down to us; or if there were any thing in the method itself, which would be found impracticable in these times, there might be some excuse for not taking the same course. But on the contrary, when many of their most eminent writers have minutely described to us the precise course of education, passed through by all who were liberally trained; when they tell us, that both at Athens and Rome, one of the chief studies was that of their native language in each country; and that the art most assiduously sought after, and practised in both, was that of oratory: shall we be surprised that their languages were more polished and beautiful, and consequently that all works which depended upon the elegance and charms of language, should be more finished than those of a people, who never took any pains in that way? or that oratory, and all the arts dependant on it, or connected with it, together with all the benefits and advantages resulting from it, should appear in a more conspicuous light, in regions, where that art was cultivated with the utmost pains and labour, than in a country where it has been utterly neglected. Is there any natural impediment in our way, is there any invincible obstacle to the pursuit of these studies, and to the attainment of these arts? Have we not a language to study as well as they? and do we not, on many accounts, stand in more need of studying that language? Have we not the same organs of speech, the same features, the same limbs, muscles, and nerves, that the ancients had? What want we then, but to apply ourselves to the regulation of these, and to study their true use in enforcing and adorning our sentiments, when delivered by speech, to rival or even excel them in their favourite art? How did the ancients attain this art? By study, and practice. Would not the same means bring us to the same end? And have we not the advantage of all their lights to guide us in our enquiries? Have we not the foundation of their experience to build upon, ready to our hands, whenever we are wise enough to set about raising the noble edifice? Did the ancients possess any advantages over us from nature, either in point of intellectual faculties, or the animal oeconomy? With respect to the mental powers, it is undoubtedly clear, that we have carried our discoveries much farther than they did, both in the physical and moral world. And with respect to the bodily organs, true philosophy must deride any attempts, to shew that we are not framed exactly in the same manner. In all the _sciences_, to which we _have_ applied, we have far outdone them; and if they still excel us in many of the _arts_, it is either because we have wholly neglected their cultivation, or where we have made the attempt, we have taken a wrong course; and unwisely deserted the method pointed out by the ancients towards their attainment, and which, with them, had been always crowned with success.

In short, the difference between the ancients and us, arises from one obvious cause. In the course of education, we have pursued most of the studies, which they did; but some we have wholly omitted. In all studies, which we followed in common with them, we have far excelled them: that they have excelled us in those which were peculiar to themselves, cannot be a matter of wonder. The chief points in which they differed from us, were the study of their native language, and oratory. And it can be indisputably shewn, that they possessed no advantage over us, but what arose, either immediately, or consequentially from their knowlege, skill, and practice; in grammar, rhetorick, and oratory. Now, as we have excelled them far, in all the studies to which we _have_ applied, there can be no good reason assigned, that with a due degree of attention and pains, we might not surpass them in these also? On the contrary, I hope, on another occasion, to be able to prove, that from certain lights furnished by time, from peculiar advantages arising from our pure and holy religion, and from the nature of our admirable constitution, we might, with moderate pains, and in no long space of time, as far surpass them in those arts, and all that depend upon them, or have a connection with them, as we have already done in the sciences.

But though, upon trial, we should not find ourselves able to surpass the ancients, let us not shamefully suffer ourselves to be outdone in those arts by the moderns. If the Briton should own himself unequal to the contest with Greeks and Romans, let him not yield the palm to Frenchmen also. If, in despair of victory, he should say like Mnestheus in Virgil, "Non jam prima peto," let him add to his countrymen, "extremos pudeat rediisse!"

Believe me, there is no time to be lost. The Italians, the French, and the Spaniards, are far before you. Their languages and authors are well known through Europe, whilst yours have got admission only into the closets of a few. You have but to rouze yourselves from your lethargy, and to exert your native vigour, soon to outstrip them all. Should you set about refining and ascertaining your language, with the same spirit of industry, which you have often exerted on less important occasions, the work will not be long accomplishing; and you will not only immediately raise your credit in the eyes of Europe, but hand down to your posterity, one of the noblest legacies which it is in your power to bequeath. If the task should be accomplished, how will that posterity wonder, that their ancestors should have been for more than two centuries in possession of so rich a jewel, without once examining its value; and that, merely through a neglect of polishing, they should have suffered a diamond of the first water and magnitude, to be outshone by the cut glass, or pebbles, of their poorer, but more industrious neighbours.

The true source of the neglect of these studies, will, upon examination, be found to be this; that from the first introduction of letters into this kingdom, the minds of all trained in the knowlege of them, have to this hour, from early institution, got a wrong biass with respect to language: in consequence of which, the universal attention of the natives of this country, has been turned from the natural, the more forcible, and more pleasing kind, to that which is artificial, weaker, and accompanied with no natural delight.

I do not doubt, but that this proposition will excite no small surprise in my hearers; nor do I suppose, they will easily comprehend my meaning, till they recollect a distinction, which is hardly ever thought of, and yet, which ought often to be had in remembrance, that we have two kinds of language; one which is _spoken_, another which is _written_. Or that there are two different methods used of communicating our ideas, one through the channel of the ear, the other through that of the eye.

It is true, that as articulate sounds are by compact symbols of our ideas, and as written characters are by compact symbols of those articulate sounds, they may, at first view, seem calculated to accomplish one and the same end; and from habit, an opinion may be formed, that it is a matter of indifference which way the communication is made, as the end will be equally well answered by either.

But, upon a nearer examination, it will appear that this opinion is ill founded, and that, in whatever country it prevails, so far as to affect the practice of the people, it must be attended with proportional bad consequences, both to individuals, and to society in general.

In order to prove this, it will be necessary to shew, that the difference between these two kinds of language is not more in form, than in substance; in the means of their communication, than in their end: that they widely differ from each other, in the nature, degree, and extent of their power; that they have each their several offices and limits belonging to them, which they ought never to exceed; and that, where one encroaches on the province of the other, it can never equally well discharge its office.

All these points will be made sufficiently clear, only by examining the nature and constitution, of these two kinds of language.

First, as to that which is spoken. Speech is the universal gift of God to all mankind. But as in his wise dispensations, in order to excite industry, and make reward the attendant on service, in the most excellent things of this life, he has only furnished the materials, and left it to man to find out, and make a right use of them; so has he laid down this just law, in regard to the great article of speech; which in all nations must prove either barbarous, discordant, and defective; or polished, harmonious, and copious, according to the culture or neglect of it. As the chief delight and improvement of a social, rational being, must arise from a communication of sentiments and affections, and all that passes in the mind of man; the powers of opening such a communication are furnished in a suitable degree, and with a liberal hand. In proportion to their acquisition of ideas, men will find no want of articulate sounds to be their symbols. In proportion to their progress in knowlege, they will find adequate powers in the organs of speech, to communicate that knowlege. In proportion to the exertion of the powers of the intellect, or the imagination, the various emotions of the mind, the different degrees of sensibility, and all the feelings of the heart; they will find, upon searching for them, that in the human frame there are tones, looks, and gestures of such efficacy, as not only to make all these obvious, but to transfuse all those operations, energies, and emotions into others: without which, indeed, the mere communication of ideas would be attended with but little delight.

A wise nation will therefore, above all things, apply themselves to advance the powers of elocution, to as high a degree as possible; and they will find their labours well rewarded, not only by opening a source of one of the highest delights, which the nature of man is capable of feeling in this life, but also by the extraordinary benefits and advantages thence resulting to society, which cannot possibly be procured in any other way. "It has pleased the All-wise Creator to annex to elocution, when in its perfect state, powers almost miraculous! and an energy nearly divine! He has given to it tones to charm the ear, and penetrate the heart: he has joined to it actions, and looks, to move the inmost soul. By that, attention is kept up without pain, and conviction carried to the mind with delight. Persuasion is ever its attendant, and the passions own it for a master. Great as is the force of its powers, so unbounded is their extent. All mankind are capable of its impressions, the ignorant as well as the wise, the illiterate as well as the learned."

Such is the nature, such the constitution, such the effects, of cultivated speech. Let us now examine the properties of written language. "That is wholly the invention of man, a mere work of art, and therefore can contain no natural power. Its use is to give stability to sound, and permanence to thought; to preserve words that otherwise might perish as they are spoke, and to arrest ideas that might vanish as they rise in the mind; to assist the memory in treasuring these up, and to convey knowlege at distance through the eye, where it could find no entrance by the ear. In short, it may be considered as a grand repository of the wisdom of ages, from which the greatest plenty of materials may be furnished, for the use of speech, and the best supplies given to the powers of elocution."

Here we may see, that these two kinds of language essentially differ from each other in their nature and use: and, from this view, we may plainly perceive the vast superiority which the former must have over the latter, in the main end aimed at by both, that of communicating all that passes in the mind of man; inasmuch as the former works by the whole force of natural, as well as artificial means; the latter, by artificial means only. In the one case, many hundreds may be made partakers at one and the same time, of instruction and delight; in the other, knowlege must be parceled out only to individuals. In the one, not only the sense of hearing may receive the highest gratification, from sounds the most pleasing, and congenial to the organs of man; but the sight also may be delighted with viewing the noblest work of the Great Mechanist put in motion, to answer the noblest ends: and, whilst the charmed ear easily admits the words of truth, the faithful eye, even of the illiterate, can read their credentials, in the legible hand of Nature, visibly characterized in the countenance and gesture of the speaker. In the other, none of the senses are in the least gratified. The eye can have no pleasure in viewing a succession of crooked characters, however accurately formed; and the ear cannot be much concerned in silent reading.

If any doubt remains about pre-eminence with regard to these two, the dispute may, at once, be settled in the same way that Cicero determined the controversy between oratory and philosophy; "Sin quærimus quid unum excellat ex omnibus, docto oratori palma danda est: quem si patiuntur eundem esse philosophum, sublata controversia est. Sin eos disjungent, hoc erunt inferiores, quod in oratore perfecto, inest omnis illorum scientia, in philosophorum autem cognitione, non continuo est eloquentia." In like manner it may be said, in this case, that he who is master of speaking cannot, on that account, be retarded, though he may be much advanced thereby in knowlege of written language; whereas he who is master of the written language only, is by no means advanced thereby in the art of speaking. Indeed, the one should be considered only as an handmaid to the other, and employed chiefly in such offices as she cannot do in her own person.

But should any nation be so unfortunately circumstanced, as from habit, or institution, to bestow all their labour and pains upon cultivating the artificial language, the invention of man, to the utter neglect of that which is natural, and the gift of God, it must be allowed, that they are in a wrong course; and that they must necessarily lose some of the greatest blessings that can be enjoyed by rational, social beings, and which can flow from no other source but that of cultivated speech. Whether this be not our case, is well worth considering; and the point may be settled by the establishment of a few facts. In order to this, let us take a view of the perfections, and imperfections, of each kind of language; see in which of them we take most pains to attain the one, and avoid the other; and, in consequence of such pains, which of them is at this day in the best state amongst us.

The chief object of both, is the communication of ideas and emotions from mind to mind, but they use different mediums for this purpose. Speech makes use of sound, and reaches the mind through the ear: writing makes use of characters, and conveys knowlege through the eye. The ideas that rise in the mind of the speaker, together with the operations, affections, and energies, of the mind itself, are manifested and communicated in speech, by articulate sounds, combined, or separated in various proportions; by rests of the voice in certain places; by accents, emphases, and tones. The same is attempted in writing, by different combinations of letters, according to stated rules, and by certain points, stops, and lines. But that it cannot be done with equal success in the latter case, is clear from this, that sound contains in itself a natural power over the human frame, in rousing the faculties of man, and exciting the affections, as is clearly proved by the force of music.

By the loud trumpet, which our courage aids, We learn that sound, as well as sense, persuades.

But written characters have, in themselves, no sort of virtue, nor the least influence on the mind of man: and the utmost extent of their artificial power can reach no farther, than that of exciting ideas of sounds, which belong to spoken words, for which those combinations of letters stand, and consequently cannot produce equal effects with the sounds themselves.

To instruct our youth in the arts of reading and writing, there are many seminaries established every-where throughout this realm; and, accordingly, all of a liberal education are well versed in them. But who in these countries ever heard of a master for the improvement of articulation, for teaching the due proportion of sound and quantity of syllables in English, and for pointing out to his pupils, by precept and example, the right use of accents, emphases, and tones, when they read aloud, or speak in public? If this has never yet been done, surely it is a great omission, when we reflect of how much more importance the one art is than the other; how much more nice and subtle in its nature, which renders it more difficult to be acquired, and consequently demands more the benefit of instruction. Accordingly, the bad fruits of this neglect are every day perceived. Each man's experience will tell him, how few public readers, or speakers, he has heard acquit themselves well; and even of those few, those very few, who have acquired any name in that way, it would be found, upon a critical inquiry, that they have, for the most part, but a comparative excellence; and that their superiority over others arises from pre-eminence in the natural faculties of speech, and an happier construction of the organs, rather than any skill, or mastery, in the art of elocution. It is thus that, in countries where music is learned by the ear only, they who have the nicest ear, and most tuneable voices, will pass for the best singers, and, of course, be accounted excellent. But, when they come to be compared with those of another country, regularly trained in the art of music, it will soon be perceived, what amazing advantages such culture has given to the latter singers over the former; not only in point of musical skill, and variety of tones, but also in the vast improvement made in the singing instrument itself, with respect to all its powers of sweetness, strength, volubility, or expression, which have been gradually brought forward to their utmost perfection. Could some of the orators of old arise from the dead, and be confronted with the best of these times, perhaps the difference would be still more striking.

There cannot be a more flagrant proof of the preference given to the inferior species of language, over that of the nobler kind; nor, at the same time, one which will afford a more glaring instance of the uncontrolable power of fashion, however absurdly founded, than when we reflect, that it is reckoned a great disgrace for a gentleman to spell ill, though not to speak or read ill: and yet, if we were to weigh these defects in the true balance, and consider them only with respect to the bad consequences which follow from each, the former will appear to be scarce an object worthy of our attention, and the latter ought to excite universal indignation.

A gentleman writes a letter to his friend, or upon business (the chief use which gentlemen in general make of writing); there are many words in it mis-spelt; this is a great scandal, and lessens him in the eyes of those who read it: and yet, where is the mighty matter in this! The unusual manner of placing letters in words, gives no pain to the organs of sight; the reader can soon correct any error; or, if he should be puzzled, he can take time to examine and make out the sense by the context; and then the end of the letter is answered.

On the other hand, a man shall rise up in a public assembly, and, without the least mark of shame, deliver a discourse to many hundred auditors, in such disagreeable tones, and unharmonious cadences, as to disgust every ear; and with such improper and false use of emphasis, as to conceal or pervert the sense and all this without fear of any consequential disgrace, "quia defendit numerus." When we consider that this is often done on the most aweful occasions, in the very service of the Most High! at times when words, delivered with due force and energy, might be productive of the noblest consequences to society, afford the highest delight to the auditory, and give honour and dignity to the person of the speaker, may we not justly cry out, O custom! thou art properly called second nature, with respect to the immensity of thy power; but thou usurpest her place, thou art her tyrant, thou tramplest her under foot, and with thy scepter of iron, thou swayest the powers of reason and truth at thy will!