READING AND DECLAMATION. HAVING been unexpectedly called on to supply the place of the individual who was appointed to deliver the lecture assigned to this hour, I feel it due to the audience and to myself to offer a word of explanation, before entering on the subject which has been announced.* I come, of course, unprepared for the occasion. But it has been suggested to me, that, as the Institute has hitherto expressed a desire to have the addresses on such occasions as this embody, as much as may be, the results of experience, and the practical observations arising from these, I might be permitted to offer a few remarks on a branch of education which practice has made familiar to me. It is necessary, however, that, in taking up the subjects of reading and declamation, I should advert, for a moment, to the eloquent and interesting lecture to which we have already list *The writer of this lecture was, during the session of the Institute, requested to occupy the hour assigned to one of the gentlemen regularly appointed, whom unforeseen business had detained from the annual meeting. Want of time for preparation placed the lecturer under the necessity of offering, instead of a methodical composition, a few extemporaneous statements on the branch of instruction in which he is principally occupied. This explanation will, it is hoped, account for omissions of memory, or other variations from the lecture as orally delivered, as well as for the want of systematic connexion in its topics, and for the controversial aspect of some parts of it, in which views are maintained at variance with those advanced in the lecture on Elocution. The theory of instruction adopted by the author of the lecture now offered, having been assailed by the lecturer on Elocution, it became necessary to assert and maintain its accuracy, before entering on practical details. ened on the same or similar topics. I do this with the greater pleasure, from my respect and esteem for the author of that lecture, my high opinion of his attainments, my entire sympathy with the spirit and tenor of his observations, and my acquiescence in the justness of many of his practical direc tions. But as the theory of the subjects of reading and declamation, on which my own ideas are founded, and by which my suggestions for practice are regulated, is drawn principally from the two eminent writers whose authority my predecessor has attempted to set aside, it seems necessary to offer a word in support of their respective systems. First, with regard to the justly celebrated work of Dr. Rush, entitled the Philosophy of the Human Voice, a work truly called the philosophy of the voice, if the most masterly specimen of analysis that modern times have furnished in any department of science, is entitled to such a name. The treatise of Dr. Rush, is the only one in which the modifications of the voice in speech have been analysed and defined, the only one which has offered to instructers the benefit of an exact and intelligible designation of the vocal sounds uttered in reading and in speaking. Here, and here only, we find the actual phenomena of voice furnished with an appropriate nomenclature, by which they can be made audible realities, things to which we may precisely and satisfactorily refer. The vocal modifications which constitute speech having been thus individually detected and denominated, to reduce them to a system of "artificial music," became a matter of no great difficulty. The practicability of the thing had been already demonstrated, in the use of the appropriate terms and characters of the sister art of music. That Dr. Rush has successfully accomplished the analysis and the designation of the intonations of speech, has never been seriously questioned, till in the present instance. Some superficial critics, familiar neither with the functions nor the modulations of the voice, and wholly unread in the science of music, have attempted to turn the theory of Dr. Rush into a matter of ridicule. The discoveries made in the exploration of a new branch of human knowledge, have always afforded amusement, for a while, to the unreflecting. To doubt, to cavil, or to sneer, is, unfortunately, too easy a process. But the advancement of general knowledge, with sure, though slow step, comes up at length to the attainments of the individual whose zeal and whose research were at one time deemed fit topics for burlesque. So it has been in the case before us. The theory of Dr. Rush is adopted by nearly all intelligent instructers in the department of elocution; and the gentleman who disparaged his treatise, would at once himself acknowledge its truth, could he be placed, as he might be, by the side of that genuine pupil of the inductive philosophy, and hear him, with his unrivalled facility and skill, detect and define every modification of the gentleman's own voice. My friend, who addressed us, has not, I fear, done the justice of investigation to this subject, as he has so fully to others, but has been influenced by preconceived opinion, or deterred by the apparent difficulty of mastering the system, or hindered by the impediments arising from a want of an adequate knowledge of music. No intelligent pupil of the science last named can, on candid examination, reject the theory of Dr. Rush. A man, it is true, may read and speak well without a systematic knowledge of the voice; as many write well without a systematic knowledge of composition, or even of grammar. But who would deny the utility of the study of these branches, or the correctness of the rules and principles laid down in the manuals on these subjects? The objections of the lecturer on elocution, to the system of the voice laid down by Dr. Rush, are founded on an entire mistake relating to the plan and design of that author's work. The Philosophy of the Voice was not intended as a practical manual on the subject. It was not meant to impart directions, or to trace applications in detail, but to point out the actual phenomena of the human voice, as presented in the function of speech. The author's task was to analyse and to designate, to trace and to state the facts, to arrange and classify these, to do, in short, what the title of his treatise implies, to give a philosophic exposition that is to say, a strictly analytical one of the audible part of expression. The rules and directions for using the voice, belong to the practical business of oral instruction. With these Dr. Rush had nothing to do but incidentally, for a casual purpose of illustration or remark. He left, therefore, the practical exposition of his system to be done by teachers themselves; and, accordingly, we have a suitable manual on his method, prepared by Dr. Barber, a volume, of which Dr. Rush has expressed a favorable opinion, as a useful compend of his own treatise. But it is necessary to follow the lecturer in detail, and here, the first objection to Dr. Rush's system we find to be, that "the rise and fall of the voice in speaking are designated by fixed intervals." To any person accustomed to appreciate musical intervals, nothing can be more easily ascertained than the correctness of Dr. Rush's statements under this head. To demonstrate the thing, it is only necessary that a passage adapted to recitation or to declamation be selected, and that the individual who wishes to make the experiment, pronounce the words very slowly, and with a full prolongation of every sound, particularly the words most conspicuously marked by rising and falling slides. Let an accompaniment, in strict unison with the voice, be performed, meanwhile, on a piano or a violin, and the notes of the instrument will prove the exact intervals of all the slides or waves executed by the voice. No person who has not resorted to this test, is at liberty to condemn the theory presented in the Philosophy of the Voice; and no one who has made the experiment can question the accuracy of the author's views. It will be found, invariably, on such a trial as has been suggested, that the rise and fall of the voice are through exact and measured intervals, which were only for the moment concealed from the ear, by the comparative rapidity of speech, but which, nevertheless do exist; as is at once evinced by substituting one interval for another, and thereby producing an unmeaning or an unnatu→ ral tone. we answer If the question then be put, "What good is to be attained by knowing the precise intervals in such cases ?" at once, all the good that ever comes from knowledge in place of ignorance. The teacher of elocution has it in his power, by means of Dr. Rush's analysis, not only to detect a fault of utterance, but to show precisely what the fault is, and to exhibit clearly, in illustration, the true tone which he wishes his pupil to acquire. The Philosophy of the Voice furnishes him with the definite name of the modification of voice to which he refers. He no longer "fights as one that beats the air,' but has a specific aim, a tangible object, as it were, and a straight course to reach it. What a contrast to the time-worn expedient of "Read as I read" - tried and tried again - for the twentieth time, perhaps - but without success; because neither the teacher nor the pupil had a perfectly clear idea of * Technically denominated inflections, slides, or waves. |