who monopolizes the conversation, forcing all others into the position of listeners, and actually haranguing and lecturing those who are unprepared for such an infliction. Notable historic examples of this class are found in Dr. Johnson, Coleridge, and Macaulay. And so we might refer to the flippant talker; the scientific talker, whose whole nomenclature astonishes without instructing; and the gossip, who lives to spy out the faults of others, that he may tell of them.

But we come finally to the rhetorical view of conversation, and we are ready to declare that all the rules laid down for discourse apply to our ordinary talk in full force. We should always speak grammatically and rhetorically well.

We should be careful in inventing the subjectmatter of our conversation; we should arrange it duly, and our language should be a just, full, and pleasing expression of our thoughts.

The habit of speaking in a vulgar manner to ignorant people, and thus lowering ourselves, as it is supposed, to their standard, is wrong. We may, it is true, find a plainer word to express our thought than we might ordinarily use; but it should be pure, proper, and precise. In many cases of this kind the value of rhetorical rules is manifested by the fact that in our efforts to be very clear, we apply those rules with a minuteness which, perhaps, we do not always use when we are talking at random, or are indifferent as

to making ourselves intelligible. Particularly, too, should we avoid all slang phrases. Apart from their inelegance, they foist upon the language new and vulgar words and idioms which it is far better with

out.

To talk like a book," is frequently used to express a fault; but it is the fault of pedantry, and not of rhetorical exactness.

The errors of a conversational style are not so easily marked, of course, as those in a set discourse. Many a man of few ideas has an elegance of language, which, to the unobservant mind, causes his platitudes to sound like wisdom; while the taciturnity and bald speech of the philosopher have become proverbial. The faulty speech of many persons, even among those who call themselves educated, is a lamentable proof how necessary a branch of our subject is the Rhetoric of conversation.

CHAPTER XV.

ELOCUTION.

(§ 112.) ELOCUTION (E,-loquor), a branch of the rhetorical art already referred to, may be defined to be the proper oral expression, or delivery of discourse.

Elocution does not include the preparation of discourse, for, as an art, it is usually taught and exhibited, by speaking the words of others. He who would properly present what others have written must, however, endeavour to put himself in the position of the original speaker; to enter into his spirit, and to give intelligent, pleasing, and forcible expression to his thought. Such, in familiar example, is the art of the dramatic actor, who personates a character, and, for a time, gives up his own identity, that he may present to you a historic or ideal personage.

The means of elocution may be classed under two heads,-THE VOICE, and GESTURE.

(113.) The Voice.

The human voice, as employed in giving utterance to articulate sounds, may be considered in five modes, -1st. Force; 2d. Quality; 3d. Time; 4th. Abrupt5th. Pitch.

ness;

By force is meant the ability to give forth a greater or less volume of sound; it is characterized by the adjectives loud or low, strong or weak.

By quality is meant the characteristic of voice, as smooth or rough, harsh or melodious, musical, thin, &c.

Time includes the consideration of articulate sounds, as short or long, quick, slow, rapid.

By abruptness is meant the sudden, explosive utterance of single sounds.

By pitch we mean the consideration of the voice as to its rise or fall; its being high or low, &c.

Of these so called modes of the voice,-force and quality are essential characteristics; the others are accidental or subsidiary; for we may conceive of the voice without referring to time, abruptness, or pitch; whereas no voice can exist without force and quality. It is not designed to enter, in this place, upon the philosophy of the human voice, for the highest authority concerning which the student is referred to Dr. Rush's excellent treatise on that subject; but, simply to explain the meaning of certain terms included in these modes, by which the uses of the voice in elocution are practically expressed. They are articulation, inflection, emphasis, accent, and modulation.

(114.) Articulation.

By articulation, often called enunciation, is meant the clear utterance of every word, and every part of the word, so that it may be distinctly heard and understood. The want of clear enunciation, frequently proceeds from a running of words together, so that the final consonant of one is mingled with the initial consonant of the following word. Sometimes it proceeds from mouthing, i. e., opening the mouth too wide in speaking, and not making the

lips play their part in curtly and compactly uttering the consonants in the word. There are various causes for this. Some mouths are naturally ill-made for enunciation; in others, habit, or climate, may lead to fault. Dr. Holmes expresses the effect of climate in a satiric poem:

With us the feature that transmits the soul,
A frozen, passive, palsied, breathing hole.

But, on the other hand, some speakers do not open their mouths sufficiently; and, in consequence, while the lips play their part in making clear labial sounds, the vowels are not properly uttered, because the orifice seems to be too small to admit of their easy passage.

Mr. Hillard, in speaking of the inhabitants of modern Rome, says In general, language is spoken in Rome with a fulness and metallic ring not usual among northern nations, and resembling the rich vocalization of Italian singers. The mouth is opened more widely than at the north, and the volume of sound projected has more body and strikes more roundly upon the ear.'

The value of clear enunciation is indicated by the fact, that it causes the speaker to be heard and understood, even when he has not much force of voice;