ideas, and that written characters are the types of articulate sounds
or words, it is evident that all the qualities of the latter must be
circumscribed by the former, as the type cannot exceed its archetype.
Accordingly we find, that the charms of style, in the writers of all
ages and countries, have arisen from the beauty of the language spoken
in those countries; and the beauty of language arose not from chance,
but culture; for it is not time, but care, that will bring a language to
perfection. If time alone would do, those of the most barbarous nations
in the world, ought to be superior to those of the most civilized, as
they are infinitely more ancient. It was to the constant pains and
labour, the study and application successively given by the choicest
wits, and men of brightest parts in each age, to the improvement and
establishment of their native tongues, that we owe those two glorious
languages of Greece and Rome, which have justly been the wonder of the
world, and which will last to the end of time. And is it not owing to
the excellence of their languages, that the noble works of their writers
have been preserved? Had Demosthenes written his orations in such a
language as High Dutch, or Virgil his poems in such a one as Irish or
Welsh, their names would not long have outlived themselves.
That the state of all the more elegant and beautiful compositions, and
the effects which they are capable of producing, must chiefly depend
upon the art of speaking, may be clearly deduced from considering the
nature and ends of such writings.
By the art of writing, sentiments can be communicated, either through
the eye only, or through the eye and ear together, to individuals; or
through the ear only to numbers; the first of these, by silent reading,
the other two, by reading aloud. In the first instance, ideas of things
are excited by written words, as the symbols of words spoken; and by
association, the idea of the sounds also which accompany those words.
Now at the best, supposing the ideas of the properest sounds, were
always to be associated by the silent reader, the effect of any
composition must be much weaker than if it were spoken, as far as ideas
fall short of realities. But if, through ignorance in the art of
speaking, or through vicious habits, he annexes the ideas of wrong
sounds and tones to the words, it is impossible he can perceive the
true force and beauty of the composition, so far at least as they depend
upon sound and tone.
To trace this custom, therefore, to its original, may not only be a
matter of curiosity, but, by shewing the weakness of its foundation,
tempt us to abolish it, and substitute a nobler one in its room.
When our system of education was first established on the revival of
literature, by means of the introduction of the languages of Greece and
Rome, men's thoughts were wholly turned to books, and consequently to
written language. The English, then poor and barbarous, was soon
supplanted by the richer, and more polished Latin. The service of the
church was in Latin, the laws in Latin. The religious controversies
which embroiled all Europe, after the writings of Luther and Calvin had
appeared, were all carried on in Latin. Men of the brightest parts
throughout Europe, were necessarily engaged in the closest application
to that language, which became the universal vehicle of knowlege, in all
works of genius and learning. No was its use confined to writing only,
but it was also adopted into speech amongst the polite; it revived, in a
manner, from its tomb, and once more became a living tongue. Not,
indeed, in its original beauty and strength; it might rather be
considered as the ghost of the old Roman, haunting different countries
in different shapes. For as the true pronunciation of a dead language
could not be known, each nation gave to it the sounds which belonged to
their own; and consequently it differed as much in point of sound in the
several countries where it was spoken, as the native tongues differed
from each other in that respect. But as they all agreed in one uniform
manner of writing it, for which they had models before them, in the
works of the ancients, we need not wonder that the chief attention was
given to the written language, in preference to that which was spoken,
as they had sure rules to guide them in the one, and none at all in the
other. Latin words, upon paper, were universally intelligible to all
nations, as they all agreed in the _orthography_, or true manner of
writing them, though they were far from agreeing with respect to the
_orthoepy_, or true manner of pronouncing them; in which the difference
was so great, that the people of one country could scarce understand
Latin, or know it to be the same language, when pronounced by those of
another.
This will sufficiently account for the fashion which prevailed in those
days universally, of applying their time chiefly to the acquisition of
skill in letters, not sounds; in writing, not speaking; in words
presented to the eye by the sure pen, not in those offered to the ear by
the uncertain or erroneous tongue.
Afterwards, when some of the nations of Europe wisely set about the
cultivation of their native tongues, in proportion as they grew more
perfect, the Latin fell into disuse; till at last it was reduced to its
former state of a dead language, and confined chiefly to books. But
whilst the Italians, French, and Spaniards were vying with each other,
in the improvements of their several tongues, by giving all manner of
encouragement to so useful a work, by establishing several societies and
academies for the purpose, from whose joint labours excellent grammars
and dictionaries were produced; by the assistance of which, and the
instruction of masters, not only natives, but foreigners might acquire
the most accurate knowlege of those tongues with ease; the English alone
remained in the old track, and never to this hour, either by public or
private encouragement, have taken one step towards regulating or
ascertaining theirs. And yet this seems to have been a point of much
more moment to them, and to which they were in a more peculiar manner,
and much earlier called upon to give their attention, as the church
service, upon the reformation, was performed in their own tongue, which
is not the case to this day in those countries, where Latin still
maintains that post. The refiners of those living languages justly gave
great attention to sound and pronunciation, in the regulations which
they established; the English, who from the nature of their constitution
and public worship, had infinitely more occasion for the refinement and
regulation of their tongue in that respect, left theirs wholly to
chance. Nor are we to wonder at this, when we consider that we have made
no alteration in our institutions, with the alteration of times and
circumstances. Our establishments for training youth, pursue invariably
the same plan, and inculcate only the same studies, which they did
before the reformation, when Latin was the universal language; nor has
any change been made since the English came into general use. At that
time there was no necessity to apply to the study of it; and the
barbarous structure of its words could afford no inducement to try what
might be done in it, by the power of sounds. Accordingly those who
taught English, were amongst the most ignorant of mankind. Their whole
business was only to teach pupils the letters, to spell, and read words,
no matter with what kind of tones, so as they were well acquainted with
the characters, in order to fit them for the Latin school; where the
learned languages only being the object of attention, their farther
progress in English was neglected. Is not this the case at this day? Are
not the rudiments of English now taught by low and ignorant masters, for
wretched stipends, and for the same ends? Is it afterwards any-where
_regularly taught_? Does not Latin still continue to be the chief
language taught in schools, in the same manner as when it was the chief
language used on all the important occasions of life? Only with this
difference, that whilst it was in a manner a living tongue, by being
used in conversation, more care was probably taken with regard to
pronunciation, which at present is chiefly transferred to understanding
and writing it correctly; and whoever has a mind to make himself master
of those points, may have all the guidance of rules, and aid of
preceptors: but with regard to the English, he is left to make his own
way, as well as he can. This will serve as an explanation of many
extraordinary phaenomena in this country. Such as, that there are numbers
who understand Latin well, who do not understand their native tongue.
That there are many who can write Latin elegantly, who are remarkably
incorrect in their English style. And that there are many who can
produce excellent compositions both in Latin and English, who can
neither read aloud, or repeat those very compositions with tolerable
propriety, much less with grace. Of these facts, I dare venture to say,
there is not one of my hearers who cannot immediately suggest to himself
sufficient instances. The natural consequence, indeed, of neglecting the
art of elocution, is that of reducing a living language at best to the
state of a dead one. For in just and true elocution alone, consists the
life of language; that which is false or disagreeable, places it below
its dead written state, by the uneasiness and disgust which it
occasions. If language, when spoken, gives no pleasure, if it excites no
emotions, it is in that case, for the mere purpose of information, far
below that which is written; inasmuch as the reader of words can take
his own time to make himself master of their meaning, and consider their
force. But if public speaking in any country should in general rather
give pain than pleasure, occasion satiety, instead of rouzing attention,
and far from illustrating, should render the sentiments obscure, the
people of that country will be necessitated to give their attention to
written language; they must prefer the invention of man, to the gift of
God; and the noblest ends, and highest delights which language can
answer or afford, will be frustrated and lost. Whether we are in that
condition or not, let our army of writers, and scarcity of speakers
declare.
They who have seen in the clearest light the fatal consequences of this
course, did not, at the same time, see the only method by which it might
be changed. They did not know how impregnable are the bulwarks which
surround the fortress of custom to all attacks by storm, though they may
easily be reduced by sapping the foundations. And though the tyrant may
be dethroned by reason; yet cannot reason supply his place. His scepter
can be wielded only by one of his own race, and custom alone can succeed
to custom. All that reason can do, is to preside at the election, and
endeavour to fix the choice on the most worthy.
Till a new custom, therefore, shall have opened the way to skill in the
art of speaking, so that it may be as easily and certainly attainable,
by pursuing that road, as skill in the art of writing now is, by
pursuing the others, the latter path must continue to be most
frequented. And nothing can assist the new custom in its progress, but
the same means that brought forward the old. The art of speaking, like
that of writing, must be reduced to a system; it must have sure and
sufficient rules to guide such as apply to the study of it; it must have
masters to teach it, and to enforce the rules by examples. This alone
can ensure success to the studious in that way; and till that be done,
it cannot be expected that many will employ their time in laborious
researches into an intricate, difficult, and obscure subject, without
the least moral certainty of attaining their point, when a clear,
obvious, and certain method lies open to them, of arriving at, what they
imagine to be, the same end. But had they a like certainty of success in
the one way, as in the other, there cannot be any doubt to which the
preference would be given, not only on account of the superior
advantages resulting from it, but also the superior pleasure which would
attend their progress, and the delight which would crown the attainment
of that art. How exquisite that must have been when eloquence was at its
height, may be gathered from the testimony of Cicero, who, in his
Brutus, does not scruple to affirm, "That neither the fruits nor glory
which he derived from eloquence, gave him so much delight as the study
and practice of the art itself." His words are, "Dicendi autem me non
tam fructus & gloria, quam studium ipsum exercitatioque delectat."
The neglect, therefore, to this hour, of so useful, so necessary, so
delightful an art, may well excite wonder and amazement. And, indeed,
it is hardly possible, but that it should long ere this have got some
footing amongst us, had not all, who have pointed out the defect, and
proposed methods of supplying it, agreed in laying the blame at the
wrong door, and consequently pointing to a wrong quarter for redress.
Thus the nation in general, influenced by their sentiments, has, from
year to year, waited like the countryman,
"---- dum defluat amnis: At ille
"Labitur, & labetur in omne volubilis aevum."
All writers on this subject have agreed in laying the fault on the
schools and universities, and that the redress can only come from them.
Than which there cannot be any thing more unjust as to the charge, nor
more ill-founded than the conclusion.
Thus the author of the Spectator says----"We must bear with this false
modesty in our young nobility and gentry, till they cease at Oxford and
Cambridge to grow dumb in the study of eloquence." And one of the bishop
of Cloyne's queries is, "Whether half the learning and study of these
kingdoms is not useless, for want of a proper delivery and pronunciation
being taught in our schools and colleges?" Mr. Locke bears hard upon the
masters, for not instructing their pupils in English, as well as Latin
and Greek, in the following passage. "To write and speak correctly,
gives a grace, and gains a favourable attention to what one has to say:
and since it is English that an English gentleman will have constant use
of, that is the language he should chiefly cultivate, and wherein most
care should be taken to polish and perfect his style. This I find
universally neglected, nor no care taken any-where to improve young men
in their own language, that they may thoroughly understand and be
masters of it. If any one among us have a facility or purity more than
ordinary in his mother tongue, it is owing to chance, or his genius, or
any thing, rather than to his education, or any care of his teacher. To
mind what English his pupil speaks or writes, is below the dignity of
one bred up amongst Greek and Latin, though he have but little of them
himself. These are the learned languages, fit only for learned men to
meddle with, and teach; English is the language of the illiterate
vulgar: though yet we see the polity of some of our neighbours hath not
thought it beneath the public care to promote and reward the improvement
of their own language. Polishing and enriching their tongue, is no small
business amongst them; it hath colleges and stipends appointed it; and
there is raised amongst them a great ambition and emulation of writing
correctly: and we see what they are come to by it, and how far they have
spread one of the worst languages possibly in this part of the world, if
we look upon it as it was in some few reigns backwards, whatever it be
now. The great men among the Romans were daily exercising themselves in
their own tongue; and we find yet upon record the names of orators, who
taught some of their emperors Latin, though it were their mother tongue.
'Tis plain the Greeks were yet more nice in theirs: all other speech was
barbarous to them but their own; and no foreign language appears to have
been studied or valued amongst that learned and acute people; though it
be past doubt that they borrowed their learning and philosophy from
abroad." To this Mr. Locke adds, "I am not here speaking against Greek
and Latin; I think they ought to be studied, and the Latin at least
understood well by every gentleman. But whatever foreign languages a
young man meddles with, (and the more he knows, the better) that which
he should critically study, and labour to get a facility, clearness, and
elegancy to express himself in, should be his own; and to this purpose
he should daily be exercised in it."
To the same effect, have many other eminent authors written on this
subject; but surely they must have been under the influence of strong
prejudice, to charge men with neglect of points, which do not at all
belong to their office; and with the omission of studies and arts, which
they never profess to teach. A master of a grammar-school is to teach
grammar, not oratory; he is to teach Latin, and Greek, not English. And
this is what all masters of endowed schools are bound to do; and it is
upon these terms, that all others receive their pay. But it may be said,
that these studies might be added to the others, and taught at the same
time. Surely, they who say so, have not given themselves time to
reflect on the nature of these studies, or the state of our established
mode of education; else they would see that what they expect is an
absolute impossibility. Can any man communicate more knowlege than he is
himself possessed of? Can any man teach an art which he never learned?
Can any man instruct others in a language, in which he never was
instructed? Can either any art or language be regularly taught without a
well digested system of rules? And if no such system has hitherto been
formed, either with respect to the English language, or the art of
speaking it, how shall any man set about teaching them? It will be said,
that it is a shame for a master to be ignorant of these. But why more a
shame for him, than any other gentleman who has been trained exactly in
the same way? or why is more expected from him? Because it would be of
great benefit to his pupils. So it might, but if in his course of
education, previous to his entering upon that employment, he has had no
lights given him as to those points, is he likely to find much leisure
in so laborious an office, to investigate the principles of an
unpractised art, or the rules of an unstudied language? It is probable
that he would make a greater progress in that way, than others of equal
abilities, and equal advantages of education, who have dedicated whole
lives of leisure to those studies, without ever arriving at the end
proposed? But suppose he could teach them, how could he find time to do
it? The low stipend which custom has established, as the pay to masters
of grammar-schools, obliges most of them to take such numbers of
scholars under their care, even to get a tolerable subsistence, that it
is with the utmost difficulty they are at present able to prepare them
for the university, in the usual time allotted for that purpose, by
teaching only Greek and Latin; how is it then possible for them to think
of introducing the study of new things, which would require nearly as
much time and pains, as those which they are bound to teach, and which
they cannot accomplish, without the utmost stretch of application?
Though, indeed, considering the salaries paid by parents to masters of
grammar-schools, that they are near half of what they pay their grooms,
and that they are at least a full fourth, if not a third, of what they
pay to the dancing master or fencing master, the music or riding master,
the teacher of French or Italian, it must be allowed that they have a
just right to expect that those two supernumerary studies should be
thrown into the bargain. Nor would it be at all surprising, if some
parents should also expect of the master of a grammar-school, that he
should teach their sons to dance, because he has legs, and can walk; as
well as that he should teach them the art of speaking, because he has a
tongue, and can talk. If no attention has been given to these points in
the previous part of education, what reason have we to suppose that the
evil can be remedied at the universities? The business of tutors and
professors there, is to finish young gentlemen in such studies as they
had begun at school, or to instruct them in such new arts and sciences,
as they are obliged by their several establishments to teach. If the
English language, and the art of speaking, be not in the number of
those, what reason have we to expect that they should be taught? Whoever
discharges his duty, in what he professes to teach, will find but little
leisure to attend to any thing else; or if a few should attempt it, they
would upon trial find, that they could make so little progress in
instructing others without the help of rules or principles, and they
would meet such obstacles in their way, on account of inveterate bad
habits contracted through early neglect, as would soon make them give up
the voluntary and fruitless labour.
The reason, therefore, that the belles lettres, and philosophy in all
its branches, are the only things now taught in a course of liberal
education, is obvious enough; because it is for those only that
institutions and endowments have been made; by which means they have
been reduced to systems, and are regularly taught; they who have been
regularly instructed themselves, can teach others by the same rules; and
they are induced to take upon them the office of instructing others,
from the rewards and emoluments which attend it. From an opposite cause
it is, that the English language and the art of speaking are not taught;
because there are no institutions or establishments for the purpose; in
consequence of which, they have not been reduced to systems, or taught
by rule; and no one can regularly instruct another in what he has not
regularly acquired himself; nor are there hitherto any rewards or
emoluments annexed to such an office.