THE ART OF READING ALOUD. INTRODUCTION. ADDRESSED TO THE INTENDED, OR INTENDING, STUDENT OF ELOCUTION. MANY, if not most, persons have an idea that to read well, or to recite well, is a gift depending on certain natural qualifications, good taste, and a moderate amount of common sense. This is about as well founded an opinion as that well-known apothegm of the immortal Dogberry. 6 Reading and writing,' says that worshipful civic functionary, 'comes by nature; but to be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune.' Those who hold the Dogberrian creed of course deny that reading aloud is an art at all. They regard it as the mere exercise of a natural organ. B It is that certainly; but, like singing, it is much more. It is the art of exercising that organ effectively, with ease to the reader or speaker, and with pleasure to the hearer. And how few possess this gift, as it is illogically called; this art, as it really is; an art dependent on laws drawn from Nature, but not instinctively communicated by her. This art, in its highest exhibition-in the reading, for example, of the Sacred Scriptures, and the works of Milton and Shakspeare-or, in a less degree, of Wordsworth, Tennyson, and the poets generally; or in the vocal reproduction to the ear, with full effect, of any great piece of oratory, ancient or modern-is by no means easy of attainment. I say, mind, the highest exhibition of the art. It requires a logical mind, a nice perception, and a quick analysis of thought and sentiment, a very great amount of study, practice, and cultivation of ear and voice, to catch and to express the full strength of energetic diction, shades of emotion, and changes of feeling. Add to this, perfect self-possession, and a ready sympathy with all that is lofty, tender, and imaginative in poetry, as well as all that is grand, impressive, and eloquent in prose. Very, very few attain to this excellence; very few desire it; very few need it. This style of elocution, combining intensity and nicety of feeling with power of vocal expression, is almost lost, even to the stage, which should be its chief exponent and guardian. The actors of a former day did possess it to a great degree; to the moderns it seems to be a lost art. But the power to read well, 'with good emphasis and discretion,' with just taste, and with even a certain melody and grace of style-this is not beyond the capabilities of any man with no natural impediment to prevent him, if he will give the same pains to elocution as are necessary for rhetoric; that is, if he will study and cultivate the delivery of language as assiduously as he has taken or would take pains to acquire grammatical accuracy and elegance of style in composition. There is a grammar of elocution as well as a grammar of language, of logic, and of rhetoric; but the number of those who read well or fairly well, is much less than that of those who can write grammatically or who can reason clearly, or at least with some order in their reasoning. Dr. Whately, in his 'Rhetoric,' objects to a system of elocution as useless and inefficient, but insists on a system of logic as absolutely necessary. He ridicules the idea of those who, like Goethe, despise logic, because they maintain that they reason naturally and justly on principles of common sense; while the Rev. Doctor strongly upholds the sufficiency of the same nature and common sense to make a man a good reader! His sole direction to the reader aloud, in pulpit or elsewhere, is: First clearly understand the matter you are reading yourself; then read it so that your auditors may understand it in the same manner.'-Whately's Elements of Rhetoric. Very good. Omne tulit punctum. And yet he gives an instance of a clergyman whom he heard read the passage from Matthew: Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel or under a bed? as if there were no alternative. And he very naïvely adds that there is no doubt that the clerical reader at fault perfectly understood the meaning of the passage. Doubtless; but it is clear he did not know how to convey that meaning vocally. What becomes of Dr. Whately's position, then; that all that is required to constitute a good reader is nature and common sense? I suppose this unfortunate clergyman was not deficient in either. What he was deficient in was art. Elocution, then, is an art; but an art founded on nature, like all true art. How well Shakspeare can define the just limits and interworking of nature and art, in this as in other attempts at improvement of natural faculties or productions by culture and experience! Nature is made better by no mean, (mean means means here; method). But nature makes that mean; so o'er that art, Which nature makes. SHAKSPEARE, Winter's Tale. Pope expresses the same idea when he writes All art is nature better understood. Perfect art is drawn from nature's laws reduced to a system. Though Nature' ( writes Dr. Rush on the voice) affords no single instance of general excellence in speech, she has diffused through the species all the elements of perfection, and it is the gathering in of her properties and beauties that constitutes the art of elocution.' The Apollo Belvedere, The statue that delights the world, is a work of the highest art, surpassing any |