which internal emotion is connected with its external signs. A groan or a shriek is instantly understood, as a language extorted by distress, a language which no art can counterfeit, and which conveys a meaning that words are utterly inadequate to express. The heart, that is bursting with grief, feels the sympathy that speaks in a silent grasp of the hand, in tears, or in gentle tones of voice; while it is shocked at the cold commisseration that utters itself in many words, firmly and formally pronounced.

If these views are correct, passion has its own appropriate language; and this, so far as the voice is concerned, (for I cannot here consider looks and gesture,) is what I mean by expression. That this may be cultivated by the efforts of art, to some extent, is evident from the skill which actors have sometimes attained, in dramatic exhibition; a skill to which one of the fraternity alluded, in his remark to a dignitary of the church, the cutting severity of which consists in the truth it contains; "We speak of fictions as if they were realities; you speak of realities as if they were fictions." But the dignity of real eloquence, and peculiarly of sacred eloquence disclaims all artifice; and the sensibility which would be requisite to render imitation successful, would at the same time render it needless; for why should one aim to counterfeit that, of which he possesses the reality?

The fact however, is, that the indescribable power communicated to the voice by a delicate sensibility, especially a Christian sensibility, it is quite beyond the reach of art to imitate. It depends on the vivid excitement of real feeling; and, in Christian oratory, implies that expansion and elevation of the soul, which arise only from

a just feeling of religious truth. The man whose temperament is so phlegmatic, that he cannot kindle with emotion, at least with such degree of emotion as will shew itself in his countenance and voice, may be useful in some departments of learning, but the decision of his Creator is stamped upon him, that he was not made for a public speaker.*

27] SECT. 9.-Representation.

This takes place when one voice personates two individuals or more. It seems necessary to dwell a little on this branch of modulation, which has scarcely been noticed by writers on oratory. Every one must have observed how much more interesting is an exhibition of men, as living agents, than of things in the abstract. Now when the orator introduces another man as speaking, he either informs us what that man said, in the third person; or presents him to us as spoken to, in the second person, and as speaking himself, in the first. So far as the principles of style are concerned, the difference between the two methods, in point of vivacity, is easily explained. The former is mere description, the latter is representation. A cold narrator would have said that Verres was guilty of flagrant cruelty, in scourging a man who declared himself to be a Roman citizen. But Cicero shows us the man

* In regard to the preacher, these obstacles from mental temperament, are rendered more certainly fatal to success in delivery, if combined with a system of belief, or a state of religious feeling, so phlegmatic as to suppress, rather than awaken, his spiritual energies.

writhing under the lash of the bloody Pretor, and exclaim"I am a Roman citizen.”

ing;

A thousand examples are at hand, to show the difference between telling us what was said by another man, and introducing that man to speak to us himself. "The wise men said that they had seen his star in the east, and had come to worship him,"-is narrative. "We have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him,” is representation." Jesus told Peter that he should deny him thrice," is narrative. "Jesus said, Peter, thou shalt deny me thrice," is representation. The difference between these two modes of communication it is the province of taste to feel, but of criticism to explain. Let us then analyze a simple thought, as expressed in these two forms; "Jesus inquired of Simon, the son of Jonas, whether he loved him." "Jesus said, Simon, son of Jo

nas, lovest thou me ?" The difference in point of vivaeity is instantly perceived, but in what does this difference consist? In two things. The first manner throws verbs into past time, and pronouns into the third person, producing, in the latter especially, an indefiniteness of grammatical relation, which is unfriendly to the clearness and vivacity of language. At the same time, the energy arising from the vocative case, from the figure of tense, and of interrogation, is sacrificed. As a principle of composition, though commonly overlooked, this goes far to explain the difference between the tame and the vivid in style.

But the same difference is still more striking when analyzed by the principles of delivery. Transform an animated question into a mere statement of the fact, that

such a question was asked, and all the intonations of voice are changed, so that you do not seem to hear a real person speaking, but are only told that he did speak. This change in expression of voice will be apparent in repeating the two forms of the example last quoted. Doubtless most readers of the New Testament have felt the spirit with which the Evangelist relates an interview between the Jewish priests, and John the Baptist. Omitting the few clauses of narrative, it is a dialogue, thus ;

Priests ;-Who àrt thou?

John ;-I am not the Christ.

Priests;-What then? art thou Eliás?
John;-I am not.

Priests;-Art thou that prophet?
John ;-No.

Priests ;--Who àrt thou ?--that we may give an an swer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

John ;--I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Māke straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

Priests;--Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Chríst, nor Eliías, neither that prophet?

John ;--I baptize with water; but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; &c. The reader will perceive by turning to the passage in the Evangelist John, 1: 19,--and repeating it as it stands there, that, not only must the same voice ask the questions, with a higher note, and give the answers, with a lower; but also must distinguish the intermingled clauses of narrative, from the dialogue.

Now all these thoughts might be intelligibly expressed

in the language of description, by the very common process of changing the pronouns into the third person, and the verbs into the third person of the past tense, and, of course, transforming all the interlocutory tones, into those of narrative. But where would be the variety and spirit of the passage? It would scarcely retain even a dull resemblance of its present form.

It is by just this sort of transformation, that reporters of debates in legislative bodies, so often contrive to divest a speech of half its interest, if they do not grossly obscure its meaning. As I wish to be understood, I will give a specimen of this kind, where the orator is described as proceeding thus; "He said that the remarks of the honorable member, whether so intended by him or not, were of a very injurious character. If not aimed at him personally, they were adapted to cast suspicion, at least, on his motives. And he asked if any gentleman, in his moments of cool reflection, would blame him, if he stood forth, the guardian of his own reputation."

Now let the narrator keep in his own province, and merely state the thing as it was,-and the difference is seen at once. The orator speaks in the first person; "I say that the remarks of the honorable member, whether so intended by him or not, are of a very injurious character. If not aimed at me, personally, they are adapted to cast suspicion, at least, on my motives. And I ask, will any gentleman, in his moments of cool reflection, blame me, if I stand forth, the guardian of my own reputation ?” Here, if any one will analyze the language, in both cases, he will see that, in the former, verbs are accommodated to past time, and pronouns are all thrown into the third