ORATORY 
(5S8 
eminences from which Demofthenes and Cicero ha¬ 
rangued the men of Athens and of Rome, and the poll 
occupied by Mr. Fox while pouring forth his noble ex¬ 
hortations to the elefitors of Weftminfter, will place in 
the ftrongeft view the marked difparity between the ad¬ 
vantages prepared for eloquence iii ancient and in mo¬ 
dern times. 
While the attitudes of our public fpeakers are thus cir- 
cumfcribed, and their limbs confined, by the place in 
which their efforts mull be made, all attempts to gefti- 
culate with grace and freedom may be deemed fruitlefs 
and unavailing, and no inftruflion in the arts of delivery 
can eafily be turned to account: but we apprehend that 
a farther reafon may be affigned for the negleft into which 
thefe arts have fallen. The Englilh, we fufpefil, though 
it might be difficult to explain the fa fit, are naturally not 
a gefticulating people. A Frenchman can fcarcely re¬ 
count the molt ordinary tale without a thoufand rapid 
and lively afitions imitative of the fafits defcribed, orex- 
prelfive of his own warm intereft in them ; the Italians are 
even more apt to fecond theirfpeech with afition : but an 
Englishman will not only relate a tragical event, or report 
a pathetic fpeech, or defcribea vehement crifis, without any 
accompanying gefture; he will even act and fay violent 
things under the influence of ftrongpaflion, without betray¬ 
ing himfelf to a diftant .obferver by attitude or motion. 
Hence, on the one hand, the appearance of our theatri¬ 
cal performers is generally charafiterized as glact by thofe 
who have been accuftomed to foreign ftages ; and hence, 
on the other, in fome degree, our own furprife at the 
anxiety manifefted by many foreign dramatifts of our 
times, to regulate the pofitions, marches, halts, and gef- 
tures, of thofe who are to reprefent their works. It may 
be remarked too, that, though ballets of afition have 
lately fo much prevailed in our theatres, the plots com¬ 
municated by pantomimic contrivances are always very 
imperfefitly underftood by the fpefiiators. 
Now, if the habits of Engliffimen are decidedly ad- 
verfe to the employment of gefture in difcourfe, theora- 
tor, in whatever department, applying himfelf wholly to 
the talk of convincing and perfuading his hearers, will 
do well to facrifice all inferior considerations to their 
feelings and prejudices; he will (if we may make free 
with a line of Pope, which refers to a different objefit, 
but refts on the fame general principle) “ Confult the 
genius of the place in all;” and he will ftudioufly avoid 
every rifk of diverting attention from an important objefit 
to any peculiarities in his own manner. He will no more 
adopt the animated afitions with which a Roman Speaker 
enforced his argument, the Jupplofo pedis, and the per- 
cufl'io fcmoris, than he will walk into the Houle of Com¬ 
mons invefted with a claffical tpga, oraddrefs the peers 
of Britain by the title of Conicript Fathers. The an¬ 
cient drefs may indeed be far more graceful, the lan¬ 
guage more pointed and concife, and the geftures 
more energetic and appropriate, than thofe which are 
now in ufe ; but a fenfible man remembers that he is 
Handing on Englifh ground, and fpeaking to an Englifh 
audience. Mr. Hume, in his admirable Efi’ay on Elo¬ 
quence, fays, that fome commanding mind, united to a 
graceful perfon, an attractive manner, and a clear and 
powerful voice, might poffibly Succeed in introducing 
the ufe of gefture in our parliamentary debates; and he 
inftances lord Bolingbroke as pofleffing many of the ac- 
complifhments which are calculated to effe,£t fuch an in¬ 
novation. We are ftrongly inclined, however, to believe, 
that even that diftinguifhed perfon, had he made the at¬ 
tempt, would have been fainted with a general laugh, 
and would have found it difficult to obtain a fecond 
hearing. The great earl of Chatham, perhaps, carried 
the approach to gefticuiation quite as far as it could be 
tolerated among us. 
Thefe remarks are from the Monthly Review’, prefixed 
to the consideration of a curious work, entitled “ Chiroma- 
ma, or a Treatife on Rhetorical Delivery, with Precepts 
on the Regulation of Gefture;” the author ol which feems 
deflrous of reftoring the ancient energy of oratory. But, 
from the Hate of manners which we have noticed, it can 
hardly be expefited that fuch a work will ever become a 
very ufeful practical book in this country, or will im¬ 
part leflons that are adapted to conftant application. Ne¬ 
vertheless, w’e are far from wilhing to rejefit fuch a work 
as altogether unserviceable. The limited portion of gef¬ 
ture which cuftom permits in our public aflemblies, 
ffiould be appropriate and inoftenfive; and, as “thofe 
move eafleft who have learned to dance,” and thofe Hand 
moft firmly balanced who have acquired Ikili in the noble 
fcience of defence, fo the little which can be done in 
this way, will probably be belt done by thofe wdio have la¬ 
boured with fome care, and according to a certain fyftem, 
to “Suit the afition to the word, and the word to the 
afition.” To fuch perfons as are difpofed to make the 
experiment, w-e may Safely recommend Mr. Auftin’s book 
as a rich treafury of fa fits, anecdotes, precepts, and ob- 
fervations, connected with the fubjefit, drawn from a great 
variety of quarters, and arranged on the whole with per- 
fpicuity and convenience. 
Our fcepticifm in regard to the utility of inftruftions 
in the art of gefticuiation, by no means extends to the 
propriety of uling every exertion towards obtaining per- 
fefiiion in the management of the voice ; of which, in¬ 
deed, the expreflivenefs ought to be the more affiduoufly 
cultivated by public fpeakers, in proportion as they are 
debarred from the privilege of throwing force and mean¬ 
ing into their attitudes and geftures. What is wanting 
in the one ffiould be Supplied by the other; and the ora¬ 
torical ftyle would receive incalculable improvement, if 
it were fo laboured as to accommodate itfelf to the va¬ 
rious powers of ftriking emphafis, inftead of indulging 
in the endiefs volubility and perpetual repetition to which 
refort is too frequently had, in parliament and elfewhere, 
for the purpofe of effectually impreffing the Speaker’s 
fenfe on the mind of his hearers. Mr. Auftin’s precepts 
for the modulation of the voice are numerous and fenfible; 
and his appendix contains an amufingand not uninftruc- 
tive description of the means employed by the Phonafci 
of ancient times to ftrengthen and improve it. 
If, however, contrary to our expefitation, oratory fnould 
again become an integral part of education, the belt me¬ 
thod of forming a fyftem of it would be, to collefit it from 
the fineft precepts of Ariftotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Lon¬ 
ginus, and other celebrated authors ; with proper exam¬ 
ples taken from the choiceft parts of the-pureft antiquity. 
On this plan, the learned Dr. Ward has formed his fyftem, 
to which we refer the reader, and particularly to his Firil 
Lefilure, vol. i. 
Nature and Divisions of Oratory. 
The terms rhetoric and oratory, having no other dif¬ 
ference but that one is taken from the Greek language 
and the other from the Latin, may be ufed promifcuoufly ; 
but the cafe is not the fame with refpefil to the words 
rhetorician and orator; for, although the Grecians ufed 
the former, both to exprefs thofe who taught the art and 
thofe who prafilifed it, yet the Romans afterward, when 
they took that word into their language, confined it to 
the teachers of the art, and called the reft orators. And 
there feems to have been a Sufficient reafon for this dis¬ 
tinction, fince the art was the fame in both, and might 
therefore go by either name ; but the different province 
of rhetoricians and orators made it not improper that they 
ffiould be called by different names. Beiides, anciently, 
before rhetoric was made a feparate and diftinfit art from 
philofophy, the fame perfons taught both. And then 
they were called not only rhetoricians, but fophijls. But, 
becaufe they often employed their art rather to vindicate 
what was falfe and unjuft, than to Support truth and vir¬ 
tue, this difingenuous conduct, by which they frequently 
impofed fipon weak minds, brought a difcredit both upon 
themfelves and their profeffion And therefore the name 
