rules for the inflection of the voice, which we have denominated new. Walker has been considered, and justly too, the founder of those numerous rules for the inflection of the voice, which we find re-echoed in every elocutionary compilation, since the announcement of his system. His indefatigable and persevering researches demand no ordinary share of praise and respect. He is also entitled to a share of that praise of genius, which Dr. Johnson calls the highest, we mean invention. Many of his observations upon the propriety and necessity of modulating and varying the tone and the inflection of the voice, are not only good, but probably cannot be excelled. In short, one would think that no man, at all acquainted with the state of this department of Oratory previous to his time, could ever think of withholding from him that tribute of praise, to which, as a man of genius, research, and observation, he is justly and most unequivocally entitled. But such men have existed, who, slaves to envy, malice, prejudice, or education, have endeavoured to wrest even from Walker this his peculiar tribute. And of such he had to complain. Such men are always to be found, who, if they cannot slily, and cunningly, and meanly, and without acknowledgment, claim to themselves the inventions of men of genius, will, by some means or other, try, we regret too often successfully, to depreciate the value of their inventions. These are the meanest, the most despicable, and the greatest enemies of their species.

But, high as is Walker's authority, good as are his observations on many points, venerable by years as his system of rules may be considered by some, and ingenious as we willingly acknowledge him to be, we are notwithstanding compelled to dissent from him. The numerous rules on

which his system is founded, must undoubtedly have been considered by many, as the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. But there are those of the highest respectability, as teachers of Elocution, who have complained of the number, the complexity, inconsistency, and in many instances, of the inapplicability of his rules. But these complainers have not been able to give any other view of the subject, neither have they been able materially to reduce the number of his rules, though some favourable attempts have lately been made.* We, however, do it for them. In the outset, we say, that we disclaim all connection with Walker's rules-and we know no other Elocutionist who has proposed any other view-yet it will appear after all, that many of Walker's observations will not be opposed, but confirmed. We consider Walker to have erred egregiously in having so many rules-and these, too, so liable to objection. We think, too, that the formidable appearance which they present, has had no inconsiderable influence in preventing this department of education from being either so particularly studied, or so generally understood as it might have been, had simplicity, conciseness, and generalization, been its characteristics. This was the impression which, on our entrance on the consideration of the subject, was made upon us. It was this impression, originating from the formidable appearance of his system, that led us to think for ourselves, and to try to discover the

* Mr. Knowles, Teacher of Elocution, Glasgow, has pointed out several inconsistencies of Walker, and proposed, with success, a reduction of two or three of his rules. The late unfortunate Mr. Hamilton, of Glasgow, some years ago used a rule, which, though more verbose than that of Mr. Knowles, came nearly to the same result.

source from which Walker derived his information. The result has been what we propose. We have frequently thought that Nature is a much greater lover of generalization, order, and consistency, than he has represented her; and after investigating the subject, we have found no reason to change our opinion. We have done nothing but consulted nature. And after our consultation, we affirm, that Walker has separated and mutilated a system complete in itself that he has broken down a grand whole, the fabric and the gift of nature, into a disgraceful number of isolated and independent parts:-he has done more; he has, by this mutilation, misrepresented, in many instances, of course, through ignorance, her general grasping views, and her every-day principles,—a crime which, in consequence of his system, he could not avoid,—a crime, which the limited ungeneralizing principle of his mind some-howor-other impelled him to commit.

Without dwelling longer on these introductory observations, particularly in a book of this kind, we shall now introduce our view of the subject. It is evident to the most superficial observer of the inflections of the voice, that there are two-the one decidedly opposite to the other-the rising to the falling. Walker, whom all Elocutionists in this particular have followed, says, that interrogative sentences formed without the interrogative words, such as who, why, what, assume the former; while those formed with these, take the latter. This we broadly deny; and for some proof of our assertion, we go to no others than to Walker and his followers. Conscious that the rule is not altogether correct, Elocutionists have couched it in some such vague and unphilosophical terms as the following-Such interrogative sentences may terminate with, will generally require,

the rising inflection. Why a may, a might, or a generally, unless the rule is built upon a sandy foundation? If applicable to one sentence, why not applicable to all sentences similarly constructed? Inconsistency is marked upon its forehead. It carries along with it its own refutation. We say that neither the one nor the other inflection is peculiar to sentences vulgarly called interrogative, or to those that have not received this distinguished appellation. We likewise affirm, what Walker may not deny, that sentences not vulgarly interrogative may become so, by applying to them one or other of these inflections-in short, that all sentences may assume the rising or the falling side, and that not in consequence of commencing with any particular part of speech. We also assert, that, whenever, or wherever, this rising inflection is used, it is, in the strictest sense of the term, a question,-giving us to understand that some word or words, either more nearly or more distantly related to the words which have assumed this inflection, are either expected or about to follow. Further, that we look upon all sentences in no other light than as questions and answers; and consequently, belonging to one or other, or to both, of these states.

These observations prepare us for the assertion, that Walker's rules for the inflection of the voice are radically wrong-and, as a natural consequence of this assertion, that sentences constructed either with or without the interrogative words can never, because they are such, necessarily lead either to the falling or the rising inflection.

When we consider, not to say how useless and false, but how opposite, in many cases, to the sense, and the palpable meaning of sentences, are these rules, we have a right to say, that long ago should these, unphilosophical as we

term them, have been given to the wind-long ago should they have ceased to exercise such an unquestioned, and, we may add, such a universal dominion over the minds and the understandings of a literary world;

1

a literary world, too, not in a state of embryo, nor in a state of infancy, nor in a state of boyhood, nor in a state of towering manhood, but in a state of manhood unexampled and unparalleled in the annals of time-yes, a literary world, not emerging from the dark, the gloomy, the degrading, and the unmanly superstition of the fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth centuries; but a literary world, which, though almost strangled in its birth, though assailed, assaulted, besieged, and attacked in its growth, with all the wiles, and all the stratagems, and all the manœuvres of its deadly, yet ignoble and dastardly foes, the interested supporters of this pernicious, this tyrannical, and overbearing superstition-has yet risen victorious over all its enemies-now presenting to the great, the refined, the liberal mind, a something far more splendid, far more glorious than all the splendors, and all the glories, and all the fruits of yonder Peruvian and Mexican mines, for which millions of the human race have been wantonly and inhumanly butchered. But great and glorious as is the era in which we now live, many, it must be confessed, are the unfounded theories, many the disgraceful systems which usurp an almost unaccountable sway over the destinies of this moral and intellectual world.

However, we asserted, and not without giving some proof, that sentences constructed either with or without the interrogative words, can occasion neither the rising nor the falling inflection. And since these rules cannot account for the proper inflections, there must, it is plain, be some reason