what absurdity is there in supposing, that what was excess of modesty, in a few Englishmen of distinction, at some early period, was transferred to others, by imitation; so that the want of gesture of which Addison complains became a national characteristic? National habits result from individual, often by a process of ages, the effects of which are manifest, while the operation is unseen. And it is more philosophical to ascribe the fact on which I am remarking, to a public taste, formed and perpetuated by imitation, than to suppose, as is often done a temperament singularly phlegmatic in a people, whose poets, and secular orators, have unquestionably surpassed all their cotemporaries, in powers of imagination. But want of action is not the only fault that may spring from imitation. In the case of individuals, excess and awkwardness, may arise from undue regard to some improper model. Cicero mentions an orator, who was distinguished for pathos, and a wry face; and says that another who made him his pattern, imitated his distortion of features, but not his pathos. Special faults in one whom we mean to imitate, strike attention, because they commonly appear in the form of peculiarity. This, while it renders imitation more preposterous, renders it, at the same time, more obvious. The worst jesture of Hamilton has been transmitted by imitation, to this time; and is used by some who never saw that great man, and who know nothing of his manner as a speaker. In this way, some peculiarity, that was perhaps accidental at first, may acquire ascendency in a college, and be transmitted from one generation to another of its students. In proceeding now to mention, with more particular ity, the faults of action, I shall follow the order of my previous remarks on countenance, attitude, and gesture. The eye is the only part of the face, that it falls within my design to notice here, both because this is the chief seat of expression, and because its significance is especially liable to be frustrated by mismanagement. For reasons already mentioned, the intercourse of soul between speaker and hearers, is carried on more unequivocally through the eye, than in any other way. But if he neglects, to look at them, and they in return neglect, (as they commonly will,) to look at him; the mutual reaction of feeling through the countenance, is lost; and vocal language is all the medium of intercourse that remains.* The eye "bent on vacuity," as the artists call it, is the next most common defect, of this sort. The glass-eye of a wax figure, at once tells its own character. There may be, in other respects, the proportion and complexion of a human face; but that eye, the moment it is examined, you perceive is nothing more, and, at best, it can be nothing more than a bungling counterfeit. So the eye of a speaker may be open, and yet not see; at least there may be no discrimination, no meaning in its look. It *The reader will please to observe that, in the following pages, such remarks as apply solely or peculiarly to the pulpit, are given in the notes. But It falls not within my design here, to inquire how far the prevalent practice of reading sermons, ought to be dispensed with. it is plainly absurd to speak of expression in a preacher's eye, while it is fixed on a manuscript. Nearly the same infelicity, and on some accounts a greater one, attends the rapid, dodging cast of the eye from the notes to the hearers, and back again; implying a servile dependance on what is written, even in repeating the most familiar declarations of the Bible. And this infelicity is still aggravated by such a position of the manuscript, as to require the eye to be turned directly downward in looking at it. does not look at any thing. There is in its expression, a generality, a vacuity, so to speak, that expresses nothing. To the same class belongs that indefinite sweep of the eye, which from one side to another of an assempasses bly, resting no where; and that tremulous, waving cast of the eye, and winking of the eyelid, which is in direct contrast to an open, collected, manly expression of the face.* So fatal are these faults to the impression of delivery, that too much care cannot be taken to avoid them. Attitude I use, not in the theatrical sense of the word, (for this has no concern with oratory,) but as denoting the general positions of the body, which are becoming or otherwise in a speaker. In some few instances I have observed the head to be kept so erect, as to give the air of haughtiness. In others, it is dropped so low, that the man seems to be carelessly surveying his own person. In others it is reclined towards one shoulder, so as to give the appearance of languor or indolence.+ As to the degree of motion that is proper for the body, it may be safely said, that while the fixedness of a post is an extreme, all violent tossing of the body from side to side, rising on the toes, or writhing of the shoulders and limbs, are not less unseemly. * Here again the habit acquired by some preachers, from closely reading their sermons, is such, that when they raise their eye from the paper, they fix it on the floor of the aisle, or on a post or pannel, to avoid a direct look at their hearers. + There is often something characteristic in the air with which a preacher enters a church, ascends the pulpit, and rises in it to address an assembly. If he assumes the gracefulness of a fine gentleman, as if he were practising the lessons of an assembly room, every hearer of discernment will see that his object is to exhibit him The remarks which come next to be made on gesture, are more various.* One principal fault which I have noticed in this, is want of appropriateness. By this I mean that it is not sufficiently adapted to circumstances. An address to an assembly of common men, admits a boldness of action, that would be unseemly in one delivered to a prince.† self, and will be offended at so gross a want of that seriousness which becomes his sacred office. In minor points,--what constitutes decorum depends not on philosophy nor accident, but on custom. From real or affected carelessness on such points, the preacher may fix on some trivial circumstance, that attention of his hearers, which should be devoted to greater things. He may do this, for example, by standing much too high, or too low in the pulpit; by rising, as in the act of commencing his sermon, before the singing is closed; or delaying for so long an interval, as to excite apprehension that something has befallen him; by an awkward holding of his Psalm book, or especially his Bible, with one side hanging down or doubled backwards;-by drawing his hands behind him, or thrusting them into his clothes. In these things, as in all others, connected with the worship of God, it is the province of good sense to avoid peculiarity in trifles. *The prevailing taste in our own country, like that of England, has been to employ but little action in the pulpit. Whitefield, in the last century, broke through the trammels of custon, in a boldness and variety of action, bordering on that of the stage. But his gesture, like his elocution, was far from the declamatory. His hand had scarcely less authority than Cæsar's; and the movement even of his finger gave an electric thrill to the bosoms of his hearMassillon's action was less diversified, and less powerful, though more refined, as was the general character of his eloquence. ers. + On this principle it is, that gesture is felt to be so unseasonable in personating God, and in addresses made to him. When we introduce him as speaking to man, or when we speak of his adorable perfections, or to him in prayer, the sentiments inspired demand composure and reverence of manner. Good taste then can never approve the stretching upward of the hands at full length, in the manner of Whitefield, at the commencement of prayer; nor the frowning aspect and the repelling movement of the hand, with which many utter the sentence of the final Judge, "Depart, ye cursed," &c. More vivacity and variety is admissible in the action of a young speaker, than of one who is aged; and the same boldness of manner which is proper when the orator is kindled to a glowing fervour, in the close of a discourse, would be out of place at its commencement. Yet the same action is used by some speakers, in the exordium, as in the conclusion, in cool argument to the understanding, as in impassioned appeals to the heart. Good sense will lead a man, as Quinctilian says, "To act as well as to speak in a different manner, to different persons, at different times, and on different subjects." Nearly of the same class is another kind of faults, arising from want of discrimination. Of this sort is that puerile imitation which consists in acting words, instead of thoughts. The declaimer can never utter the word heart, without laying his hand on his breast; nor speak of God or heaven, in the most incidental manner, without directing his eye and his gesture upwards. Let the same principle be carried out, in repeating the prophet's description of true fasting; "It is not for a man to bow down his head as a bulrush, &c."—and every one would see that, to conform the gesture to the words, is but childish mimicry. This false taste has been reprobated even on the stage, as in the following passage from Hamlet. --Why should the poor be flatter'd ? No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp; Give me the man, That is not passion's slave. |