This dissertation has been 64—7006 microfilmed exactly as received

DODEZ, M. Leon, 1934- AN EXAMINATION OF THE THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES OF JOHN WALKER (1732- 1807) WITH EMPHASIS UPON GESTURING.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1963 Speech—Theater

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN EXAMINATION OP THE THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES OP JOHN WALKER (1732-1807) WITH EMPHASIS UPON GESTURING

DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By M. Leon Dodez, B.Sc., M.A

******

The Ohio State University 1963

Approved by

Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. George Lewis for his assistance In helping to shape my background, to Dr. Franklin Knower for guiding me to focus, and to Dr. Keith Brooks, my adviser, for his cooperation, patience, encouragement, leadership, and friendship. All three have given much valued time, encouragement and knowledge.

ii CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 1 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 II, BIOGRAPHY...... 9 III. THE PUBLICATIONS OP JOHN WALKE R...... 27 IV. JOHN WALKER, ORTHOEPIST AND LEXIGRAPHER .... 43

V. NATURALISM AND MECHANICALISM...... 59 VI. THEORY AND METHODOLOGY...... 80 VII^ POSTURE AND P A S S I O N S ...... 110 VIII. APPLICATION AND PROJECTIONS OP JOHN WALKER'S THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES...... 142

The Growth of Elocution...... 143 L a n g u a g e ...... 148 P u r p o s e s ...... 150 H u m o r ...... 154 The Disciplines of Oral Reading and Public Speaking ...... 156 Historical Analysis ...... 159 The Pa u s e ...... 162 Pronunciation...... 164 Specific Methods of Teaching ...... 167 Physical Movement ...... 173 IX. CONCLUSIONS...... 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 194 AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 202

ill CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

John White briefly summarized John Walker’s contri­ bution to philology1 by stating: . . . one would think that no man, at all acquainted with the state of this department of Oratory pre­ vious 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.2 By advancing new theories of pronunciation, more detailed investigations of grammatical structure, and a theory of elocution, John Walker attempted to present a system of practical teaching of many aspects of communications. 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. [SamuelJ Johnson calls the highest,— we mean Invention.3

------t------Philology is defined by most of Walker's critics, referred broadly to interpretation, grammar, stymology, criticism, public speaking and oral reading. Philology is defined in this sense in this study, perhaps synonymous to bur term of communication. Today, philology is commonly referred to as a study of the history of words.

2John White, The Elementary Elocutionist (London: Privating printing, 1826), p. vi. 3Ibid.

1 2

Some of the modem writings concerning the history of the early movement of elocution do not record John Walker with high esteem. Modem implications that John Walker was criticized by his contemporaries for presenting a mechanical method of gesturing seem rarely substantiated. There appeared to be a need for further investigation of the early philologist's theories, particularly those concerning ges­ turing, and their applications to our teaching of public speaking and oral reading. However, before investigating John Walker’s theories of elocution and their applications, it became necessary to associate the man to his period and to state not only the approach toward elocution during his period, but to more fully investigate the acceptance of his theories. This Investigation suggested that John Walker maintained a high degree of acceptance as a leading philologist of his period. This is analyzed by considering the author and his writings (1 ) through his contemporary associations, (2 ) his personal background and employment, (3 ) his major contributions to orthoepy and lexigraphy, and (4) by presenting a clearer understanding of the many publications of the author and the adaptations of his writings in later editions. These four approaches comprise the first four chapters of this study. Secondly, the present implications of John Walker’s theories are often misleading. Misunderstandings have developed concerning the reputation of John Walker’s theories, and It becomes necessary to establish from what source or sources misunderstandings of Walker’s theories arise. Some modern writers suggest that John Walker was criticized by his contemporaries for presenting a mechan­ ical method of approaching gesturing. It became necessary to investigate the criticism of John Walker’s period to establish If and to what degree he was accused of a mechan­ ical concept. There undoubtedly existed a relationship between John Walker’s emphasis of the mechanical analysis of sentence structure and the mechanical methodology for teaching gesturing. However, this relationship has never been precisely defined. Thus, the second hypothesis of this study attempted to show that John Walker was more critically analyzed and criticized for presenting a mechan­ ical method of analyzing sentence structure for the purpose of improving inflection and of presenting a system of rules for pronunciation rather than presenting mechanical gestur­ ing rules. John Walker’s analysis of sentence structure may have been confused by some modern critics with a mechanical methodology of teaching gesturing. Thus, the second hypothesis developed: criticisms of John Walker’s theories

were generally based upon an analysis of language rather than a mechanical style of teaching gesturing. The second hypothesis is investigated by considering (1) the relationships concerning "Naturalism and Mechanicalism," Chapter V, (2) narrowing the scope to con­ sider what John Walker taught and how he proposed it should be taught, "Theory and Methodology," Chapter VI, and (:) stating what the philologist said concerning physical move­ ment and expression of the speaker or reader, "Posture and

Passions," Chapter VII. Thirdly, it became necessary to investigate John Walker's methodologies to establish if there is any appli­ cation of his principles to the teaching of public speaking and oral reading. These ideas were related to their period and to their modern application. From this approach a logical projection of his theories into practical applica­ tion could be attempted. A third hypothesis developed: portions of John Walker's theories and methodologies of language are present in our teaching and others are appli­ cable to current teaching practices. Particular attention was directed to gesturing. The need and projection for historical and quantitative research for verification of John Walker's theories will be considered. An investigation of the third hypothesis can be found in Chapter VIII, "Application of John Walker's Theories and Methodologies." Thus, through attempting to clarify these hypotheses,

an investigation of John Walker's theories and methodologies related to his period and applied to modern practices is approached through considering the more general background 5 of..the writer and his theories, and narrowing the direction to consider the author's theories and their applications to teaching gesturing. The direction must include not only the reviewing of John Walkerfs theories and a projection of his theories to current teaching practices, but also include a projection of his theories to possible studies which might be considered in attempting to clarify the validity of his theories. - In summary, the following three hypotheses will be considered: Hypothesis I: John Walker maintained recognition and acceptance as a prominent philologist of his period. Hypothesis II: The emphasis of John Walker*s mechan­ ical analysis of sentence structure has often been confused with a mechanical methodology of teaching gesturing. Thus, criticisms of John Walker's theories of teaching were often based upon an analysis of language rather than of gesturing. Hypothesis III: Portions of John Walker's methodolo­ gies of teaching gesturing and portions of his theories are applicable to modern teaching practices. The purpose of the second chapter, "A Biography of John Walker," Is to present a background of the author In relation to his associates. Many were recognized authori­ ties of language study and some freely expressed their opinions of John Walker and his writings. These relation­ ships presented some idea of the acceptance of John Walker and his theories in relation to his period. The chronolog­ ical organization of information taken from bibliographies, diaries, letters, and facts from records seemed most appro­ priate to this objective. The purpose of the third chapter, "The Publications of John Walker," is to present an understanding of the back­ ground of John Walker’s acceptance by tracing the develop­ ment of the publications of the author. The adoptation of his theories in other publications implies a degree of acceptance of the author’s theories during his period. Applications of his writings to various other editions con­ cerning philology including reprintings of his own writings seemed indicative of the interest in the theories by John Walker's contemporaries. From the development of the second and third chapters, a fourth chapter presenting John Walker as an orthoepist and lexicographer seemed imperative. It was necessary to state John Walker’s acceptance in the area which is believed to be his greatest contribution to philology, and tocppose some modern misunderstandings that John Walker was mainly recog­ nized as an elocutionist in the sense that he concentrated on presenting formalized rules for presentation. The various types of criticisms of John Walker's theories display the major attacks upon the author. The fifth chapter, "Naturalism and Mechanicalism," examines the criticisms of John Walker's theories as being 7 mechanically contrived. It attempts to associate the author’s theories to what he considered to be their basis. The influences of the mechanical and natural schools which reportedly existed during John Walker's period are examined. The mechanical and natural relationships are defined con­ cerning Walker's theories. The fifth chapter supports the first and second hypotheses by indicating some possible sources of misunderstandings concerning John Walker's mechanistic emphasis. The sixth chapter examines the methodology of John Walker's theories and more fully defines the specific appli­ cations of his theories. Through a study of the applications of his theories, John Walker's rationale of language is shown. The seventh chapter, "Posture and Passions," reviews what John Walker stated in his first editions concerning gesturing and the expression of the passions. The consisten­ cies and inconsistencies of his theories are discussed. The degree of mechanicalism in his theories and methodologies

emerges. The eighth chapter relates some modern practices of teaching oral reading and public speaking to the methodology used by Walker. Hie influences of both John Walker and Thomas Sheridan are traced in the early elocutionary movement of the United States. Historical and quantitative studies which should be investigated in the future are suggested.

a 8

The ninth chapter presents a summary of some of the findings which support or detract from the proposed hypotheses. The source materials for the following study have been taken from the first editions or, when not available, the earliest editions available of the writings and criti­ cisms of John Walker found in the British Museum Library, London, the Oxford Library, and private collections in the United States and England. Although the British Museum Library contained the greatest volume of first editions, some were available only through contacting private collec­ tors. The Oxford Library also contained applicable criti­ cisms some of which were earlier editions than could be obtained at the British Museum Library. However, the con­ sistency of John Walker's theories in later publications does not seem greatly destroyed in using a more recent edition except when John Walker's theories were capseled so briefly that the mtionale of his theories became destroyed in brev­ ity. A comparative analysis of various publications showed little change in John Walker's basic theories but rather a qualification of his theories. It is hoped that an investigation of John Walker's theories and methodologies, a classification of the misunder­

standings concerning gesturing, and the application of the philologist's theories to current practices will better define John Walker's relation to communications. CHAPTER II

BIOGRAPHY

The purpose of this chapter is to present John Walker in relationship to his associates and the recognized author­ ities of his profession. By showing the relationship of prominent men of John Walker*s period, some idea of the recognition of the author by his contemporaries becomes evident. What the authorities state concerning John Walker implies the quality of the recognition of the early elocu­ tionist. A chronological development emphasizing John Walker’s most productive period of writing andthose periods which most influenced his writing seemed most applicable to this objective. John Walker was an orthoepist, lexicographer, elocu­ tionist, grammarian, schoolmaster, actor, academician, and lecturer, and many of the seventy-five years of his life were filled with extremes of praise or severe criticism. Advanc- ing new theories of pronunciation, new methodology of elocu­ tion, and a new analysis of grammatical structure, Walker met with some popularity. His name appeared through numerous publications from rhyming dictionaries to advice to the English teacher. Speaking freely, writing prolifically, and attempting to verify his theories became his objectives. Little biographical information is available concern­ ing the life of John Walker. Some information is attainable from diaries which are often recorded as notoriously biased. There are several letters written concerning the grammarian. Court records, deeds, titles, and so on, seem to have added little to an understanding of Walker's life. He seemed not to be in the legal conflicts of Samuel Johnson or have the business possessions of John Burke. John Walker's mother ”... came from Nottingham, and was a sister to the Reverend James Morley, a dissenting minister at Painswick, Glouchestershire.Little is known of John Walker's father. John Walker was b o m at Colney Hatch, "a hamlet in the parrish of Friem Barnet, Middle­ sex . . .”5 on 18 March 1732. It is difficult to establish how much formal educa­ tion John Walker obtained. He was "... taken from school to be instructed in a trade . . ."6 byt the training for a trade was a common upper-class procedure although more heavily reflected in the middle-classes. He learned to read and write and was probably exposed to the classics. With some trade attempted, "... after his mother's death he went

^Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography (Vol. LIXj London: Smith, Elder and Company, 1^99)» P« 75 • 5ibid.

6Ibid. 11 on the stage . . . "7 Walker probably obtained during his acting career his greatest degree of education although undoubtedly not formalized. Samuel Johnson expressed "Walker’s employment, as a teacher of elocution, was among the higher classes, and best educated people of England . . . James E. Murdoch referred to John Walker and Thomas

Sheridan when he stated "These writers were both well grounded in the classics, as well as masters of the English language, and were acknowledged as such in a period which is considered the Golden Age of English literature.^tiQ John Walker’s acting career ran for nine years, from

1758 to 1767. At the age of twenty-six, in May of 1758, he married Miss Myners, ". . . a well known comic actress, and immediately afterwards he joined the company which was formed by Barry and Woodward for the opening of Crow Street Theatre, Dublin."10 It can be assumed Walker had worked in the theatre previous to 1758 for in the same year that he married the established comic actress: He was there advanced to a higher rank in the pro­ fession, and, upon the desertion of Mossop to Smock

7Ibid. ^Samuel Johnson, Johnson’s Dictionary, edited by Todd, abridged by Chalmers) (Boston: Charles Ewer and T. H. Carter, 1828), p. xii, footnote.

9james E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (Cin­ cinnati, New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg and Company, 1883), pp. 23-24.

10Lee, op. cit., p. 75. Alley, he succeeded to many of the actor's characters, among which his Cato and his Brutus were spoken of In terms of very high commen­ dations. 11 In 1762 he and his wife were employed at the Covent Garden Theatre. It was during this time that he was associated with David Garrick, working under his supervision at Covent

Theatre from 1762 to 1767. Evidence of the friendship between Walker and Garrick was displayed when Walker dedi­ cated Exercises for Improvement to the famous actor-manager. A 1760 account presents an Insight into Garrick's talent: At a dinner where Mile. Chairon gave passages from Racine and Voltaire, he [David Garrick] did the dagger-scene from Macbeth and showed how he had learned to represent madness by watching a friend drop a baby from a window and go out of his wits. Everyone wept. Marmontel wrote next day, "if we had actors like you, our scenes would not be so diffused; we should let their silence speak."12 David Garrick remained a friend to Walker until Garrick's death in 1779* It was under Garrick's direction at Drury Lane that Walker "... usually filled the second parts in tragedy, and those of a grave, sententious cast in comedy.Hl3

In 1767 both John Walker and his wife returned to Dublin, probably back to the Crow Street Theatre. In the summer of

1768 they performed at Bristol, and it was there that John Walker "... quitted the stage."1**

n lbid. 12Jack Lindsay, 1764 (London: Frederick Muller, Ltd., 1959), P. 280. 13Lee, op. clt., p. 7 5. MIbid. 13 The acting profession was hardly recognized as a o socially acceptable profession. Noah Webster emphasized an attitude which was prevalent concerning acting: In particular, he [Noah Webster] was opposed to the artificial Buhnenaussprache that Sheridan had introduced, and that Walker was soon to reinforce, for his opinion of actors was almost as low as his opinion of political and theological rhetoricians.15 These years when Walker was an actor have often been recorded as some of the most crucial years of the eighteenth century. In almost every field, the perspective had been changed. In the 1760‘s we meet the decisive turning-point of the century. Much may seem haphazard; . . . Behind the pattern of profound changes there lay a century of violent clashes, which have slowly torn England, first of the world, away from what we may conveniently call the feudal system in its final form of absolute monarchy . . During these years, it was not uncommon for a man to change his profession to meet with the new demands. John Walker is often recorded as being a lecturer at Kensington but academic records only vaguely record the establishment of this college. In January of 1769 John Walker 11. . . joined James Usher in establishing a school at Kensington Gravel-pit, but the partnership lasted only

^Benjamin Newman, "The Phonetic Concepts of John Walker and Daniel Jones," Quarterly Journal of Speech (October 1941), p. 365,

■^Lindsay, op. clt., introduction. 14 about two years.James Usher, 1720-1772, was a protestant who embraced the Roman Catholic religion and with a legacy of three hundred pounds left to him by Charles Molloy in 1767 M... enabled him to open a school for catholic youth at Kensington Gravel Pits . . . Although Walker withdrew from the school after two years, it was still in operation in 1772 when James Usher died. Although little is known of the Kensington Gravel Pit School, records do indicate the types of private schools which were so common in London during this period. As an example of the growth of private schools we may take the following advertisement: Mr. Delafosse is removed into the House late Colonel Soulege>s, on Richmond Green, which is roomy and elegant . . . has such Accommodations for his Boarders as few private Schools, if any, in the Kingdom can equal, yet his Terms are equally moderate, and every Article relative to Health, Morals and Education, will assuredly be duly attended to. The hazards of schools in a London where houses frequently fell down is exemplified by the collapse of Mrs. Roberts1 school in a court off Cow-lane, which on February 14th killed her, two more women, and a girl of seven years* Three other persons were dug from the ruins.

Jack Lindsay suggests the types of punishments which were given to the students: Beating was almost eliminated— though not quite, especially for small boys. Punishments were

!7Lee, op. cit., p. 7 5. l8Ibid., LVIII, pp. 58-59. ^Lindsay, op. cit., p. 46. 15 normally detention (with physical exercise) or fines out of the weekly allowance, which were used as the boys suggested, e.g., for a library, school prizes, games facilities, and (twice a year) for supplying the local poor with bread.20 It was during these two years while John Walker taught at Kensington Grave Pit that he met Dr. Thomson to whom he dedicated the Academic Speaker. Undoubtedly, Dr. Thomson influenced John Walker's interest in public speak­ ing and oral reading. However, Walker's association with James Usher brought forth a great change in Walker's life for it was "Through the arguments of Usher he was induced to Join the Roman catholic church, and this brought about an intimacy between him and John Milner . . . "21 John Milner, 1752-1826, took elocution lessons from John Walker in 1781 and he was often considered "... the most illustrious of the vicarsapo- stolic.1,22 It was the Incident of John Walker's acceptance of Roman Catholicism that James Compton referred to in writing to James Boswell on 23 April 1811. The content of the letter referred to a meeting of Samuel Johnson, James Compton, and John Walker in a visit at Dr. Johnson's home in April of

g0Ibld., pp. 45-46. 21Lee, op. cit.. Vol. LIX, p. 75- 22Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 14-15- 16

1783. In this letter to James Boswell, James Compton stated: At the latter end of April 83 I called on the Doctor at his house, where I found him alone with Mr. Walker . . . [Johnson] most chearfully ex­ claimed, I must introduce you two gentlemen to each other. Mr. Compton, this gentleman has quitted our Church to embrase that which you have lately quitted, x • • How do you account for one another's conduet?23

The discussion evolved concerning religion after Samuel Johnson had challenged Walker to question Compton about his religious choice. The conversatigyjevolved to a discussion of the Academic Speaker and Walker asked Compton to read several passages for Compton had asserted that he understood John Walker's book from reading it while alone. I am satisfied said the Doctor [Johnson], and tak­ ing, I think, a guinia out of his pocket he gave it to Mr. Walker and said I believe you will never find another, meaning he would never find another to own, that he had profited by the book without the explanation of a master. He told me he had some years before laid a wager with Mr. Walker to that tendency.22* James M. Osborne stated that "Somewhere along the way Walker had been converted from the Presbyterian Church to the Roman Catholic, and became increasingly strict in his observ­ ances . "25

^James M. Osborne, Dr. Johnson and the Contrary Con­ verts (New Haven: Yale University Press, private printing of 250 copies, 18 September 1952*)* photographed letter facsmile. 24Ibid.

25Ibid., p. 15.

* 17 John Walker's association with Samuel Johnson sug­ gests that Walker was recognized in the literary association of such men. Public recognition of Samuel Johnson had established him as a great grammarian during his life* Samuel Johnson was a student at Pembroke College 1728-31, but left without a degree owing to his father's insolvency. The University later gave him first a Master's, and then a Doctor's degree, and he was ever a mofct loyal and grateful Oxonian. ° James Boswell recorded a conversation between Walker and Johnson concerning oral reading. Boswell stated: Mr. Walker, the celebrated master of elocution, came in, and we went up stairs into the study. I asked him if he had taught many clergymen? Johnson: "I hope not." Walker: "I have taught only one, and he is the best reader I ever heard, not by my teaching, but by his own natural talents." In R. W."Chapman's edition of James Boswell's Life of Johnson, Chapman adds that this was one of Johnson's peculiar prej­ udices: "Count it be any disadvantage to the clergyman to have it known that he was taught an easy and graceful delivery?" The conversation follows: Boswell: "Will you not allow, Sir, that a man may be taught to read well?" Johnson: "Why, Sir, so far as to i?ead better than he might do without being taught, yes. Formerly it was supposed that there was no difference in reading, but that one read as well as another." Boswell: "it Is wonder­ ful to see old Sheridan as enthuslastlck about oratory as ever." Walker: "His enthusiasm as to what oratory will do, may be too great: but he reads well." Johnson: "He reads well, but he reads lowj

2^J. W. Cunliffe, England in Picture, Song and Story (New Yotfk, London: D. Appleton-Century and Company, 19^3), p. 111. 18

and you know it is much easier to read low than to read high; for when you read high, you are much more limited, your loudest note can be but one, and so the variety is less in proportion to the loudness. Now some people have occasion to speak to an extensive audience, and must speak loud to be heard." Walker: "The art is to read strong, though low."27 A second conversation between Johnson and Walker was re­ corded by Boswell as taking place on 18 April 1783* Walker asked "Do you think, Sir, that there are any perfect synonimes in our language?" Johnson answered "Originally there were not; but by using words negligently, or in poetry, one word comes to be confounded with another."2® R. W. Chapman added a note speaking of the homage paid to Dr. Johnson: Beside the Dedication to him by Dr. Goldsmith, the Reverend Dr. Franklin, and the Reverend Mr. Wilson . . . there was one by a lady [Anne Penny according to Powell], of a versification of Anlngalt and Ajut, and one by the ingenious Mr. Walker of his Rhetorical Grammar.2° John Walker was not a member of the Liberary Club. This tended to be a literary degree of distinction for the prominent men of the period: The Literary Club, founded in 1764 by Dr. Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds, had an equally distin­ guished membership [compared to Scriblerus Club which was founded in 1713 and included Pope, Swift, Congreve, and Gay]— Boswell, Goldsmith, Burke,

27James Boswell, Life of Johnson, edited by R. W. Chapman (London: Oxford University Press's, 1953), P« 1224. 2®Ibid., p. 1225. 29ibid. 19 Garrick, Gibbon, and Adam Smith, the first English political economist. The notable point about these clubs was the personality of their members, not the magnificence of their place of meeting. Dr. Johnson said of Burke that no one could take shelter from him from a sudden shower without recognizing that he was in the presence of an extraordinary man.-3 jk Thomas Sheridan's name also did not appear in this listing, but this was probably not due to Thomas Sheridan's lack of recognition in literary circles, but because of a feud between Sheridan and Johnson. The feud has been re­ corded as a misunderstanding: I found out Sheridan's great cause of quarrel with him [Johnson] was that when Johnson heard of his getting a pension, “What!” said he, “has he got a _ pension? Then it is time for me to give up mine."^1 Frederick A. Pottle added the footnote: Ossian Macpherson had maliciously reported Johnson's remark to Sheridan, without telling him (what would perhaps not have mended matters) that Johnson, after a pause, had added, "However, I am glad that Mr. Sheridan has a pension, for he is a very good man.M32

References to the disputes between John Walker and Thomas Sheridan do not seem consistent with the recorded personality traits of Sheridan. Boswell's London Journal, 1762-1763 mentioned Walker only once and then only casually,

3°Cunliffe, op. cit., p. 46.

31James Boswell, Boswell's London Journal, 1762- 1763, edited by Frederick A. Pottle (New York; London, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 137* 3gibid. (footnote). 20 but the diary did present an understanding of Sheridan*s personality traits: Sheridan, Thomas. Irishman. Forty-three years old. Educated at Westminister School and Trinity College, Dublin. Went on the stage as an under­ graduate; acted in theatres in Dublin and London, managed the Theatre Royal in the former City. Though he has received some high praise for his acting (Charles Churchill ranked him as a tragedian next to Garrick), he thinks much more highly of his work as a teacher of elocution and author of books on the subject. His home in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, is the resort of eminent men; he has acquired enough influence with Alexander Wedderburn, one of his Scots pupils, to persuade him to persuade Lord But to give Dr. Johnson a pension. . . . A warm-hearted but opinionated man; quick to take offence and bitterly unforgiving.33

David Garrick stated on Monday 16 October 1769: "Sheridan has too much vanity to be a good man." Samuel Johnson added to defend Thomas Sheridan: •No, Sir. There is, to be sure, in Sheridan, something to reprehend, and everything to laugh at; but, Sir, he is not a bad man. No, Sir; were man­ kind to be divided into good aid bad, he would stand considerably within the ranks of good. And, Sir, it must be allowed that Sheridan excels in plain declamation, though he can exhibit no character.*34

Boswell recorded that Johnson had stated: "Of old Sheridan he remarked, that he neither wanted parts [of marriage] nor literature; but that his vanity and Quixotism [Don Quixotl, romanticism] obscured his merits."35 Although Boswell did

33Ibid., p. 34. 3^Boswell, Life of Johnson, op. cit., p. 413. 35ibid., p. 445. 21 not define who Johnson was speaking of, It is generally- believed that the following quotation refers to Sheridan: ______is a good man, Sir; but he is a vain man and a liar. He, however, only tells lies of vanity; of victories, for instance, in con­ versation, which never h a p p e n e d . 36

In a conversation between Johnson and Boswell, the subject changed from Sheridan's dictionary to Sheridan's personality traits. Johnson had told an amusing story of Sir Gilbert Elliot, Earl of Marchmont, who was asked if he was an American because of his pronunciation. Boswell suggested: MIt may be of use, Sir, to have a Dictionary to ascertain the pronunciation." Johnson stated: "Why, Sir, my Diction­ ary shows you the accents of words, if you can but remember them." Boswell responded: "But, Sir, we want marks to ascertain the pronunciation of the vowels. Sheridan, I believe, has finished such a work." Johnson stated: Why, Sir, consider how much easier it is to learn a language by the ear, than by any marks. Sheridan's Dictionary may do very well; but you cannot always carry it about with you: and, when you want the word, you have not the Dictionary. It is like a man who has a sword that will not draw. It is an admirable sword, to be sure: but while your enemy is cutting your throat, you are unable to use it. Besides, Sir, what entitles Sheridan to fix the pronunciation of English? He has, in the first place, the disadvantage of being an Irishman: and if he says he will fix it after the example of the best company, why they differ among themselves?'3'

36ibid.J, p. 1196. 37ibid., p. 470. 22 Thus, the recorded personality traits of Sheridan seem to assert that vanity was a recognized weakness. Thomas Sheridan was thirteen years senior to John Walker and had established himself as a teacher of elocution with the publication of Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language in 1857. Having not gained recognition as a gram­ marian, an orthoepist, or a lexicographer at twenty-five, John Walker was seldom recognized by Sheridan in his writ­ ings. Aside from the dominating personality and reputation of Sheridan, Walker probably appeared as little competition to Sheridan's recognized theories of pronunciation and elo­ cution. Although Sheridan ”... was a voluminous but not popular writerhe did maintain a reputation as the lead­ ing authority of elocution for many years. To gain further insight into the lack of conflicts between Sheridan and Walker, it is interesting to compare their activities at particular times. Sheridan went on the stage and became manager of Theatre Royal. His greatest recognition was as a manager. Sheridan, after legal quar­ rels in the Kelly riots (Kelly had Insulted the actresses, was fined and jailed, and Thomas Sheridan helped to free him and eliminate the fine), left the theatre and went to Covent Garden's Theatre. He married Francis Chamberlaine on 2 March 1752* and again managed the Theatre Royal in 1756, but

3bLee, op. cit., Vol. LII, pp. 87-88. 23 a competitive theatre managed by Spranger and Barry opened to the detriment of his own, and Thomas Sheridan became a teacher of elocution. At no time were Sheridan and Walker competitive in their interests in theatre. Sheridan received his Master's at Oxford in 1753# moved to Blois in 1764 and after his wife's death, returned to London in 1766. In the same year Walker was still an actor. Walker's earliest writing concerning elocution, Exercises for Improvement in Elocution, a collection of readings which advanced his theories of pronunciation very little, was first published in 1777. The Academic Speaker did not reach popularity until the very end of the century and since Sheridan died

in 1788, Walker's theories of elocution were not criticized by Sheridan.39 John Walker was accepted by the literary clan because of the publication of his work in 1774 when he projected his

Pronouncing Dictionary, but he did not publish it in its

entirety until 1791* three years after the death of Sheridan.

Walker's Dictionary for Rhyming was published the following year, and he published the first dictionary after Sheridan's of 1780 eleven years later in 1791 under the title of The

Critical Pronounciation Dictionary and Exposition of the English Language. Thus, the only possible conflict between Sheridan and Walker would have concerned the projection of ~ Ibid. 24

Walker’s dictionary. It is questionable that a recognized authority would consider a projection of a theory from a notice. Sheridan did not attack Walker on the projection of his theories of pronunciation for Sheridan probably never was assured that Walker's theories would reach maturity or publication. A quite personal attitude toward John Walker was found in Madam d'Arblay's diary. Having met John Walker, she stated ”... though modest in science, he was vulgar in conversation. . . Little is known of John Walker's personal life. He was a professed Roman Catholic, and he often cautioned his readers to avoid extremes. Typical of this sentiment, the author stated: There is nothing in human conduct we ought more carefully to avoid than running into extremes; the virtue of courage, as a medium in all.things is the most advisable course we can take. 1 During John Walker's life as a teacher of elocution, he toured Scotland and Ireland and gave lectures at Oxford. The lecturer gained a ”. . . competent fortune. . . .,,z*2

The support of his family was by teaching elocution to 40 Osborne, op. cit., p. 76. ^John Walker, Exercises of Transposition to Walker's Themes and Essays, edited by Henry Mozley, Derby, Part I, l8i8, "p. 89. Lee, op. cit., Vol. LIX, p. 7 6 . 25 private pupils and giving lectures. Distinguished among his students was Edmund Burke. ^ During January of 1789 John Walker lived at Number 6M Lower Harley Street, Cavendish Square in London, and the last years of his life were spent in Tottenham Court Road. These residences were considered quite fashionable during this period. In "maintaining his family . . . it is assumed that he had children, but none reached public recognition. His grave stone lists no heirs. In April of 1802 his wife died, and John Walker died five years later, 1 August 1807. "His remains were interred in the burial- ground at St. Pancras. On 28 June 1877 the Baroness Burdett Coutts dedicated a casement for the grave marker of John Walker over his grave at St. Pancras the Elder. Upon the memorial stone is written: Here lie the remains of Mr. John Walker Author of the Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language and other valuable Works on Grammar and Elocution of which was for many years a very distinguished Professor _ ■ JJohnson, Johnson’s Dictionary, op. cit., p. xii (footnote). ^Lee, op. cit., Vol. LIX, p. 7 6 . ^5ibid. 26

He closed a life devoted to piety and virtue on the 1st August 1807 Aged, 75 Also In the same grave lie Interred the remains of S. A. Walker Wife of Mr. John Walker was departed this life 1802 Thus, John Walker's recognition and association with prominent men of his study implies a degree of acceptance that the author maintained with his contemporaries. Help­ ing in the training of such men as John Burke and John Milner, D. D., John Walker maintained his family through the teaching of elocution. Since this was apparently his only means of income, he must have been reasonably acceptable and proclaimed. Two major influences of his life were the theatre and his acceptance of Roman Catholicism. Walker's association with such men as Samuel Johnson, James Usher, John Milner, and Dr. Thomson suggests that the author nain- tained some degree of acceptance as a teacher of elocution during his life.

/ CHAPTER III

THE PUBLICATIONS OF JOHN WALKER

An understanding of the background of John Walker*s public acceptance was obtained by tracing the development of the publications of the author. A chronological listing suggested his degree of literary productivity and implied a degree of acceptance during his period. The use of his theories traced through his contemporaries* approaches to philology suggests the acceptance of his theories. John Walker*s theories were not formed in a chrono­ logical pattern. He emphasized various theories at differ­ ent periods of his life. He constantly revised theories and republished some under various titles. He rarely changed his ideas but more specifically analyzed the details of many. Although he presented little change in his ideas, he pro­ gressively expanded most of his theories from his initial conception. Only in a futile attempt to shorten his listing of the rules for pronunciation did he attempt brevity. A chronological listing of the expansion of each of John Walker’s theories in publications demonstrates the extensive considerations of his theories. Repeated publications of his theories in various dictionaries, collections, and so on,

27 28

suggests that John Walker was well represented In publication during his period. A chronological listing of the publications of John Walker did not lend Itself to a systematical scheme for analysis. Not only did Walker present two theories in a singular publication, he presented portions of various theories in different editions and collective volumes. He never co-authored texts, but various authors quoted large sections of his writings. Many theories were restated and many were more fully analyzed, and there were often many editions of a specific writing. Although the content dif­ fered, book titles were often the same. The same content was published under different titles. Thus, a chronological listing of the publications of John Walker did not adequately clarify the content of his writing, but a chronological development of his various theories more clearly demonstrated the author's approaches. For analysis, John Walker's publications have been divided into categories of (l) pronunciation emphasis of common words, (2) pronunciation emphasis of Greek, Latin, and Scripture names, (3) rhyming emphasis, (4) theory of elocution, (5) methodology of elocution, (6) elocution and music, and (7 ) emphasis upon grammatical structure including both theory and methodology. These categories in no way reflect the depth of the author's investigations. 29 If the number of publications on a particular topic

•i can be indicative of the degree of emphasis of an author, John Walker's major emphasis was in orthoepy. However, the movement of elocution was so closely related to orthoepy that a differentiation between the emphases is intricate. Rhyming and music also appeared closely related to pronunci­ ation and elocution. Thus, in analyzing the author's contri­ bution to philology, an entire perspective of all his writings related to the age in which he wrote must be considered. In obtaining a more vivid understanding of the publi­ cations of John Walker, a chronological organization of the first printing of a specific theory, or major emphasis, is followed by further restatements of the principle or emphasis in later editions. When first publications were not attain­ able for examination, the earliest publication available was considered. Bie more than eighty publications by John Walker during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries include separate printings, editions, additions, and direct applications to other writings of this period. The earliest and most predominate contribution of John Walker was in A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary first projected as an example of a larger work to follow and pub­ lished In 1774* This publication was ”A general idea of a pronouncing dictionary of the English language, on a plan entirely new. . . . With observations on several words that 30 46 are variously pronounced, as a specimen of the work." Although never republished in its entirety, John Walker extended the material in A Dictionary of the English Language "... answering at once the purposes of rhyming, spelling, and pronouncing on a plan not hitherto attempted. . . . To which . . . is added an index of allowable rhymes, with authorities for their usage. A third version of the same material titled A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and no Expositor of the English Language was published in London during 1791* and a second edition was published in 1797* The third edition in 1802 and a fourth edition in 1806 were published "... with . . . additions. A fifth edition ". . . with considerable improvements, and large additions"5° was published in 1810. Twenty-two editions of the same text were published unaltered from the 1810 edition until 1826 ------55------John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (London: private printing, 1774), introduction. ^John Walker, A Dictionary of the English Language (London: private printing, 1775)* introduction. 2|Q ’ ^°John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (London: private printing. 1791). ^john Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (London: private printing, 1 8 0 6), introduction 5°John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (London: private printing. 1810), introduction. 31 when A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, and Expositor was published ". . .To which are prefixed, Principles of English

Pronunciation.”51 A 1797 edition of A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as are of Dubious, or Unsettled Accentuation . .in which the pronunciation of Sheridan, Walker, and other orthoepists, is compared,concerned the differences of pronunciation of Sheridan, Walker, and Johnson. Three years later John Walker's theories were included in an edition of The Union Dictionary compiled by T. Browne, LL.D., ”... containing all that is truly useful in the diction­ aries of . . . Walker."33 James Knowles of the Belfast Academical Institution in a book titled Orthoepy and Elocu­ tion appended ”... the first sheet of the examination of Mr. Walker’s ’559 principles of Pronunciation’"3^ in 1829.

James Sheridan Knowles' The Elocutionist was "... preceded by an introduction, in which an attempt is made to simplify

5*John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, and Expositor (London: private printing, 1826), introduction. 52p. and C. Rivington, G. and T. Wilkie, L. B. Seeley, and Goadly, Lerpiniere, and Langdon, A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as are of Dubious, or Unset­ tled Accentuation (London: private printing, 1797)»

53t . Brown, The Union Dictionary (London: 1800), title page. 5^James Sheridan Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution (Glasgow: 1829). 32

Walker's system "55 In 1831. Five years later L. Murray published ^Murray's English Reader which included John

Walkers key to pronunciation prefixed to the text. 3 A / second edition of The American Instructor^? by Hall J. Kelly contained a simplification of John Walker's pronunciation dictionary and was an early American influence printed in 1826. Samuel Johnson and John Walker were collaborated in 1828 in A Dictionary of the English Language.5^ Under William Perry's name, Isreael Alger presented in 1825 under the second title of Only Sure Guide to the English Tongue ". . . Walker's pronunciation precisely applied on a new scheme. "59 in 1835 A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary was published as "A new edition, carefully revised, corrected, and enlarged."^0 This edition contained a portrait of John

55James Sheridan Knowles, The Elocutionist (London: Belfast, Simms and M'Intyre, 1831*

5^l . Murray, Murray's English Reader (Albany: S. Shaw, 1826). 5?Hall J. Kelly, The American Instructor (Concord, New Jersey: Isaac Hill, 18:26). 58samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, improved by Todd and abridged by Chalmers (Boston: Charles Ewer and T. H. Carter, 1828).

59william Perry, Alger's Perry or Only Sure Guide to the English Tongue, edited by Isreal Alger (Boston: Richard­ son and Lord, lo25), Introduction of 1832 publication. 6°John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (London: Joseph Smith, 1835), introduction. Walker. B. H. Smart*s Walker Remodelled was MA new critical pronouncing dictionary of the English Language, adapted to 6l the present state of literature and science. ..." pub­ lished in 1836. T5ie following year L. de Gerin-Roze pub­ lished Langue Anglaise which contained "Essai sur la prosodie et la prononciation iraite du grand ouvrage de Walker. ..." This was actually a free translation of A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as are of Dubious, or Unset­ tled Accentuation. B. H. Smart revised his first edition and in 1846 published a second edition of Walker's Pro­ nouncing Dictionary ". . .to which are added an enlarged Etymological Index, and a Supplement."^ The following year

R. A. Davenport published Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Languagea second edition was published in 1852.65 a section of this book, pages one through thirty-two, was published in 1852 also, but no further sections or editions were thereafter published.

&1B. H. Smart, Walker Remodelled (London: 1836), introduction. ^2L. de Gerin-Roze, Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary (second edition; London: 1846).

63b . H. Smart, Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary (second edition; London: 1846).

6^r . A. Davenport, Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (London: 1847).

65r . a . Davenport, Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (London: 1832). 34

Webster's Pronouncing Dictionary, 11. . . A new edition, critically revised, enlarged, and amended,1,00 by P. A. Nuttal was published in London in 1855• Two years later A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary by Edward Smith utilized John Walker's method of pronunciation and included Walker's “A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names."^7 Townsend Young combined the pro­ nouncing key and the dictionary with the classical pronunci­ ation in a singular printing in 1858 titled A Critical CO Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. J. Longmuier combined the pronunciation theories of Walker with the text of Noah Webster's dictionary in Dictionary of the English Languagefirst published in 1864 with a second edition in 1866, and a third edition in 1876. P. A. Nuttall emphasized Walker's methods of pronunciation in Itoutledge's Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language "... founded on the labours of Walker. . . ."7° in 1867. P. A. Nuttall

6^P. A. Nuttal, Webster's Pronouncing Dictionary (London: 1855), introduction. 67Edward Smith, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Edinburgh: T. Nelson and Sons, 1857)* ^Townsend Young, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language (Dublin: James Duffy, C. M. Warren, 1858). 69j. Longmuir, Dictionary of the English Language (London: William Tegg, 1864). 7°p. A. Nuttall, Routledge's Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language (London: 1867), introduction. 35 revised his edition and presented in The Pearl Edition series the addition of Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary ”... Thoroughly remodelled. . . . "71 The Pearl Edition was re­ printed in 1872 and 1873* Walker and Worcester’s Pronounc­ ing Dictionary^2 in I869 included "A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names” by John Walker in a two part edition. W. Nicholson of Halifax published The Excelsior Pronouncing Dictionary ". . . founded on the principles of Walker . . ."73 in 1876. Thus, for more than a hundred years the theories and principles of John Walker were utilized in publications, and his writing's implications in philology can be traced to modern publishings. John Walker was recognized by such scholars as B. H. Smart, Samuel Johnson, and Noah Webster. John Walker's interest in pronunciation resulted in a major contribution to philology when he wrote A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names. First published in 1798* this edition included John Walker's

Au Nuttall, The Pearl Edition. Walker's Pro­ nouncing Dictionary (London: Newton, 1868), introduction. 72j. e. Worcester, Worcester's Pronouncing Diction­ ary (two volumes), I869. 73w. Nicholson, The Excelsior Pronouncing Dictionary (Wakefield: William Nicholson and Sons, 187b)> introduction. portrait. It stated "... reference to rules, which show the analogy of pronunciation. . . . To which is added a com­ plete vocabulary of Scripture proper names . . . concluding with observations on the Greek and Latin accent and quantity. . . ."7^ A fourth edition with further additions was published in 1812; a sixth in 1818. A seventh edition appeared in 1822 and a ninth edition with additions in 1830. A later edition "With . . . emendations by . . . W. Trol­ lope "75 appeared in 1831- As late as 1829 a new Edition of John Walker’s naterial was published by Thomas Tegg, and it was not republished in its original entirety in a new edition until 1881.76

Other editions.included John Walker's pronunciation of proper names in books concerning language and dictionaries. L. Murray's The Pronouncing English Reader "To which . . . is . . . applied, Mr. Walker'sc pronunciation of Classical Proper

Names, and of . . . other w o r d s "77 was published in 1824.

7^John Walker, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper"Names (London: private printing, 1789b introduction. 75john Walker, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper"Names (Emendations by W. Trollope; Londons 1829). 76john Walker, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names, edited by Thomas Tegg (London: 1881).

77l „ Murray, The Pronouncing English Reader (Boston: Robert S. Davis, 1833)• This book was republished in its entirety in 1835 • Samuel Johnson's popular Johnson's Dictionary included ”... Walker's . . . Dictionary combined [to Johnson's Dictionary] to which is added, Walker's Key to the . . . pronunciation of . . . Proper names. "?8 This edition was published in 1828. A second edition appeared in 1839; a third in 1 8 5 6. ”A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names" also appeared in Noah Webster's An

American Dictionary of the English L a n g u a g e ^ in 1830, and this was included in future editions in 1846, 1852, 1854, 1857, and 1869. Edward Smith's A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary included a supplement of the "Key to Classical Pronunciation" in 1 8 5 7 Townsend Young included this section in A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language, first published in I858.®1 Walker and Worcester's Pronouncing Dictionary published in 1869 included the

"Pronunciation of Proper N a m e s . "82 j. e. Worcester's A

7ySamuel Johnson, Johnson's Dictionary(London, Boston: Charles Ewer and T. H. Carter (improved by Todd, abridged by Chalmers, I828). 79tfoah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (Boston: 1830). ®°Smith, op. cit. Young, op. cit. Qp E. Worcester, Walker and Worcester's Pronouncing Dictionary, op. cit. Universal and Critical Dictionary of the English Language, 1874, included "A Key to the Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names" but was revised "... with large additions and improvements...."33 John Walker had probably considered a rhyming dic­ tionary from the time of his publication of A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary in 1774, for in the extended work, A Dictionary of the English Language, he attempted to answer Qji ". . .at once the purposes of rhyming. . . . The third edition of A Rhyming Dictionary "... answering at the same time the purposes of spelling and pronouncing the English language on a plan not hitherto attempted . . ."85 was pub­ lished in 1819, and it appeared in two volumes, but it was first published in a private printing in 1775* A Rhyming Pictionary88 was published in 1824 by John Walker and a new, revised, and enlarged edition by J. Longmuir appeared in

1865.®^ Lawrence H. Dawson revised Walker’s listing of words

:------3377 E. Worcester, A Universal and Critical Dictionary of the English Language (London: 1874), introduction. 3*Hjalker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, op. cit., introduction. 35John Walker, A Rhyming Dictionary (London: 1819). 38John Walker, A Rhyming Dictionary (London: 1824). 37John Walker, A Rhyming Dictionary (revised by J. Longmuir; Aberdeen: 1865). 39 QO in The Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language in 1824.

J. Longmuir rewrote his previous work into The Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language published in 1898.®9 The earliest of John Walker's writings concerning elocution was a collective volume titled Exercises for Improvement in Elocution, 1777* which contained "... extracts from the best authors, for the use of those who study the art of reading and speaking in public."9° This book contained more of a collection of readings than a methodology or theory of elocution. A more specific study of elocution was emphasized in the first publication of Elements of Elocution in 1781 which was a two volume edition of M. . . the substance of a course of lectures on the art of Reading, delivered at several colleges in . . . Oxford." 91 Another edition . .to which is added a complete system of the passions . . . exemplified by a . . . selection of the most striking passages of Shakespeare"92 was published in

Boston in 1810. A third edition was published in London in

^Lawrence H. Dawson, Tne Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language (enlarged by J. Longmuir and part of Routledge * s Popular Library of Standard Authors; London: 0. Routledge and Sons, New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1824). ®9j. Longmuir, The Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language (enlarged by J. Longmuir and part of Routledge's Popular"Library of Standard Authors; London: G. Routledge and Sons, 1898). 9°John Walker, Exercises for Improvement in Elocution (London: 1777)• 91John Walker, Elements of Elocution (London: 1781). 92John Walker, Elements of Elocution (Boston: 1810), Introduction. 1806; a fourth in 1810; a sixth in 1820. These publica­ tions combined both methodology and theory, but John Walker was less specific in elocutionary methodology with the publi­ cation of Hints for Improvement in the Art of R e a d i n g ^ in 1783 where he presented a structural analysis of emphasis two years after the publication of Elements of Elocution. Following a similar theme A Rhetorical Grammar, or Course of Lessons in Elocution,^ was published two years later with additions in a third edition in 1801. The sixth edition was in 1816; the seventh in 1823. The Juvenile Reader's Assist­ ant published by Maldon in 1830 contained ”... observa­ tions . . . chiefly selected from Walker's rhetorical grammar . . .”95 The fourth edition of The Academic Speaker, or A Selection of Parliamentary Debates, Orations, Odes, Scenes and Speeches^ was published in 1801 with additions from the first publication including an analysis of the elements of gestures with illustrated plates. Additions were

93john Walker, HlntB for Improvement in the Art of Reading (London: 1823)• 9^John Walker, A Rhetorical Grammar, or Course of Lessons in Elocution (London: 178 5* 95John Walker, The Juvenile Reader's Assistant (cut­ tings from A Rhetorical Grammar or Course of Lessons in Elocution; London: Meldon, 1830).

96john Walker, The Academic Speaker, or A Selection of Parliamentary Debates, Orations, Odes. Scenes and Speeches (London: 1801).' 41 added to the fifth edition in 1803, additions and alter­ ations to the sixth and seventh editions in 1806 and 1812, respectively. A later edition by John White titled Teacher of Elocution, Aberdeen, 1826, presented a view of the • elementary elocutionist . . . with . . . an introduction and a new view of the cause of inflection; from which Mr. Walker's system of rules is shown to be erroneous."97 This book contained material quoted from Walker's previous publications. Although previously attempted, John Walker attempted to specifically diagram sentence inflections when he associ­ ated rhetoric and music. In 1789 he published The Melody of Speaking Delineated; or Elocution Taught Like Music, which was a theory of teaching rhetoric ”. . . b y visible signs, adapted to the tones, inflections, and variations of voice in reading and speaking.”98 The philologist also published his theories concern­ ing grammar in Outlines of English Grammar^ in 1805, and The Teacher's Assistant in English Composition or Easy Rules

97John Walker, Teacher of Elocution (Aberdeen: 1836). 98john Walker, The Melody of Speaking Delineated; or Elocution Taught Like Music (London: 1802).

99John Walker, Outlines of English Grammar (London: 1802). for Writing Themes and. Composing Exercises 11. . .To which t are added, hints for correcting . . . Juvenile composi­ tions . "*00 A second edition with additions was published in 1802. This theme was commented upon in Exercises of Trans­ portation to Walker's Themes and Essays101 published in 1818, but the writings concerning grammar were not of immediate popularity. The grammatical exercises were seldom criti­ cized by Walker's contemporaries. Thus, it becomes obvious that John Walker's publica­ tions and the extension of his theories and writings in various editions form only a loose chronological pattern. Through tracing Walker's publications and their extensions, it becomes obvious that the author's work was before the public in republications throughout Walker's life and, indeed, many years later. This chronological listing sug­ gests a great deal of literary productivity during Walker's lifetime, and the extension of his writings into later edi­ tions suggests that Walker was recognized with a degree of esteem by his contemporaries. The continued publication of his writings and the projection of his theories into various editions after his death further substantiates this point.

100John Walker, The Teacher's Assistant in English Composition or Easy Rules for Writing Themes and Composing Exercises (London: l8'02). l°ljohn Walker, Exercises of Transportation Walker*3 Themes and Essays, Part I (Derby: lBl8) CHAPTER IV

JOHN WALKER, ORTHOEPIST AND LEXIGRAPHER

Thus it can be seen that John Walker was an Important figure in the history of early speech training. Not only was he a well-known actor of his time, but a philologist and lexicographer as well.102 The purpose of this chapter is to present background information of the more obvious recognition of John Walker's contributions and to establish the relationship of John Walker to his contemporaries by reviewing the types of criticisms that were directed at his theories. Through analyzing the criticisms, a clearer understanding of the amount of emphasis the author placed upon orthoepy and lexicography compared to the emphasis placed upon elocution demonstrates that Walker was criticized and praised more concerning the former subjects than the latter. A clearer understanding of the relationship of orthoepy and lexicography to elocution will be cited by reviewing Walker's definitions and functions of the three

subjects and their relationships to one another. The

102 Charles A. Fritz, "Sheridan to Rush; the Beginnings of English Elocution," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 16, 1930, p. 81.

43 4b

44 relationship between language and its application to elocution will be further identified in Chapter VI, "Theory and Methodology." The organization of this chapter is based on the various types of criticisms used by John Walker's contempor­ aries . Thus, by necessity, the ideas of the criticisms not only concern orthoepy and lexicography but also the out­ growths of this emphasis. Elocution was also one of these outgrowths. However, there are few examples of criticisms concerning elocution per se. Frederick W. Haberman in expressing the life of John Thelwall adequately explained the movement of elocution during Walker's period: The elocutionary movements, however, was more than a simple renaissance of a particular canon of rhetoric. It was, rather, a new ordering of an old subject. This new ordering resulted from the application of the tenets of science and of ration­ alism to the physiological phenomena of spoken discourse. The new study of delivery was affected by the impact of science and of rationalism in precisely the same way that the study of history, of economics, of politics, of poetry, and of prose style was affected. The spirit of elocution, like that of science, was one of independence and originality. The elocutionist looked forward to a golden age, not backward.

^Frederick W. Haberman, "John Thelwall: His Life, His School, and His Theory of Elocution, " Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 33, 1 W , P* 294. Concerning pronunciation John Walker stated that . . i n its largest sense [pronunciation] may signify the utterance of words, either taken separately or in connec­ tion with each other. . . . He maintained this defi­ nition throughout his life and his writings were separated into two broad classifications: (1) rhyming dictionaries and (2) pronunciation dictionaries. The rhyming dictionaries and the pronunciation dictionaries established the author's reputation throughout London, and he later applied these theories of pronunciation and rhyming into theories of writing, theories of grammatical structure, and theories of elocution. Thus, John Walter's emphasis upon the applica­ tion of pronunciation, or that of elocution, grew from his initial study of pronunciation and rhyming. Walker projected the publication of his pronouncing dictionary as early as 1774 while he was teaching at Kensington, but it was finally published in its entirety in 1791. The rhyming dictionary was published a year after Walker had projected the publication of the pronouncing dictionary. Thus, John Walker was undoubtedly forming his theories concerning pronunciation and rhyming prior to teaching at Kensington. The first writing concerning elocu­ tion was published in 1777 and it was a collection of T 04 Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 1. 46

readings. Although singularly important Exercises for the Improvement in Elocution probably did not necessitate the time and effort required to compile the more complex dictionaries. The publication of the rhyming dictionary met with escued discussion by the critics. The major attacks con­ cerning the rhyming dictionary were not concerned with Walker's pronunciations, methods, or combination of words, but rather attacks on the practicality of publishing this type of work. For many, the art of rhyming was definely inspired or an act of the spirit, but surely not acquired from a text. Thus, the publication was often reasoned as merely impractical, and since John Walker had not as yet established recognition, the first publication of the rhyming dictionary was seldom attacked. Quite different in public reaction to the publication of the rhyming dictionary, the mere projection of a pro­ nouncing dictionary met with severe attacks. Thomas Sheridan supported the possibility of such a publication, and he also attempted to project the theories and rules of pronunciation some of which reached publication in 1880. The differences of the class structure, the differing dialects, the numerous listings of words, and a complex system of expressing sounds were arguments used against the publication of pronouncing dictionaries. 47 It must, Indeed, be confessed, that Mr. Sheridan's dictionary is greatly superior to every other that preceded itj and his method of conveying the sound of words, by spelling them as they are pronounced, is highly rational and useful. But here sincerity obliges me to stop. The numerous Instances I have given of impropriety, incon­ sistency, and want of acquaintance with the analogies of the language, sufficiently show how imperfect I think his dictionary is upon the whole, and what ample room was left for attempt­ ing another, that might better answer the purpose of a guide to pronunciation. 105

Although Thomas Sheridan agreed that the practicality of publishing a pronouncing dictionary was innate, James Sheridan Knowles attacked Walker's theories on the very essence of what the author attempted to do. Not only did Walker attempt to give the correct pronunciation of many words but he also suggested the tonal qualities in stating the word. The second inference was severely attacked: . . . the attempt to describe, in writing, or paint, as it were, those modulations, and tones, is about as ridiculous, absurd, and impossible as to attempt to bind the air, or the ocean, in chains. However, the first type of criticism, the impracticability of a pronunciation dictionary, has not been borne out through time. The degree of importance of presenting a pronunci­ ation dictionary formed a second type of criticism. This

105jojinsOn# Johnson's Dictionary, op. clt ., introduction. 10^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 223. 48 type of criticism was based upon an accuteness of pronunci­ ation. Thomas Browne stated: Indeed, since our most eminent orthoepists, Sheridan and Walker, have published their elabor­ ate dictionaries, a prosodial error has become as grating to the ear, as a syntactical one, in writing, is offensive to the eye of the accurate grammarian. The early philologist created only a think line between the meaning of grammar and pronunciation. Pronunci­ ation implied the oral use of expression of the grammatical construct. This would encompass diction, the style and dignity of language. Grammar implied the form of the con­ struction in accordance with the established language rules of English and the accepted spelling of individual words. Thus, grammar was concerned with form, and pronunciation was concerned with the expression of this form. There appeared to be little dispute concerning gram­ matical structure, but a great deal of dispute arose over the pronunciation of these grammatical structures. Thomas Sheridan and John Walker seldom disagreed with the grammati­ cal structures of the English language, but they did disagree with the pronunciation of the grammatical structures. John Walker approached pronunciation by listing numerous divisions of vowels, consonants, and dipthongs, and he based his pronunciations upon these constructs. His

10^Browne, The Union Dictionary, op. cit., p. 2. theories of sounds, which were eventually formed Into rules, emerged from these dimensions of pronunciation. However, in applying the rules of pronunciation, some pronunciations differed from those of Doctor Lowth and Thomas Sheridan, the two major authorities of pronunciation in London. It was with these differentiations that debate and criticisms arose. A third type of criticism, that of pronouncing specific sounds, was heavily debated. John Walker stated that "y" and "w," "i" and "u" were semi-consonant dipthongs.

James Sheridan Knowles stated: . . . as to what constitutes the precise difference between a vowel and a consonant; as may be seen in Mr. Walker, who has, if possible, betrayed his ignorance more palpably than any other Orthoepist, in speaking, not only of *y* and "w,' but of 'i* and }u, * which he calls semi-consonant dipjbhongs. . . .1U0 As H. L. Mencken compared and contrasted the English language to the Ameriean-English language, he reflected a previous debate of the "y" sound as in "Tuesday." Today, the English-American language drops the sound. The English Lexicographer, John Walker, had argued for it in his Critical Pronouncing Diction­ ary and Expositor of the English Language, 17913 but Webster*s prestige,' while he lived remained so high Jg some quarters that he carried the day. ... ^ However, contrasting pronunciations of certain sounds seemed not to be--a major emphasis in comparing it to various

10BIbld., p. 23.

109h . L. Mencken, The American Language (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19*19), p. 3^5. 50 languages, not so much so as comparing it to various dialects of the Isle. A fourth type of criticism was that of defense. There were severe criticisms concerning John Walker's list­ ing of the pronunciation items allowing not only the gram­ marians to attack Walker's theories, but forcing them to defend their particular theories. Typical of this type of defense, Knowles simplified Walker's principles of consonants by merely stating that there were only nineteen: There are nineteen consonant sounds in the English language, as heard in the following words, be, do, off, go, keep, love, me, no, peer, err, sow, tow, veer, zeal, theme, those, she, azure, sing. 110 Typical of the type of criticism of vowels was H. L. Mencken's comments concerning the "a" sounds: In England the 'a' of 'patriotism' is always the 'a' of 'rack,* but in the United States 16 is often that of 'late.' Larsen and Walker say the latter 'a' is used by Americans in 'ignoramus,* 'torando* and 'ultimatum,' but I often hear the •a* of 'dram' in 'ignoramus,' and either that of •rack* or that of 'bar' in 'tornado* and •ultamaturn. 1111 A fifth type of criticism was that of the omission of sounds. John Walker argued for the dropping of the "g" sound in words ending with "ing." "John Walker . . . argued for dropping the 'g* in the final syllables of principles of verbs ending in 'g,' such as in 'singing* and ringing.' " 112

110Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 5 3. •^Mencken, op. cit., p. 339- 112Ibld., p. 349. 51 Usage has not substantiated Walker’s ideas concerning the "g." However, similar to this idea of sounding the "g," various disagreements concerning silent letters emerged. A sixth type of criticism was that of a historical nature. Tracing language to earlier studies presented a firm type of criticism of Walker's theories. The historical approach of criticism Included the following: . . . and had these two letters been called, as they should have been,eee andSa0, which mark their true powers, it is probable that succeeding Gram­ marians would have handed them down to us as being always marks of vocal sounds . . . and that he could, with impunity, sneer at the opinion of the learned prelate Doctor Lowth, who proves, to a demonstration, by a reference to the Canon and modem pronunciation of a few words, that 'y' and *w* are always vowels.H3 Although the preceding suggests that a personal attack was made upon the personality of Walker, this was not a form of criticism against his theories. Quite the opposite was true of the criticism of Thomas Sheridan's theories. Associations to Sheridan's personality and his theories were often confused. Thirteen years later, in 1775* Sheridan published his Lectures on the Art of Reading. This time the critics were mildly vituperative. Their com­ ments were mainly concerned with the personality of Sheridan himself, the reviews being spiced with such statements as: 'Mr. Sheridan rather thinks too highly of himself and his perform­ ances.' 'In this volume, as in the former . . . we find the Author preserving a just idea of his 11^ Knowless Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., pp. 79 80. 52

own consequence, and taking some pains to prevent his readers from overlooking it. * Of the 'natural manner’ itself, they had little to say. One quite obvious type of criticism against both Thomas Sheridan's theories and John Walker’s theories in pronunciation centered around the theatrical background of the two authors which was not considered appropriate for the standardization of pronunciation. This critical premise has been sounded through the years. As recent as 1952, H. L. Mencken criticized the orthoepists and lexigraphers for this assumption in their writing and research: Those pronunciations arose in the court circles of London, were adopted by the more pretentious sort of actors, and were propagated and given standing by the pronouncing dictionaries of Thomas Sheridan (1780) and John Walker (1791), both of whom had been actors and teachers of elocution before they put on the shroud of lexicographer.1^ Thus, the preceding seven types of criticism of Walker's approach to language display the major types that were used as criticisms against his theories. Since the purpose of this study is to more fully define what John Walker stated concerning elocution with emphasis upon gestur­ ing, a further discussion of the problems evolved from Walker's theories of pronunciation would be inappropriate to

11ZtLeland M. Griffin, "Letters to the Press: 1778," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 33, 19^7* P* 1^8.

115h . L. Menchen, Supplement II, The American Language, op. cit., p. 6. 53 this study. However, it becomes necessary to trace the extension of these criticisms. Often the criticisms concerning pronunciation have been involved in evaluating Walker's contribution to elocu­ tion. John White's discussion of Walker’s contributions often referred to pronunciation and elocution in the same statement. John White stated in criticizing the philolo­ gist's rules for pronunciation: "... but npt without remembering that he stood alone in Elocution, and that his system of rules had been promulgated, so far as we know,, by every teacher in the empire."11^ A second quotation from John White implies the extensive use of John Walker's system and suggested his proper ranking in history: Walker has been considered, and justly too, the founder of those numerous rules for the inflec­ tion of the voice, which we find re-echoed in every elocutionary compilation, since the announcement of his system.11? White attacked Walker for presenting too lengthy a listing of principles of pronunciation, although Walker attempted throughout his life to condense these rules to a teachable few, but without success. The inferences of the criticisms of Walker's system of pronunciation could literally be seen in thousands of dictionaries that either included his system without

-^kjohn white, Elementary Elocutionists (London: 1826), p. 3. 117Ibid., p. 1. reservations, or included his system revised and abridged, or included various approaches to pronunciation. Quite typical of these was The Union Dictionary which listed Samuel Johnson as the lexicographer and John Walker as the authority of orthoepy with the disputed exceptions of Thomas Sheridan's specific words also listed. L. Murray's English Reader stated: "... giving the definitions and true pronunciation of the most celebrated John Walker. recently as 1957 the rules of the rhyming dictionary includ­ ing the rules of pronunciation appeared in a publication of

Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language. Although Walker's dictionary was the first publica­ tion of a work similar to Sheridan's, Walker's dictionary was published eleven years later than Thomas Sheridan's book. Many critics refused to accept the indications of a new approach. In Walker Remodelled, one author stated: I have Indeed copied from Walker the method of referring, throughout the Dictionary, to prin­ ciples of pronunciation laid down . . . the discrimination of sounds, the methods of indicating them, and the manner of developing the rules, I have entirely re-cast and re-written the whole of that part of his work. . . ,H9 Secondly, the authors stated that . . it is different in plan and execution not only from Walker's Dictionary, but from all its predecessors of like bulk and similar pretentions."120

Murray, English Reader (London, 1826), preface. 119white, Walker Remodelled, op. cit., preface. 120ibid. John Walker related the rules of pronunciation to the publication of a rather misleading title of The Elocutionist. Having extended his observations of pronunciation into rules, he attonpted to support these rules in The Elocu­ tionist. The author presented examples of his rules as a basis for validity. He presented rules for the inflection of sentences, or parts of sentences, rules for the interro­ gation which he defined as questions asked by pronouns, adverbs, and verbs, questions stated subJunetively, rules for pronouncing the parenthesis, rules for a compound and simple series including harmonic inflections, rules for the exclamation, accent, rhetorical division of words, emphasis and rhetorical punctuation. v Although Walker had previously defined elocution as the style of presentation, he undoubtedly theorized that the rules of pronunciation led to the perfec­ ting of a style. The relationship became obvious in compar­ ing the title of his publication, The Elocutionist, to its content, that of applying pronunciation rules to sentence structure. It is interesting to note that passages, such as included in Exercises for Improvement in Elocution, were not included in The Elocutionist. John Walker was concerned with pronunciation in The Elocutionist, not the style of presen­ tation. Thus, when many of the critics of the philologist attacked Walker’s rules of pronunciation, they were only indirectly attacking the author's emphasis in elocution. Not only have modern critics often expressed a dis­ agreement was between Thomas Sheridan and John Walker con­ cerning gesturing in elocution, but they have seldom con­ sidered the accurate dispute between the two orthoepists concerning the disagreement of pronunciation of certain sounds, and, thus, certain words. In a more accurate approach to this initial disagreement, the authors of A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as are of Dubious; or Unsettled Accentuation stated; Mr. Walker*s Dictionary is undoubtedly a valuable work; and though I have the misfortune sometimes to differ from him, yet this generally proceeds from sacrificing custom to analogy; but the assistance I have received from his book, notwith­ standing, cannot be too much or too often acknowledged.I21 This approach seemed also to be the more recent approach of H. L. Menchen's two book series on the American language. A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller's history of the English language emphasized Walker's importance as a revolutionary leader. They remarked concerning the short and long lines of English hexameteres in poetry that: Walker, of the famous dictionary, writing towards the end of the eighteenth century, sneers at the whole subject, but practically repeates what Bysshe had said at the beginning, that a line has so many

121P. and C. Rivington, G. and T. Wilkie, L. B. Seeley, and Goadly, Lerpiniere and Langdon, A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as Are of Dubious, or Unsettled Accentuation (London: 1797V, PP. i-ii. 57 syllables, and icturs In such and so many places.122 Reportedly, John Walker was not greatly concerned with being contemporarily accepted for his principles, and the foreword to The Academic Speaker displays his attitude toward the acceptance of his principles: n. . .he does not flatter himself that the present production will meet with a very cordial reception at first; but hopes that time will Justify him in this . . . ,,123 Thus, the preceding pages have presented Walker’s definitions of pronunciation and elocution and, by reviewing several types of criticisms launched against the author, a clearer understanding of Walker’s relationship between pronunciation and elocution has been established. Through analyzing the criticisms of John Walker’s theories by his contemporaries, a clearer understanding of the amount of emphasis Walker placed upon orthoepy and lexicography was compared to the author’s emphasis of elocution. Through an investigation of John Walker's relationship of orthoepy and elocution, and the use of these terminologies by his critics and, indeed, himself, the basis for a misunderstanding of

Walker’s emphasis appeared evident. It is interesting to

122A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller, The Cambridge History of English Literature (New York: The Macmillan Company; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939)* Vol. XIII, pp. 266-2 6 7. 123john Walker, The Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xix. 58 j note that it is probably through these misunderstandings

that some modem criticism is based. The preceding pages have attempted to present a clearer understanding of the background of John Walker’s recognition and of the relationship between orthoepy and lexicography and elocution. In presenting this understand­ ing, a clearer implication of the basis of modern criticism of John Walker's reputation as an elocutionist emerges.

[ CHAPTER V

NATURALISM AND MECHANICALISM

Mary Margaret Robb stated: "A theory evolved until in its flowering it looked so dissimilar to its original self that those who interpreted it found two distinct and opposing theories. "-1-22* Some twentieth century criticism of John Walker's theories emphasized the contrived and un-natural aspects of his contribution and related these specifically to elocu­ tion. The implications of some modern writings are mislead­ ing. For example, Mary Margaret Robb stated concerning Elements of Elocution, "It is filled with rules for pause, inflection, modulation, and gestures, and shows clearly the great interest which Walker had in developing a mechanical system for speech."125 Giles Wilkeson Gray stated: "... John Walker, whose Elements of Elocution is so full of 'rules* that he has been credited with being one of the prime movers in the 'mechanical' school . . The

12/*Mary Margaret Robb, Oral Interpretation of Liter­ ature in American Colleges and Universities (New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 19^1), p. 36* 125lbld., p. 34.

12^Giles Wilkeson Gray, "What Was Elocution?" Quar­ terly Journal of Speech, Vol. 46, (i960), p. 4.

59 60

Implication of the following seems to be misleading: "Never­ theless-, his [Walker's] methods for directing students in developing a good delivery seem to differ greatly from those of Sheridan who took his cues from nature."12^ Wallace A. Bacon cited the problem more accurately: There are, in elocution and in interpretation, the two ‘dangerous shores' between which, or on which, any ship can founder. The double character of the subject can be stated in a whole series of com­ pounds: scholarship-showmanship, reason-passion, logic-emotion— even, in the eyes of some observers, in the pair dull-exciting. Or in the old pair, natural-mechanical.128 Some modern writers also record Thomas Sheridan as the founder of a natural school of elocution^ Sheridan, it can be seen, gave only general sug­ gestions in regard to the voice; he set forth no definite rules. He became leader of what was known later as the 'follow Nature' school and his under­ lying philosophy was adopted by several later writers.129 Thus, the history of elocution definitely records the exist­ ence of two elocutionary movements. The purpose of this chapter is to more fully define what John Walker stated concerning the naturalistic and mechanistic qualities of his theories. It is purported that

127Robb, op. cit., p. 3 6. 12®Wallace A. Bacon, "The Dangerous Shores: Prom Elocution to Interpretation,V Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 46 (i960), pp. 149-150. 129charles A. Fritz, "Sheridan to Rush; the Begin­ nings of English Elocution," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 16, (1930), p. 77- 61 the criticisms of Walker's theories of elocution were based upon the mechanical analysis of sentence structure rather than the mechanical methodology of teaching gesturing. The scientific approach was not new to the study of language, but it had seldom been applied during John Walker's period. James E. Murdoch stated: The art of elocution was carried to a high degree of perfection amongst the Greeks, and we have reason to believe that they possessed a scientific analysis of the speaking voice, and a system of vocal culture founded thereon; but, owing to the loss of so many of their works on the subject, particularly of the primary manuals of the gram­ marians, and to the fact that the living tones of the language had long passed away, the moderns have had no means of judging how far the elements of vocal sound in speech were discovered and taught. 130 Jack Lindsay presented an insight into John Walker's period by stating: Newtonian Mechanics were dominate in science, and its preconceptions powerfully affected the whole world of thought, even on the simplest levels. The universe was a mechanism, a sort of watch wound up by God; a stage-coach was a 'machine,' and so was man. Society too: 'The public is like a huge machine, that moves and acts unconscious of the powers by which its notions are impelled or dii»ected.' The microscope had seemed to show that nature was infinitely divisible into small and smaller animals. . . . But at the same time botany and zoology were making great strides, though chafing againSb mechanistic systems of classification.131

■*■3°James E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg and Company, ldo3)j PP. 20-21. ■^lLindsay, op. cit., p. 240. 62

The effects of this scientific emphasis was carried to the

American educational systems. The mechanical theories of Walker coming into con­ flict with the *follow Nature' ideas of Sheridan gave rise to the two schools of elocution which were destined to exist for so long. The followers of Sheridan attacked Walker's system of inflec­ tions as highly artificial. The conflict was carried over to the American colleges and academ­ ies. Several American editions were published of the works of both Sheridan and Walker and were used as texts in the schools until well into the 19th Century.^32

In current communications the natural and the mechan­ ical appear to be polar opposites, extremes with little in common. The natural contains little if any of the mechani­ zation; the mechanical contains little if any of the natural. Although debatable, the general theory still persists. In the early twentieth century's emphasis upon the application of knowledge to practical functionings, a simi­ lar emphasis upon naturalism and simplicity accompanied the progressive ideas. Concepts of simplicity were obvious in all forms of art and design. Writing became less contrived. Theories were broken into their singular principles. The theories of John Walker and his approach toward teaching the various aspects of philology appeared too com­ plex and were altered by a "more natural," or simpler, system. In directing our modem emphasis toward simplicity, we have inferred that the opposite approach, the more complex

^ 2Fritz, op. cit., p. 82 . 63 view, was un-natural or, more precisely, mechanical. This assumption has been one basis for assuming that Walker’s theories of punctuation and gesturing were based upon the mechanical technique. Frederick W. Haberman stated that the various writings of John Walker suggested that Walker made rules rather than observed and systematized notations and stated that Walker was a pedagoist who made standards of elocutionary training.^ 3 A more accurate evaluation would be that John Walter’s theories of punctuation and gesturing were less simple, more complex, than the approaches to the theories and practices of public speaking and oral reading usdd by Walker’s contemporaries. Sheridan’s approach appeared to be less complex. Sheridan's works on elocution and delivery, although eloquently and impressively written, make no attempt at a philosophical analysis or description of the intonations of the speaking voice. He was, however, the first writer to call attention to the power of sound in our language, and to the fact that while scholars were skilled in letters, they were ignorant of the vital part of their native tongue existing in its vocal forms. 134 Contrary to many current ideas of John Walker's emphasis, the philologist considered his system of movements to be based in nature but also selective of nature. Evi­ dences of the relationships between his theories and nature

133prederick W. Haberman, "English Sources of Araerl can Elocution," History of Speech Education in America, ed. Karl R. Wallace (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), pp. 116-117. 134Murdoch, op. cit., p. 24. 6U are numerous throughout his lifetime, and he clearly de­ fined the limitations of a purely natural system of gesturing. In Elements of Elocution Walker stated "The reason of action in speaking is in the nature of things. . . ,"135 and he referred to words as being an expression of emotion and implied that most words, or that most combinations of words in context, have innately an emotional context. Prom the innate emotional context of words, Walker attempted to develop a system of relaying the emotion within the reader or speaker to the audience. In stating an approach to cre­ ating these natural feelings on which to build gestures, John Walker stated: Calling to mind, therefore, such passages of our own life as are similar to those we read or speak of, will, if I am not mistaken, considerably assist us in gaining that fervour and warmth of expres­ sion, which, by a certain ssmpathy, is sure to affect those who hear us.^o The natural basis of gesturing was referred to when Walker stated "A man's own feelings will often tell him how far he may venture with safety. nl37 He referred in the previous statement to a natural sensitivity of the individ­ ual in presenting a degree of both visual and vocal expres­

sion. In referring specifically to action, he stated: ". . . it is of the utmost consequence, that this be such

•^walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 261. ^ibid., pp. 309-3 1 0 .

137ibid., p. 270. 65 as is suitable and natural.h138 More specifically, in referring to teaching gesturing, the author stated that "... the action of the arm will, naturally, go up into what we have just described. "■*■39 jn the introduction to

The Teacher's Assistant in English Composition the author stated: "To follow Nature, therefore, is that happy medium in which the excellence of almost every operation lies, is the intention of the following Work."11*0 Thus, Walker's writing indicated that he theorized the foundation of his approach in and supported by the natural. He recognized the natural emphasis as the basis of appropriate pronunci­ ation and gesturing. Although reportedly basing his theories on a natural emphasis, Walker found two major lackings of complete dependency upon the natural. The first is today referred to as aesthetic distance from the manuscript to the audience or too large an amount of emotional envolvement. "An excess of feeling (unpremeditated actuated) . . . would render us incapable of expressing ourselves, so as properly to affect others."11*1 In considering public speaking and

^ I b i d ., p. 264. ^^alker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. x. l4oWalker, The Teacher's Assistant in English Composi­ tion or Easy Rules for Writing Themes and Composing Exer­ cises, op. cit., p. vi. l2flWalker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 277- 278. 66 oral reading as disciplines, Walker felt that a control over emotions should be used to the extent that the attri­ butes of the emotion would be accepted by the audience. Secondly, Walker realized the limitations of the speaker in not always being able to create the natural emotion. Thus, the philologist stated some limitations of the emotions, or limitations of a purely natural inspiration in speaking: But our natural feelings are not always to be com­ manded; and when they are, stand in need of the regulations and embellishments of art; it is the business, therefore, of every reader and speaker in public to acquire such tones and gestures as nature gives to the passions; that he may be [misprint repeat of ‘may be*J able to produce the semblance of them when he is not actually impassioned. By stating a control over the emotions, John Walker did not eliminate the idea that gesturing is based upon natural emotion, but emphasized that when natural emotion was not present, a technique for applying the emotion should be developed by the effective public speaker and oral reader, and, secondly, when the emotion was present, it should be controlled. The second reasoning is not unlike the two modern extremes of acting technique, the traditionalists often emphasizing technique, and the many modern actors emphasiz­ ing a reassociation to the emotions. Simplifying these acting techniques to the former group being inspired by

1/t2Ibid., p. 267. 67 emotion, seemed the extreme of reasoning similar to saying that John Walker*s emphasis was mechanistic and Thomas Sheridan*s emphasis was naturalistic. However, the chang­ ing picture of elocution had a very similar transition as acting. British stage speech in the eighteenth century was an imitation of the style that had developed in Prance somewhat earlier. Actors spoke their lines in a cadenced monotone that paid little heed to meaning but which thumped the regularity of the rhythm and the rhyme and played entirely on the beauty of the sound of the language. Lines were read for their auditory magnificence when chanted in this cadenced monotone, and many of the speeches of plays written in this style sound like nonsense when read in an ordinary tone of voice. Garrick presented to the public a new style of presentation, one in which meaning or ideas dominated. Into this milieu David Garrick's realistic, mean­ ingful reading of lines burst like a skyrocket showering infinite varieties of enunciation upon adoring audiences. For perhaps the first time in generations, theatre audiences listened to the lines of the play rather than to the voices and the readings of the actors. David Garrick had created a natural mode of delivery which, both in manner and in quality was capable of emulation in declamatory or public speaking situations outside the theatre. A sensation has been created and a lot of people were eager to emulate the new mode. John Walker supported a theory of controlled-natural- ism. The philologist stated: ". . .we ought to study the effects and appearances of the passions, that we may be able

^ 3 j0hn b. Newman, "The Role of Joshua Steele in the Development of Speech Education in America," Speech Mono­ graphs , Vol. 20 (1953), PP* 66-6 7. 144Ibid.

1 68 to exhibit them when we are not really impassioned; and when we are, to give passion its most agreeable expression."12^ Thus, Walker did not recognize artificial gesturing or an anti-natural gesture as appropriate to public speaking and oral reading, but he attempted to put forth a theory of controlled-naturalism, "improved and beautiful nature is the object of the painter's pencil, the poet's pen, and the rhetorician's action, and not that sordid and common nature which is perfectly rude and uncultivated."12^ The author's emphasis is controlling the crudity of the natural was reflected in his statement of: The common feelings of nature, with the signs that express them, undergo a kind of modification, which is suitable to the taste which must necessarily be the vehicle of everything we convey agreebly to the public we belong to.12*7 Walker expressed that there are cultural limitation to the expressions of the emotions. The speaker or oral reader operating under the cultural limitations of expressions also must operate under the cultural limitations of the particu­ lar time in which he speaks. John Walker referred to this element indirectly as he stated that "... the oratory of the moderns does not require all those various evolutions of gesture, which was almost indispensable in the

1 ^Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 278. l2t^ Walker,Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. vi. ■^^Whlker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 262. 69 ancients. ..." Walker realized that time and culture also limited the naturalness of effective expression. The appropriateness of the gesturing and/or the inap­ propriateness of the lack of gesturing also created another dimension important to the speaker. He recognized the inap­ propriateness of the lack of gesturing and stated: . . . that boys should stand motionless, when they are pronouncing the most impassioned language, is extremely absurd and unnatural; and that they should sprawl into an awkward, ungain, and desultory action, is still more offensive and disgusting. The early philologist also realized tta t some of his contemporaries did not support the very essence of teaching gesturing: “There are, indeed, some masters who are against teaching boys any action at all, and are for leaving them in this point entirely to nature, Ml50 an(j cleverly footnoted

"— Ergo nec studium sine divite vena, Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium.h151 In briefly summarizing Walker's approach concerning the naturalness of gesturing, he reportedly based his theor­ ies on nature but believed that a control over the natural was essential. He believed that gesturing was limited from the natural by cultural and time limitations. Appropriate­ ness played a vital role. When natural inspiration was not

14t*Ibld., p. 263. ^9walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. vi. ^ibid., p. xvili.

^^-Ibid., footnote. 70 attainable, a discipline or technique must advance the speaking occasion in which to introduce a natural gesture. Writers contemporary to Walker also attacked the basis of his writing as un-natural rather than attacking his theories of controlling the natural. James Sheridan Knowles stated in Orthoepy and Elocution that ", . . amongst the moderns the instilted signs of tones, gestures, etc., were not founded on nature, but caprice and fancy. More appropriately, he could have stated that Walker's theories of controlling the natural were capricious and fanciful. This criticism was not unlike other dogmatic criticism of Walker by James Sheridan Knowles. In consid­ ering the rules of pronunciation, Knowles stated that "Mr. Walker . . . [exposed] . . . his radical ignorance of the very nature and power of our simple and compound sounds" and continued to dispute the natural inferences in Walker's principles of pronunciation rather than the essence of his

t h e o r i e s . ^ 3 John White did not attack the basis of John

Walker's theories either, but attacked Walker's method of handling the theories. Approaching the same subject from the statements of mechanical implications found in Walker's theories, the philologist stated quite obviously that his procedure for

■^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 207. 153ibid., pp. 79-80. training a controlled-natural gesture had a mechanistic implication. He stated:"There is a certain mechanical dexterity to be acquired, before the beautiful conceptions we possess can be communicated to others. This mechanism is an essential of all fine arts."1^ He continued by stat­ ing that correctly directed habitual practice in what may first seem un-natural eventually resulted in the acquiring of the habit into a natural performance. Thus, the mechani­ cal acquiring of the habit served Walker only as a technique to acquire naturalness. A degree of mechanicalism became the means to naturalness, not the product itself. Walker recognized the importance and interrelationship of artificially induced practice becoming the means of acquiring the natural realization of emotions. He recog­ nized Edmund Burke's Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beaut iful1^ to the extent that using a technique which implied an emotion often led the speaker ihto the actual experiencing of the emotion. "Hence it is, that though we frequently begin to read and speak, without feeling any of the passion we wish to express, we often end in full possession of it.”1^ walker referred to Burke's text and stated that Burke . . . observes, that there is such a connection between the internal feeling of a passion, and the

-*-5talker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 119. *55 ibid., pp. 278-279. • r " r t. 156Ibid., pp. 279-280. 72

external expression of it, that we cannot put ourselves in the posture, or attitude, of any passion, without communicating a certain degree of the passion itself to the mind.1-?* Again, these references indicated that Walker*s emphasis upon the mechanical was to reach the affect of controlled- naturalism. Through this line of reasoning Walker attempted to set forth the attitudes and physical postures of various emotions so they could not only be recognized by the audiences of the early nineteenth century In England, but also so the physi­ cal positions and attitudes would lead toward greater naturalism of a selective affect. This may serve to show the necessity of studying and imitating those tones, looks, and gestures, that accompany the passions, that we may dispose ourselves to feel them mechanically, and improve our expression of them when we feel them spontane­ ously; for by imitation of the passion we meet it, as It were, half way.158

Much of the negative criticism of Walker’s mechanical emphasis was not related to the techniques for presenting controlled-naturalism in gesturing, but was directed to Walker’s literary analysis of sentence structure for oral presentation. Walker’s text, The Elocutionist, stated rules for the inflection of sentences or parts of sentences. He divided these into a system for the purpose of analysis to clarify the relationship between language structure and vocal

157Ibid., pp. 278-279. 158Ibid., p. 280. 73 emphasis. Prom this type of analysis grew his five hundred and fifty-nine rules for emphasizing, most of which were rules of pronunciation. This was considered as scientific. The first attempt at a scientific treatment of the voice was made by John Walker (1732-1807) whom Murdoch calls the father of the English system of elocution. Walker claimed the honor of having discovered the upward and downward movements of the voice in speech, which he called the rising and falling inflections.159 These numerous rules of grammar governing vocal in­ flection were under heavy attack by orthoepists during John Walker's period. Most of the eminent orthoepists, Elphinsone, Kenrick, Scot, Buchana, W. Johnson, Enlick, Ash, and

N a v e s , -^O drew Walker to the defense of his principles of pronunciation. James Sheridan Knowles stated: . . . the rules of Mr. Walker, used chiefly by teachers in Scotland, in applying his rising and falling inflections, and his rising and falling circumflex, to about a thousand and one mechani­ cal divisions of sentences, into rhetorical mem­ bers, in reading, for they could never be observed in delivery, are at once as subversive of every natural inflexion, as,-they are absurd and ridicu­ lous in the extreme. t>1 Murdoch commented upon this type of criticism of Walker's theories: Mr. Sheridan had many followers, all of whom set themselves against the system of Mr. Walker, and cried down his theory of inflections as absurd

159pritz, op. cit., p. 77 (Murdoch, pp. 22-23.) l6°Browne, The Union Dictionary, op. cit., p. 2.

•^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 223. 74 and productive of artificial effects. Toward the close of the century, however, the author of a small treatise, called "The Art of Delivering Written Language, * and dedicated to David Garrick, produced a philosophical and convincing proof of the inflection of speaking sounds. This estab­ lished the matter, and Walker’s works became the accepted guides to the art of delivery.1®2 Both Enfield in his “Speaker11 and Lindley Murray’s grammar used Walker's theory of markings. “The system now received universal approbation, and was taught by all masters of elo­ cution.”^ ^ John Walker attempted to simplify his listing of principles governing Inflection until his death, but he was never able to establish an acceptably simplified list­ ing to meet with the approyal of many of his contemporary orthoepists. The objections to the mechanical inferences in Walker's theories were not as prevalent toward his theories of teaching gestures as they were toward his physical divi­ sions of sentence structure for the purpose of analysis. For example, James Sheridan Knowles wrote that “Mr. Walker from exposing his radical ignorance of the very nature and power of our simple and compound sounds, and being so absurd as to think that Mr. Sheridan’s works were becoming obso- 1 flu lete . . . referred to the various theories of Walker and Sheridan concerning the pronunciation of "y" and "w,"

1 ^Murdoch, op. cit., p. 24.

l63lbid.

•^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. vii. 75 not the basis or method of teaching gesturing. John White wrote "We consider Walker to have erred agregiously in hav­ ing so many rules— and these, too, so liable to objection. Any division for analysis has, by necessity, a mechan­ ical implication simply by dividing the whole into parts for analysis. Any analysis, thus, has mechanical implications. When language was analyzed into divisions the very act of separating the parts had a degree of mechanical application. Walker analyzed language by separating it into what he con­ sidered as logical divisions. By doing this, he used a mechanical method. Diagraming inflections was a method of showing an analysis of language. Breaking a word into syllables, breaking syllables into sounds, breaking sounds into tongue placements, etc., were mechanical methods of analysis. However, the implication that a mechanical divi­ sion produced a mechanical result seems erroneous to this researcher. The purpose and intent of the analysis must also be considered, and it was Walker's purpose and intent to create a controlled-naturalistic emphasis of presentation. In clarifying the relationship between Walker's emphasis in mechanical movement his desire to obtain a natural appearing movement, the extremes of a mechanical school of movement and a natural school of movement did not exist. This idea has been investigated by Wallace A. Bacon

^White, Elementary Elocutionists,, op. cit., p. vii. 76 who stated “And it [intelligent-emotion] is served not simply by 'mechanical1 means, not simply by 'natural' means, but by both sides of that dichotomy."1^ Bacon stated: The eighteenth century term elocution embraced not alone the classical concept of 'style of composi­ tion, * but the whole conveyance of meaning through style of composition delivered, and it was neither a 'mechanical' nor a 'natural1 view, which recog­ nized that Sense was the determining element, and that all passions must arise from and be fixed by that element.1&7

Giles Wilkeson Gray stated concerning naturalism and mechan­ icalism during Walker's period: There are not enough differences between them to make worthwhile a vast amount of research in an effort to pinpoint the insignificant distinctions that one may find if one is looking for them. The differences among the adherents, or supposed adher­ ents, of the two 'schools' are as great and as frequent as are those existing between the two.100 Some modern writings imply that Thomas Sheridan fathered the natural movement and John Walker supported the mechanical movement, but Walker's writings clearly state his relation­ ship to naturalness. Taken a step further, Walker used much the same system as Sheridan, both men teaching through demonstration what was acceptable to their age and what was not. Each man set himself up as an example to be mimiced, and if this is to be considered as mechanical emphasis, both men were equally guilty. More accurately, "The combined influence, however, of Walker and Sheridan tended to awaken

l^Bacon, op. cit., p. 152. l67ibid. l68(jray, op. cit., p. 5 . a new interest in reading, which, up to their time, had been taught in a hard, dry, mechanical manner, entirely devoid of expressive meaning."1^

Seemingly inconsistent with Walker’s approach to elo­ cution, Walker presented what he considered to be the basis of humor. Walker seldom referred to humor as an aspect of oral reading or public speaking for the selections for prac­ tice and presentation were of a serious quality. However, in his one reference to comedy, he mentioned the natural element. He stated: "This last species of speaking [humor] seems indeed more peculiarly the gift of nature than any of the rest; and the comic speaker, like the poet, must be born not made."1^'0 In review, a technique of teaching controlled-natural movement through prescribed positions became a technique of' acquiring the naturalism of movement for both John Walker and Thomas Sheridan. Although Walker extended this to greater depths by more thoroughly analyzing the passions, \ both men taught on basically the same approach. John Walker’s emphasis upon mechanical gesturing was directed to obtaining an acceptable natural gesture, and his method, although appearing mechanical at the on-set of practice, soon attempted to develop into natural expressive movement for his period.

^^Murdodh, op. cit., p. 26.

^TOyjalker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xx. 78 If modern critics insist that mechanicalism and naturalism are to be considered as separate teaching tech­ niques, the mechanical inference could be much better sup­ ported through the teachings of the French Delsarte (1811- 1871) with his precise charts of degrees of expression, but even he insisted that a speaker or reader should not drift far from naturalism and he attempted to substantiate his charts on universally and socially acceptable presentational patterns. Delsarte diagramed his theories more than either John Walker or Thomas Sheridan. However, diagraming does not imply mechanical presentations. The influences of Delsarte*s theories were felt in the United States. Giles Wilkeson Gray stated: Many who would not delve into the philosophies of the early writers on elocution, or who could not grasp their principles, turned to the mysticism that developed in this country from the theories of Delsarte. One result was that much of the elocution of the late nineteenth and early twen­ tieth centuries degenerated into statue-posing, bird-calls, and imitation of children— probably not all of which was imitation.^71 Helen Hayes mentioned the Delsarte charts in an interview which was directed at defining her opinions and Views of acting technique. She said: I studied with— well, she was a forerunner let us say of the Method, and her name was Frances Robinson-Duff. She was a teacher of many big actors of that time, and she used the Delsarte

1^1Gray, op. cit., p. 7 . 79 chart— which I never hear of any more, but it was like the Method, which derives from Stanislavsky.172 The interviewer stated: "The Delsarte chart had certain positions for certain emotions." Helen Hayes remarked: Yes, and it worked with— you know— it worked with the diaphragm, with breathing, with the whole use of the body, and so on. And it was very compli­ cated and some of it seemed a little ridiculous, but it probably all added up to giving one a little more understanding how to communicate What you wanted to an audience.173

172 ' Lewis Funke and John E. Booth, Actors Talk about Acting (New York: Random House, 1961), p. "8J* 173ibid. CHAPTER VI

THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

After several years of professional acting, John Walker ended his activity In theatre in 1768 and taught at Kensington College during the next two years, and thereafter became a traveling lecturer of elocution. In speaking before both students and professors of the English countryside, he not only presented a theory of elocution, but also presented a methodology of teaching to support his theories. Some of the methodology which he presented is pres­ ently applicable to teaching speech; some has been dispelled for other methodology. A synopsis of Walker's teaching methodology not only presents a clearer understanding of the elements of elocution which were valued by preceding elocu­ tionists, but it clarifies the methods and principles of Walker's technique. The author's theories of teaching sup­ ported many of his principles. With practical experience in theatre and emphasis upon writing, structure and grammar, public speaking and oral reading, Walker advanced several methods of teaching which characterized his approach to elocution and general speech. Although a complete listing of his techniques was impossible to conceive from his writings, many indicated his particular direction. 80 81

Perhaps the two most emphatic methods which Walker advanced into contemporary application were those that con­ cerned habits and gesturing. Prom these, much twentieth century criticism has evolved. The purpose of this chapter is to more fully define what John Walker advanced in both theory and methodology concerning gesturing and habit and to consider related theories. In attempting to avoid the confusions of many writers concerning this subject, it became necessary to redefine the relationship between pronunciation and elocution. Prom this analysis of Walker's theory and methodology of teaching gesturing, the author seemed to emphasize two approaches, one of teaching general speech and the second of teaching oral reading. Although often discussed simultaneously, Walker did differentiate these two aspects of elocution. Remembering that Walker's major interest was orthoepy, he presented his views less profusely and explicitly concern­ ing elocution, the extension of orthoepy into practice. Elocution, as Walker defined it, included more emphasis upon pronunciation than current practice. Elocution was a refer­ ence to both public speaking and oral reading. He stated that ‘'Elocution, in the modern sense of the word, seems to signify that pronunciation which is given to words“~when they are arranged into sentences and form disbourseL lll72* James

John Walker, Elements of Elocution,/op. cit., p. 1. 82

E. Murdoch expressed a similar Idea: Elocution is but an artistic copy of intelligent, significant, and expressive speech, as employed in our communication with each other, either In the energized enforcement of deliberate argument, the sympathetic and endearing expressions of affectionate intercourse, the bursts of passion, or the ordinary statement of facts and circum­ stances which concern our business or other relations.1'5

Walker differentiated public speaking from oral reading: The art of reading is that system of rules, which teaches us to pronounce written composition with justness, energy, variety, and ease . . . that not only expresses the sense of an author . . . but which, at the same time, give it all that force, beauty, and variety, of which it is susceptible: the first of these belongs to grammar (author's sense), and the last to rhetoric. There appeared to be misunderstandings of the terminology of elocution during Walker's period. Since pronunciation was a major theme of both definitions, the definition of pronunci­ ation somewhat clarified the definition of elocution. Pronunciation, in its largest sense may signify the utterance of words, either taken separately or in connection with each other; but the pro­ nunciation of words, connected Into a sentence, seems very properly specified by elocution.!77 Thus, pronunciation was a major aspect of both public speak­ ing and oral reading. John Walker recognized oral reading as distinctive of public speaking, controlled by many of the same rules, but

■^Murdoch, op. cit., p. 1 9* ■^^Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 2. •*•77Ibid., p. 1. 83 individualized by degrees of posture, procedure, and more subtle gestures. Although the basic purposes of oral read­ ing and public speaking seemed to have not changed since Walker’s period, the terminology, and perhaps some methods, have been transformed. The title page of Murray’s English Reader not only expressed some of the purposes of oral interpretation, but also established some of the general objectives which have undergone at least a semantic change. This book, based on Walker's theories of pronunciation, was "Designed to assist young persons to read with propriety and effect: to improve their language and sentiments; and to inculcate some of the most important principles of piety and virtue.Ml78 Although tinged by the Romantic Movement, undoubtedly the purposes of oral interpretation included the understanding of the material and a vocal and gesticular technique of expressing the written page. John Walker stated a similar idea as held by many modern philologists concerning the attitudes toward public speaking and oral reading. He felt that having the facili­ ties to speak and having the practice throughout one's life did not assure the individual of being an effective speaker. He found few were proficient in the application of their

^^Murray,English Reader, op. cit., title page. 84 energies to gesturing In public speaking and oral reading: Such, however, is the force of custom, that though we all confess the power and necessity of this branch of public speaking, we find few, in our country at least, that are hardy enough to put it into practice.179 Walker tended to maintain a similar attitude with mental strain, practice, physical effort, and sensitivity required of the speaker to attain an acceptable degree of speaking proficiency. A popular analytical trend of the late seventeen hundreds was that of associating current events to the past history and basing analysis upon the same rules as the predecessors. Walker also made references to what the past teachers of pronunciation, rhyming, and elocution had taught, but he commonly drew exceptions to What they had previously established. The philologist projected that a comparison of elocu­ tion and the rules of the past should be considered with cultural limitations. For example, Walker stated that national tastes were responsible for a change in physical gesturing: The truth is, though the reason of action in speak­ ing is in the nature of things, the difficulty of acquiring the other requisites of an orator, and the still greater difficulty of attaining excellence in action (which after all our pains is less esteemed than excellencies of another kind) these I say, seem to be the reasons why action is so little cultivated among usj to this we may add, that so

•^^alker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 260- 261. 85

different are national tastes in this particular, that hardly any two people agree in the just proportion of this so celebrated quality of an orator. Walker did not prescribe a return to the older theor­ ies of oratory as originally conceived, but he did accept some of their techniques of training as applicable to his teaching. He referred to the comparison in the following statement: But though the oratory of the moderns does not re­ quire all those various evolutions of gesture, which was almost indispensable in the ancients, yet a certain degree of it must necessarily enter Into the composition of every good speaker and reader.1®1 He attempted to project the theory of gesturing of the ancients into the conception that there were certain universal gestures, expressions, that were unlimited by time and cul­ ture, and he theorized that when we became part of time and society, we were compelled to accept these modifications. The common feelings of nature, with the signs that express them, undergo a kind of modification, which is suitable to the taste and genius of every nation; and it is this national taste which must necessarily be the vehicle of everything we con­ vey agreebly to the public we belong to.10*2 The historical approach was also used by the critics of John Walker. John White attempted to defend Walker by stating that his rules were based upon the laws of Medes and

1^QIbid., p. 261.

l8lIbid., p. 2 6 3. 182Ibid., p. 262. 86

P e r s i a n s . l83 James Sheridan Knowles stated a direct con­ trast between the ancients and the then modern philologists: . . . the difference between the ancients and moderns lies in this; that the ancients founded all their instituted signs on nature. . . . But amongst the moderns the instituted signs of tones, gestures, etc., were not founded on nature, but caprice and fancy; and obtained their whole force from fashion and custom. 184 The romantic critic could not justify a study of gesturing, and he stated that gestures were: . . . like her speech, carries evident marks with it, of its divine origin; as it corresponds exactly to its archetype, and is, therefore, universally legible, without pains or study; and, as it contains in itself a powerAgf exciting similar, or analogous emotions.1^

He continued his argument by stating that nature and speech, and thus gesturing, were natural elements "... proceeding from the touching of one master-spring, internal feeling, must always answer to each other . . . in perfect unison. ,,J-OD Others felt that Walker's theories were taken from other sources. According to Warren Guthrie he felt that the Melody of Speaking Delineated was a pirating of Steele's Prosodia. He stated that "Marks set up for the recording of sounds are very similar to Steele's, and Walker's much

-^^white, Elementary Elocutionist, op. cit., p. vii. •^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 207.

l85xbid., p. 203. l86Ibld. vaunted 'discovery,1 the circumflex, was already in

Steele."1®? James E. Murdoch agreed:

Although this author claimed the theory of inflec­ tions to have been his own, it is possible he ob­ tained his idea of the slide as applied to modern from Steele's valuable essay, though evidently adapting the application of the principles to his individual views on the subject. We are left largely to conjecture upon this point, since, although contemporary^ each of these authors seems to ignore the other. Regardless of the source, Walker's theories were recognized: In elocution, Walker's works were, as I have said, the accepted and popular text-books for reading and speaking. Steele's theory, therefore, which was long in advance of the age, finally found a rest- ingplace on the undusted shelves of English libraries.i°9 Guthrie has recently identified what he considered to be the source of Walker's theories: In his Rhetorical Grammar (1785), John Walker ap­ propriates material from Burgh, Priestly, Blair, Gibbons, and Steele, as well as from Ward. Ward, together with Priestly, provides him with the most of his remarks on invention, being at some points quoted verbatim and at others under the thinnest disguise. 3-90

Concerning the modulation of the phrase by the voice, Murdoch traced Walker's theory to the Greeks. "The grammar of the Greeks was taught in connection with the study of music, and

18?Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America 1635-1&70, "The Elocution Movement- Eneland." Speech Monographs, Vol. XVIII (1951), PP. 27-29. lSSjyiurdoch, op. cit., pp. 26-27. l89lbid., p. 2 5. 190(juthrie, op. cit., pp. 27-29. 88 many of the vocal characteristics of the latter was said to belong to their spoken language."1^1 John Walker emphasized that language was not natural in degree, although peculiar to man. Language, thus speech and writing, were limited by cultural aspects of national tastes. Hius, language contained a necessity for being trained, and he emphasized that there were many aspects limiting the teaching of speech. A scientific method of teaching during John Walker's period was that of dividing a large unit into many parts for analysis. The phoneticists of this period concentrated upon individual pronunciations, and seldom continued to the next sound until the first had been fully mastered. Rhetoricians Btudied in detail the construction of each line of a speech from the classicists. Hie theory that knowledge was a logi­ cal progression of steps with definite mastery before con­ tinuation dominated this period of teaching. It was not incongruous that Walker divided the units of emotion into their individual units for the purpose of study, nor that he formulated his rules of pronunciation and writing upon this same analytical trend. Yet, John White attacked Walker for this approach to analysis: . . . we affirm, that Walker has separated and mutilated a system complete in itself— and he has broken down a grand whole, the fabric and gift of

■^Murdoch, op. cit., p. 21. 89 nature, Into a disgraceful number of Isolated and independent parts. . . .1°2 One aspect of teaching was that youthful students presented a very different problem from teaching the more mature students. Older speakers established firm habits that were difficult to readjust: . . . the action of the best readers and speakers, may, with some cautions, be recommended to youth; but cannot with the same Safety lie proposed to those, who, by long practice, are confirmed in habits of their own.193 John Walker’s theories were more applicable to the teaching of the youthful students. Several evidences through­ out his writings entailed his discussion of speech around the teaching of "boys." For example, "that boys should stand motionless . . . an(j . the attitude in which a boy should always place himself. . . . "199 Although the refine­ ment of elocution was directed in Walker's writings toward the male sex, had the protocol of this period allowed female students, the same applications would probably have been applied. During the middle of the nineteenth century, it became fashionable for young women to be trained in elocu­ tion and reference was drawn from Walker's writings, but the movement had only begun Its force during Walker's life.

192white, Elementary Elocutionist, op. cit., p. viii.

19%alker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 269. 19**Walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. vi.

195Ibid., p. vil. The writer stated that the students should be grouped according to their abilities which one must assume included their present knowledge and skill of public speaking and oral reading. He stated that the students should be ”. . . classed . . . as in every kind of instruction, according to their abilities. . . . " 1 9 6 He did not clarify how he measured the degree of ability necessary for various divisions. The academician advised "... that a class should not consist of more than ten. . . ."197 <^3 presently progressive notion of the size of the class was not incon­ gruous to the teaching of other subjects during Walker's period. Many teachers had advised the procedure of having limited numbers of students, prefferably talented students. This emphasis was probably a reflection of the classicists. The previous theory being based on that of individual assistance by the teacher was substantiated in Walker's methodology of teaching gesturing. The author stated that ”... eight or ten lines of some speech should be read first by the teacher, then by the boy who reads best, and then by the rest in order. . . ."198 jjot only emphasizing the improbability of a large class, this statement also demon­ strated that Walker expected the teacher to be skilled as a

^ ^ Ibld.T p. xx.

197Ibid.

198Ibid. model. Walker stated concerning the teaching of gesturing: 11. . .it may not be improper for the Teacher .. . to show him, by example, the action he is to make use of."1^ The methodology was that of mimicing an example. The order of speaking attempted to keep the better examples before the students. By using this methodology the need for a limited number of students seemed imperative to maintain attention. Walker seemed aware of the problems of teaching undoubtedly from his own experience at Kensington. He cautioned the teacher against discouragement in teaching

gesturing: It is expected the master will be a little dis­ couraged at the awkward figure his pupil makes in his first attempts to teach him. But this is no more than what happens in dancing, fencing, or any other exercise that depends on habit. In the following the same theory of individual prac­ tice, Walker found it necessary for each student to have a book of readings, and although this may be very elementary to modem academicians, this demand was rarely made upon the students of the late seventeen hundreds. Exercises for Improvement was the elocutionist's collection of readings which he presented to be appropriate for the beginning speaker or reader. This advertisement, later called the introduction, stated that the text was "... a system of

•^Sfyalker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xi. 200Ibid. 92 polite knowledge . . . [and] . . . This method of teaching required a book of a small size and price, with as much 201 variety as such a book would admit of. . . Walker's particular text included writings from Milton, Akenside, Young, Dryden, Gray, Pope, Liby, Shakespeare, and Demosthenes. These writings could be considered to be indicative of Walker's standards of suitable readings for the beginning speaker. He stated that they were "... suitable passages ••POP for the practice of reading and speaking. John Walker stated specific advice to the oral reader in giving directions for the most appropriate posture: ". . .we should accustom ourselves to read standing; that the book should be held in the left hand. . . . ,,2°3 Although modern theories of oral reading do not usually state so specifically the posture of the reader, generally the reader appears more visually distinctive and/or creates a better visual picture if he stands or if he sits on a tall stool. Holding the manuscript in the left hand facilitated the use of most people's most expressive hand, the right hand. John Walker stated in considering the proper crossing of two , speakers that his procedure gave "... each an opportunity to use his right hand— the most favorable to grace and

201Walker, Exercises for Improvement, op. cit., Advertisement.

2°3walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 266. 93 expression. "2o2t It Is Interesting to note that left hand dominance has been an outgrowth of the twentieth century. The early philologist recognized the importance of visual contact during a reading and . . that we should take our eyes as often as possible from the book, and direct

them to those who hear us."20^ Prom his observations of professional readers and teaching elocution, Walker observed that "The three or four last words at least of every para­ graph, or branch of a subject, should be pronounced with the eye pointed to one of the auditors.,,2°6 The control of the reader over his manuscript was quite necessary for the visual freedom from the manuscript. Nowhere throughout Walker’s writings was reference made to the memorization of a manu­ script for oral reading. The author differentiated between rules for the oral reader and rules for the public speaker when he recognized that the gesturing of the oral reader was more subtle than that of public speaking. He stated ". . . in reading much less action is required than in speaking.1,207 Walker sug­ gested what type of action was most appropriate to oral

reading by stating several specific examples: When anything sublime, lofty, or heavenly is ex­ pressed, the eye and the right hand may be very

20%alker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xvi. 20^Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 266. 206Ibid.

207Ibid., p. 26 5. 94

properly elevated; and when anything low, inferior, or gravelling is referred to, the eye and hand may be directed downwards: when anything distant or extensive is mentioned, the hand may naturally describe the distance or extent; and when conscious virtue, or any heart-felt emotion, or tender senti­ ment occurs, we may as naturally clap the hand on the breast.20® The author used the word "may," nbt "should," indi­ cating that the gestures which he stated would probably give the intended expression of meaning to the audience, but the author did not use a commanded set of formal procedures. These were suggested from his personal observations. Al­ though modern readers do not specifically state the positions of the hands and eyes, many current meanings are expressed in accordance with what Walker observed. A clasped hand to the breast, although perhaps melodramatic to our period, still indicates a certain range of emotions. One has only to review the techniques of silent movie acting and opera to observe this type of gesturing. WaS it not reverence and pride when the American flag was saluted by placing the hand on the breast? John Walker presented that the oral reader should not be void of gestures, but should be both physically and mentally expressive of the author's meaning. A jgurther indication of Walker's emphasis upon meaning was stated in Elements of Elocution when he drew exceptions

2Q^Ibld., pp. 266-267. 95 from Sheridan’s 1771 publication of The Art of Reading Prose and Verse. Mr. Sheridan, in his Art of Reading, has insisted largely on the necessity of making a pause at the end of every line in poetry, whether the sense re­ quires it or not; and this, he observes, is so necessary, that without it we change the verse into prose. It is with dissidence I dissent from so great an authority. . . .2 °9 Walker emphasized that the most important element of a writ­ ing, either prose or verse, was that of meaning. Vocal expression of the writing should enhance meaning rather than form. Even the critical James Sheridan Knowles stated ". . . proceeding from the touching of one master-string, the internal feelings, must always answer to each other . . . in perfect unison."210 The major function of oral interpre­ tation and public speaking was to relay the meaning of the author to the audience. Some modern academicians of oral reading approach the specific study of poetry recognizing that form becomes secondary to meaning,* meaning being the precise purpose of oral reading. Thus, the contemporary emphasis upon the reading of poetry, to enhance the content as opposed to enhancing the structure, seems more indicative of Walker's principles rather than those of Sheridan. A further indication of Walker's emphasis upon the intricate relationship between words and meaning and

2°9lbid.. P. 207. 210Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., p. 203. 96 between meaning and gestures was cited: As some action, therefore, must necessarily accompany our words, it is of the utmost conse­ quence, that this be such as is suitable and natural. No matter how little, if it be not a-kin to the words and passions; for if foreign to them, it counteracts and destroys the very intention of delivery. The voice and gesture may be said to be turned to each other; and if they are in a different key, as it may be called, discord must inevitably be the consequence.211 Approaching the same subject from the direction of what the audience felt when seeing or hearing discord, Walker stated: "An awkward action, and such as is unsuitable to the words and passion, is the body out of time, and gives the eye as much pain as discord does the ear."212 Walker studied the art of expressing meaning more functionally for teaching than many elocutionists, and he even advanced theories and procedures for the teaching of writing. To John Walker writing was an extension of the ideas and passions of the oral form set into a manuscript. The Teacher*s Assistant was an approach to ”. . . a habit of thinking and writing with consistency and precision."213

\ The philologist realized a similar lacking in the area of writing that was present in the spoken word. In the intro­ duction to Teacher*s Assistant he stated: Being engaged for several years in teaching young people a method of writing their thoughts on common

2Hwalker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 264. 212Ibid. 213walker, Teacher’s Assistant, op. cit., p. xvii. 97 subjects, I was desirous of availing myself of the labours of those who had gone before me; but was disappointed: Not a work could I find in our language.214

Realizing this need, Walker developed a book which he hoped would guide the instructor to teaching in a manner that would lend to a more natural and effective simplification of the language, but one more precise, practical, and accept­ able. Again the natural implication of his intention was revealed in this selection: "To follow Nature, therefore, is that happy medium in which the excellence of almost every operation lies, is the intention of the following Work."21^ Walker not only presented a theory of better oral expression but projected the theory to the very basis of structure by presenting also a theory and methodology of more effective writing. With his theatrical background, Walker was often accused of presenting a theatrical emphasis to public speak­ ing and oral reading. Although these comments were gener­ ally directed at theatrical pronunciations, the implications were also applicable to the theory of gesturing. James Sheridan Knowles thought Walker's theories were capricious and f a n c i f u l . recent as 1952, H. L. Menchen stated that pronunciations arose . .in the court circles of

214ibid., p. 2. 21^Ibid., p. vi. 21^Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. clt., p . 207• 98

London, . . . [and] . . . were adopted by the most preten­ tious sort of actors. . . . "217 Walker attacked comments

such as these with the following statement: . . . to condemn everything which is vehement and forcible as ‘theatrical.1 It is an old trick to depreciate what we cannot attain; and calling spirited pronunciation ‘theatrical1 is but an artful method of hiding an utter inability of speaking with force and energy.21® Quite opposed to what would conventionally i>e consid­ ered the approach of a man who had spent many years in the theatre, Walker found little justification for using theatre as methodology of teaching public speaking or oral reading. The advantages arising from it [theatre] have not been judged equal to the inconveniences; and the speaking of single speeches, or the acting of single scenes, have been gradually substituted in its stead.219 Not only did the preceding quotation state his attitude toward the use of theatre as methodology for improving inter­ pretation, but it clearly displayed some of the teaching techniques of the elocutionist. A further indication of Walker’s desire not to use theatre as a methodology for oral reading or public speaking was bluntly evident when he vfT stated: 11. . . it may be confidently affirmed, that the act­ ing of a play is not so conducive to improvement in Elocution as the speaking of single speches.1,220

— 2I7Menchen, Supplement II,The American Language, op. cit., p. 6. 218walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xiii. 219lbid., p. xii. 220Ibid. 99 Perhaps more dogmatically, Thomas Sheridan considered acting as a procedure to accomplish a greater goal. Bos­ well 8 s London Journal, 1762-1763 records an interesting con­ versation between James Boswell and Thomas Sheridan concern­ ing acting. Boswell wrote: But upon his attacking Garrick as a tragedian in his usual way, I opposed him keenly, and declared he was prejudiced; because the world thougit him a good tragic actor. 'So do I, Sir,' said he; 'I think him the best I ever saw.' Boswell played upon Sheridan's egotism and stated "Except yourself, Mr. Sheridan. But come, we shall take this for granted. The world then think him near equal or as good as you in what you excel in." In the following statement Sheridan presented his views concerning acting and their relationship to elocution: 'Sir, I am not a bit prejudiced. I don't value acting. I shall suppose that I was the greatest actor that ever lived and universally acknowledged so, I would not choose that it should be remembered. I would have it erased out of the anecdotes of my life. Acting is a poor thing in the present state of the stage. For my own part, I engaged in it merely as a step to something greater, a just notion of eloquence.' This was in a good measure true. But he certainly talked too extravagantly.221 The trend of emphasizing style and procedure had gained a steadfast popularity in London. Aaron Hill's"Essay on the Art of Acting" presented a stylized view of the actor and it was negated in degree, but also confirmed in degree, by

John Boswell, Boswell's London Journal, 1762-1763. edited by Frederick A. Pottle (New York, London, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), pp. 136-137• 100

Burgh's Inferences in Art of Speaking which tended to be a commentary of appropriate social styles for the public per­ former firmly based upon the principles of acting during the period. Not unlike the recent confusions concerning “method acting" and "technique acting," both philologists and actors debated the emphasis placed upon style. Style was consid­ ered to be both pronunciation and movement (gestures). Walker stated the relationship between acting technique and elocutionary technique of his period: "Though the acting of Plays at schools has been universally supposed a very useful practice, it has of late years been much laid aside."222 However, Walker did not completely negate the theatre from his considerations, "in short, it is speaking rather than acting which school boys should be taughtj while the performance of plays is calculated to teach them acting rather than speaking."223 He realized the value of singular speeches or singular scenes. He realized the importance of many theatrical principles which could have application to public speaking or oral reading. The principles of not turning the back to the audience, gesturing with the upstage arm, and movement toward the objective often with major phrases are evidences of only a few of the principles prob­ ably brought forth from his theatrical experience. The importance of the pictorially pleasant scene was emphasized

222 Walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xii. 223jrbid., p. xiii. 101 when Walker stated that in acting ". . . it is necessary that the two personages who speak should form a sort of picture, and place themselves in a position agreeable to the laws of perspective."222* The same rule held forth with two speakers or readers upon the platform. Modern oral readers and academicians of interpretation and theatre ascertain that the experience of theatrical work can often build confidence and control in the individual. Walker did not deny this approach, nor did his writings sup­ port it. Walker made little references to the development of confidence through theatre, public speaking, or oral reading training, but stated that the lacking of confidence presented problems of expressiveness: Perhaps nine out of ten, instead of too much confi­ dence, and too violent a manner of speaking, which these teachers seem so much to dread, has, as Dr. Johnson calls it, a frigid eauality, a stupid languor, and a torid apathy.225 The problems of developing confidence seemed to be a problem of the elocutionists of the late seventeen hundreds even though Walker did not support the idea of the use of theatri­ cal experience to enhance the confidence of the speaker. In negating the theatrical emphasis, Walker stated concerning pronunciation: It is plain, open, distinct, and forcible pronunci­ ation, which school-boys should aim at; and not that quick transition from one passion to another,

2^ I b i d ^ p. xv.

22^Ibid., pp. xiii-xiv. 102 that archness of look, and that ’jeu de theatre’ as It is called, so essential to a tolerable dramatic exhibition. . . .22& Although John Walker had theatrical experience, eval­ uation of his methods as completely theatrical appear ques­ tionable. Although he pointed out the weaknesses of using theatre as methodology for improving public speaking and oral reading, he did not state that theatrical experience had no application to oral reading and public speaking. Walker based his comments concerning using theatre to enhance public speaking or oral reading on the practical role of theatre in London during his time. The practicality of using theatre during Walker’s period seemed questionable to Walker. A singular example demonstrated clearly how Walker progressed his theorizing into practical procedure for developing habits. Having theorized about the importance of emphasis, the author stated: Having endeavoured to shew the nature of emphasis, properly so called, and attempting to distinguish it into its several kinds, according to the inflec­ tion of the voice it adopts . . . it will be neces­ sary in the next place to endeavor to reduce what has been said into a practical system.22' He proceeded to state examples exemplifying the theory which he had advanced, and he presented methods of these theories into the actual practice for the students. Exercises for

22^Ibid., p. xiii. 22^Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 65 . 103 Improvement listed many readings which were analyzed accord­ ing to his theories. Before discussing the gesturing during the vocal pause, it becomes necessary to state where Walker thought a pause should be placed in oral reading, and his necessitates a brief discussion of structure. The author placed particu­ lar emphasis upon the pause in structure and expression. Walker felt it was necessary to parallel the use of the point with the formal punctuation indicating pause, usually the comma. He precisely indicated where he felt the pause would be most appropriately utilized: 1. Beginning with participle of present tense or conjunction of a sentence. 2. Both containing sense in themselves, but joined as one. 3. "When nominative case consists of more than one word . . . "228

4. ,fWhen a member intervenes between the nominative and the verb . . ."229 5. "When a member intervenes between the verb and the accusative case . . ."230 6. When the latter of two verbs is in the infinitive mood. 7. "Whenever words are put into the case absolute . . ."231

223yialker, Hints for the Improvement in the Art of Reading, op. cit., p. 52. 229Ibid., p. 53.

23°Ibid. 231Ibid. 104 8. When one adverb follows a verb. 9* In a sentence which has adverbial phrases. 10. In a sentence which contains words or phrases in opposition. 11. "When two substantives come together . . . "232 12. "'Who* and 'which,' when relative pronouns, and 'that,' when it stands for 'who' and which.'"233 Generally, these formal rules of indicating punctuation have been simplified for common usage, but they are currently considered quite valid in formal writing. Walker felt it was necessary for the oral reader to mark his manuscript with a slash mark, a point, often simul­ taneous with correct punctuation, but he felt that correct punctuation was seldom used enough, "it is certain that the great error of punctuation, does not lie so much in placing the points wrong, as in neglecting to insert them where they are n e c e s s a r y . "234 Thus, John Walker's reference to the point meant any phraseology in which a pause was needed for oral expression. He indicated where he felt the pause, or punctuation, should be utilized. In considering the proper use of the pause, Walker presented a manner in which to mark a manuscript for reading which would utilize the pause, and, thus, present clearer meaning to the audience: As we can mark the pauses by the points, and the emphatic words by printing them in Italics, it must

232ibid., p. 55. 233ibid.. pp. 55-56. 234ibid., p . 49. 105 certainly be no small assistance to reading, to be able to mark these pauses emphatic words, with such a turn of voice, as the sense demands. . . .235 Again, meaning did not suffer under structure. The meaning of the writing remained the most predominate element. Structure, thus grammar, enhanced the meaning. Walker taught gesturing by emphasizing the theory that practice developed into habit, and habit of the correct eventually became natural. Although the acquisition of the correct manner may have seemed awkward when first pursued, eventually the pursued manner would become habitual and, thus, natural. In applying this theory, John Walker showed that an inappropriate gesture felt correct to the speaker, but when shown that the gesture was inappropriate to the meaning and required to use the preferred gesture, eventually the more appropriate expression gained the impression of the habitual and no longer seemed awkward. Thus, the importance of acceptable habits eventually led to natural expression. "Nothing but habitual practice will give the musician his neatness of execution, the painter his force of colouring, and even the poet the happiest choice and arrangement of his words and thoughts. ,,236 ...j . The philologist admitted the awkwardness of the newly

23^Ibid., p. 7 7t footnote.

236Ibid., p. 119* 106 acquired form, but he insisted upon the use of practice to form acceptable habits: Methods of this kind are usually rejected, because at first they are found rather to embarrass than assist the reader; but this will be found in the case in every act where improvement arises chiefly from habit. . . .237 Walker admitted the limitations of culture upon the natural; . .so different are national tastes in this particular. . . . "238 jje attempted to establish habits as a reflection of the culture, but the academicians failing to agree of what comprised acceptable speech gave his theories of acquiring habits further burdens of reasoning. The philologist rapidly admitted that the demands upon oratory and reading were different from his day than those of the previous years. The establishing of favorable habits although being a common technique of the Greeks added new applications to Walker's theories: But though the oratory of the moderns does not require all those various evolutions of gesture, which was almost indispensable in the ancients, yet a certain degree of it must necessarily enter into the composition of every good speaker and reader.239

Indicative of this, Walker realized the demands upon the speaker in accordance with his particular time in history. Continued emphasis was placed upon making the body not appear awkward or ungraceful.

g37ibid.. p. 118. 238ibid., p. 261. 239ibid., p. 2 6 3. 107

Concerning the physical expressions of lines where little passion was contained within the ideas of the lines, Walker stated: . . . such a general style of action be adopted as shall be easily conceived and easily executed; which, though hot expressive of any particular pas­ sion, shall not be inconsistent with the expression of any passion. . . .24° The author realized that the very absence of gesturing brought attention to the lack of movement and made the body appear ungraceful. He stated that the speaker appeared 11. . .so unnatural is the total absence of gesticulation."241 He attempted to present a consideration of movement for the inexpressive body that neither hindered the appearance of the body nor the idea. When the position of the body was not atuned to the idea, the body appeared awkward. The voice and gesture may be said to be tuned to each other; and if they are in a different key, as it may be called, discored must inevitably be the consequence. An awkward action, and such as is unsuitable to the words and passion, is the body out of tune, and gives the eye as much pain as a discord does the ear.242 However, the attainment of an application of meaning­ ful movement and gestures was not to be advanced too early in the training of the student. In teaching the student to be more vital, both vocally and physically, Walker suggested that "... it would be advlseable to let the pupil at first

24°Walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. vi. 24lWalker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 263. 242Ibid., p. 264. 108 speak without any motion of the arm at all."2^3 He followed the procedure that gradually the student would develop con­ fidence and by being directed into the accepted expression of various emotions in accordance to the ideas he expressed, would eventually develop into a presentation of vital energy, both vocally and physically expressed. One method of being more perceptive to the physical expression of the emotions was that of using a mirror to develop a freedom of expression adequate to the emotion. The author stated that ". . .he will see as in a looking- glass. . . ."244 an(j stated that the emotions "... should be carefully studied, and practiced before a glass when we are alone . . . that the eye in reading may be reminded of the passion or sentiment to be assumed."245

Walker suggested that the effective speaker must not only be aware of the elements of the emotions, but must present them effectively in his own communication. A study of the emotions was a technique for the beginning speaker to become more aware of the expression of various emotions and to utilize his observations in his own expression. The author wanted the young speaker to be keen, alerted to the actions of the various moods, and be able to utilize them. Thus, he advanced the theories of the passions, an examination

243vialker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. x.

242*Ibid., p. xi.

2/*5walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 264- 265. 109 of some common elements of expression, not to be mlmiced without control for the pure mechanics of Imitation, but to be observed and utilized for better personal expression that was stimulated by the ideas and aided the ideas. Thus, John Walker’s methodology was not to present a mechanical school of expressiveness, but to attain an accept­ able art of public speaking, one free of interfering factors, one not based on chance. Pope stated that true art of ac­ tion came from art and not chance, and Walker attempted to develop a method of presenting an acceptable manner of speak­ ing for his period. Not only was he one of the early pioneers of elocution, but he presented both theory and methodology for more adequate expression of ideas based on observations and practical, logical deductions. This chapter more fully defined what John Walker taught concerning gesturing and presented generally the theory and methodology advocated by the early philologist. A synopsis of Walker's theories combined with an understand­ ing of his methodologies emphasized his approach to elocution. The two most emphatic methods which he presented concerned the use and training of a student to gesturing and the developing of acceptable habits. The relationship between these two concepts has been related. Through this analysis a modem application of Walker's theories can be undertaken. CHAPTER VII

POSTURE AND PASSIONS

John Walker emphasized the importance of relating the gesture to the ideas of words: "Indeed, the exact adaptation of the action to the word, and the word to the action, as Shakespeare calls it, Is the most difficult part of delivery. . . . ,l£^ The purpose of this chapter is to precisely define what John Walker stated about physical action, gesturing, in relation to public speaking and oral reading. Walker stated various precise gestures In relation to various emotions that he felt relayed the emotion to the audience. An understanding of which actions were associated with which emotions leads to a more clearly defined understanding of the approach and application of the early philologist's theories. Walker suggested more than fifty emotions including a definition, suggestion of the physical presentation of the emotion, and an idea of the attitude of the emotion. An established format of presentation from which the public speaker or oral reader should not depart was more firmly

MS---- John Walker, Academic Speaker, p.A3.

110 Ill established concerning posture than a physical display of the emotions. Research does substantiate that Walker pre­ sented a concrete pattern of expression, but also one which included variations in degree. Murdoch stated "There is little treatment of time and force in the book [Elements of Elocution] and only a few general suggestions in regard to gestures."2^ Research indicates that these positions were quite precisely stated and comparatively concrete compared to this period. A review of the passions and posture as the early elocutionist viewed it, presents an insight into the style and procedure of public speaking and oral reading during Walker's period. An understanding of Walker's period of philology must precede an analysis of the Ideas of the passions and posture. The understanding of his ideas of gesturing and posture must be related to the author's period before it can be analyzed and/or applied to modern practices. Therefore, the second purpose of this chapter is to present some of the reasonings that supported or negated Walker's theories of gesturing and posture. Elocution in England during Walker's period had just started into an active and recognized area. There were writings before the late eighteenth century, but there

"^Murdoch, op. cit., pp. 77-78* 112 appeared to be no organized movement previous to Walker's time. None of the texts so far had said anything about action except for a few general suggestions. In 1 8 0 6 there were published in London a treatise by Gilbert Austin which was the first detailed phil­ osophy of action and which was destined to Influ- ehce greatly the teaching of speech delivery in our own country. TSiis was called Chironomia: or a Treatise on Rhetorical Delivery. Chironomia, it should be said, means here the art of gesture. . . . the author laments the lack of attention given to gesture and delivery by earlier writers. He proceeds to outline an elaborate system of notation illustrated by numerous engraved figures showing every conceivable position of the hand and attitude of the b o d y . 2^8

Murdoch had not considered the basic influence to the Chironomia which is believed to be Walker's Elements of Elocution. Murdoch traces the beginnings of a theory of gesturing not to Walker, but to Austin. The Chironomia with its mechanical treatment of action exercised an enormous influence upon elo­ cutionary writers for a long time, indeed far beyond the period of the English writers we are now discussing. The discussion of action in Pulton and Trueblood's Elements of Elocution (1893) was based directly upon It and some of the pLates were reproduced. The nomenclature given to the posi­ tions of the hand in some of our present texts Is the same as that first suggested by Austin. Those who followed James Rush at a later period in their treatment of the elements of the voice generally went back to Austin in their consideration of gestures.2^

These quotations show only that there was dispute concerning the source or sources of the theories of gesturing. In the

2 4 aIbid., pp. 85-86. 2^9ibid., p. 88. 113 following chapter the development of these theories into British and American elocution will be cited. The criticisms of John Walker’s ideas put forth by Us contemporaries were presumed by Walker: Indeed, the objection to this practice seems entirely founded on these two misconceptions, because we cannot perfectly delineate every shade of sound or passion, we ought not to attempt any approaches to them; and because good readers and speakers have no need of their assistances, therefore they are useless to everyone else. . . .250 Walker attempted a seemingly insurmountable task of classifying in writing the attitudes, physical postures, and definitions of various emotions. How well he accomplished his task is subject to question, but, undoubtedly, the attempt to precisely define the various emotions and classi­ fy them was a cause for some praise. Walker realized that the delineation of every shade of emotion could not be adequately achieved, but he attempted to write about those which he felt were distinctive. Crit­ icisms could have been based on the completeness and valid­ ity of the descriptions. No contemporary criticisms of Walker's completeness or validity was found; most criticism being based on the practicality of the theory of gesturing. Walker's recognition of a second criticism which he purported would be directed to him indicated that he was aware of the techniques of skillful public speakers and oral

25°Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., p. 413. readers, and that he had considered how these techniques were developed. As shown in a previous chapter, Walker was personal friends with some of the recognized outstanding speakers and actors of the period. The introduction to Elements of Elocution stated that John Walker was a personal friend of David Garrick, one of the most prominent theatri­ cal men of his period. Undoubtedly, John Walker associated with many people in the performing areas of speech and, thus, his observations of the techniques used by these people were probably based on these associations. Although friendship with the recognized skilled of Walker's period does not substantiate Walker's belief in their techniques, it does show that Walker was at least aware of certain standards of acting and elocution during his period. The assumption that professionals established techniques that were far advanced from the elementary procedures necessary in training those not so highly skilled was not an uncommon or illogical theory, but not necessarily a negative criticism of the approach. Walker suggested the more concrete expression of posture rather than the expression of the passions. He sug­ gested the posture which was reflective of the style of the late seventeen hundreds: . . . the attitude in which a boy should always place himself when he begins to speak. He should rest the whole weight of his body on the right leg; the other, just touching the ground, at the dis­ tance at which it would naturally fall, if lifted up to show that the body does not bear upon it. The 115 knees should be straight and braced; and the body, though perfectly straight, not perpendicular, but inclining as far to the right as a firm position on the right leg will permit. The right arm must then be held out with the palm open, the fingers straight and close, the thumb almost as distant from them as it will go; and the flat of the hand neither horizontal nor vertical, but exactly between both.25l The grace of the human body seemed of the utmost importance during this period. Walker*s theory of posture was, and still is, the basic first position of ballet train- ing. The position was more graceful than our currently acceptable position, and since grace was more emphasized in Walker’s period than today, his listing of the position was a reflection of the style of his period. A further indica­ tion of the author's emphasis upon the beauty of the body concerned standing posture which complemented the form: If the pupil's knees are not well formed, or incline inwards, he must be taught to keep his legs at as great a distance as possible, and to incline his body so much to that side, on. which the arm is extended, as to oblige him to rest the opposite leg upon the toe; and this will in a great measure, hide the defect of his make.2^2 Walker was specific in his suggestions of posture to the oral reader. Walker stated that the interpreter should "... read standing; that the book should be held in the left hand . . . "253 and he felt that the audience should be viewed by the reader as much as possible; "... that we

2^1Walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. vii. 2^2Ibid., pp. vii-viii. 253walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 266-267. 116 should take our eyes as often as possible from the book, and direct them to those that hear us."254 ije became more specific by stating that at least the last three of four words of a . paragraph should be read looking at the audience; "The three or four last words at least of every paragraph, or branch of a subject, should be pronounced with the eye pointed to one of the auditors. ,,255

In stating an acceptable procedure of expression of the hands, the author also mentioned the positions of the entire body. After expressing a point by dropping the hand after the emphatic idea: "... the body without altering the place of the feet, poise itself on the left leg, while the left hand raises itself into exactly the same position as the right was before . . . from left to right, alternately, till the speech is ended."2-^ Criticism of this theory should be based on the currently acceptable idea that a so highly formalized patterning would attract attention to the movement itself and divert attention from the ifeas. In considering the movement of the entire body such as to take a step, Walker presented a stage technique still used in theatrical presentations, "in altering the position of the body . . . the heels, in this transition, change their

^ ibld., p. 2 6 7. 255Ibid. 2^^Walker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., pp. vii-viii. 117 place, but not the toes."2-^7 More precisely, modern empha­ sis would be to turn on the "ball of the foot." Walker emphasized that the three elements, defini­ tions, attitudes, and physical position of the body, worked together in aiding the Idea to be adequately experienced by the listeners. The three elements could not be separated in performance and not unrelated to the Idea. The author did not state that by obtaining the physi­ cal position of the emotions, the emotion would be exclu­ sively relayed to the listeners. The physical position of the body was only one consideration of expression not to be exclusive from others during speaking orcral reading. The attaining of a specific physical position became an aid to the emotions. Walker clearly stated the use of the study of the passions In his introduction to Elements of Elocution: In the following display of the passions, there­ fore, nothing further is intended than such a description of them as may serve to give an idea of their external appearance, and such examples of their operations on the soul as may tend to awaken an original feeling of them in the breath of the reader

Walker reasoned that by obtaining the physical position of an emotion and the suggested attitude, one was able to recall the original emotion more easily. Thus, the obtaining of the

257Ibid., p. vili.

258walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit.. pp. 288- 282- 118 posture and the attitude of an emotion became a technique for acquiring the original emotion; not a substitute for it. Although one can consider technique as being mechan­ ical when first attempted, Walker’s theories were no more mechanically controlled than grammar or any subject based on mechanical disciplines that eventually evolved into a natural control of the subject matter. To John Walker, the recognition of the passions and the ability to reproduce the semblance of them was only a technique for acquiring an acceptable natural presentation. The listed emotions had two major attributes that were distinctive and obvious to the author. I am well aware, that the passions are sometimes too slightly touched, and often melt so insensibly into each other, as to make it somewhat difficult precisely to mark their boundries; but there is no argument against our making them where they are distinct and obvious. . . .259 He stated that many of the emotions expressed in public speaking and oral reading were combinations of these listed emotions which may not often be found in their distinctive forms: In order, therefore, to gain a just idea of suit­ able action and expression, it will be necessary to observe that every passion, emotion, and senti­ ment, had a particular attitude of the body, cast of the eye, and tone of the voice that particu­ larly belongs to that passion, emotion, or sentiment.25°

259ibid., pp. 412-413- 26oIbid., pp. 264-265- 119 Thus, Walker based his expression of the emotions on the idea that each listed emotion which he considered was rela­ tively distinctive. If the variety of emotions reflected in Walker's writings were sharply defined, they not only displayed a sharply defined vocal and visual emphasis of that period, but presented a review of the diversity and divisions of the philologist's teaching during that period. Research indi­ cates that this was criticized only in a broad sense. Evidence of the period indicated that many teachers of elocution studied individual emotions, and if this was based on the alertness of the audience to these emotions, the assumption was that the audiences of the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds were more highly trained to the expressions of emotions or that the audiences were different. Reasoning indicated that both theories were true. A portion of the training of the nobility, those of a higher social and economic influence, was elocution. Perhaps the educa­ tional influence of elocution created a more sensitive audi­ ence to the accepted style during this period. Many modern teachers of speech strongly suggest that traiding in public speaking and oral reading makes the speaker a more sensitive listener. In similar reasoning, training in elocution may have made the audience of the elocutionists more sensitive to their display of emotions. 120

It would appear that a great deal of criticism concern­ ing Walker’s divisions of the emotions would be written in Walker's period if the emotions were not sharply differen­ tiated to the people of that period. However, research does not substantiate that Walker's theories were severely criticized because of their sharply defined divisions. In the United States, the frontier was, undoubtedly, less refined and less scholarly than the Motherland. Noah Webster often used various emotions as defined by John Walker as synonyms for defining the emotions. The absence of American academicians in philology, the rise of psychol­ ogy, and a re-evaluation of philosophy created a new back­ ground of evaluation for those who eventually studied speech. Elocution in America from the Revolutionary War through the nineteenth century was influenced by three main currents: the political, the national­ istic, and the moralistic. Political and religious oratory gave impetus to study of the fine art of speaking, of not only what to say, but how to say it. Books by John Walker, Thomas Sheridan, Bindley Murray, Samuel Kirkham, Hugh Blair, Richard Whately and other rhetoricians, elocutionists, and grammarians of the period stressed the relationship of pronunciation, sentence formation, syntax, and definition to oral reading and speaking. Great emphasis came to be laid upon rules and exercises in correct pronunciation and enunciation which were fostered by Noah Webster. Eloquent oral reading was a basic function of the education process.2ol The appreciation of various emotions either differed or were labeled differently in the United States. However, the

" 1 1 0 £ \ T Gail Jordan Tousey, "McGuffey's Elocutionary Teachings.” Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. 34 (1948), p . 80. 121 source of the British trend and the American trend in

language was the same: The methodology of the elocutionary movement, like that of science, was a combination of observing and of recording. Just as the astronomer observed the movements of the planets and recorded them in special symbols, so the elocutionist observed cer­ tain phenomena of voice, body, and language and,- recorded them in systems of symbolic notation. Even as England evolved the classifications of emotions were less precisely defined. Not only does an evaluation of Walker*s range of emotions seem to<0^?equently divided for American speakers of Walter's period, but many of the emo­ tions although utilized in context were more broadly defined in the new English language of the United States. "At no time during the 1000 years of the history of English are the recorded texts lacking in evidence of changes actually in progress.2^

The most dynamic criticisms of Walker's theories were written by James Sheridan Knowles in Orthoepy and Elocution. A comparison of this text with Sheridan's A Course of Lec­ tures on Elocution shows that James Sheridan Knowles' approach to criticism, combining for the first time a con­ flict between John Walker and Thomas Sheridan concerning elocution, was to apply the concepts of A Course of Lectures

2^2Habeman, op. cit., p. 294. 263Charles C. Pries, "implication of Modern Linguistic^ Science," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 34 (1948), p. 323. 122 on Elocution to an attack upon Walker's principles. It is questionable if this was accomplished without bias. An examination of Sheridan's A Course of Lectures on Elocution reveals that the two philologists were in general agreement. Sheridan stated the importance of a study of expressing the passions: But Nature did not trust an article, so essential to the well-being of man, to a communication by one sense only; she has also made it visible to the eye, as well as audible to the ear.2*™ A second quotation from Sheridan implies the degree of im­ portance of the passions: Upon the whole, there are two kinds of language, necessary to all, who would wish to answer the end of public speaking. The one is, the language of ideas . . . The other, is the language of emotions. . . .265 A third statement from Sheridan also implies the importance of gesturing: To move, therefore, should be the first great object of every public speaker; and for this pur­ pose, he must vise the language of emotions, not that of Ideas alone, which itself has no power of moving.2®® So similar were Walker and Sheridan's approaches to language that Sheridan had presented a similar listing of emotions: Sheridan further developed his theories in A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language, a book of 218 pages, which was published inPhila­ delphia in 1788. In the treatment of voice this

2 Thomas Sheridan, A Course of Lectures on Elocution (London: W. Strahan, 1762), p. 113• 265ibid., p. 132.

266Ibid., p. 133. 123 was much the same as the Lectures, but twenty- pages were devoted to showing how the different parts of the body contribute to expression. All the principal passion and sentiment were analyzed to show how they are expressed by various atti­ tudes, looks, gestures and language.2&* It is not known if Sheridan wrote the twenty pages concern­ ing positions but he obviously had a great deal of respect for the use of gesturing in public speaking. Secondly, Sheridan stated that there was a relation­ ship between individual gestures and the expression of those individual gestures: "As every passion has its particular tone, so has it, its particular look or gesture."2^® In approaching the same subject from the vocal relationship, the author stated: As she [Nature] has annexed tense to the passions, to make their extensions known thro1 the ear; so has she associated to them^looks and gestures, to manifest them to the eye.2&9 Sheridan projected a study which may have been the listing which appeared in the Philadelphia publication: It will be urged, that a system of rules, pointing out what particular tones and gestures, are In their own nature, best adapted to express the several emotions of the mind, would be the true means, to shew how people may arrive at propriety and grace, in those ornamental parts of delivery.2'0 Thus, Sheridan and Walker were not opposed on defining the passions.

267pritz, op. cit., pp. 76-77• 268Ibid., p. 4. 2 ibid., p. 113. 27°Ibid., p. 122. 124

Although James Sheridan Knowles implied that Shefcidan felt Walker's emphasis upon grace was artificial, Sheridan had stated: "In elocution, the two great articles are, force and grace; the one has its foundation chiefly in nature, the other in art."2?1 Both Walker and Sheridan were against the artificiality of gesturing unrelated to idea. Sheridan defined "art" inconsistently with a positive definition in public speaking and the "art" of artificiality. For example: The chief end of all public speakers is to persuade; and in order to persuade, it is above all things necessary, that the speaker, should at least appear himself to believe, what he utters; and this can never be the case, where7there are evident marks of affectation, or art. * It appeared that Sheridan considered grace to be the same as propriety and, thus, artificial or, similarly, art to be artificial. Gesturing then must lack artificiality. He stated ". . . as it [gesturing] corresponds exactly to its archetype iNature], and is therefore universally legible. . . ."2?3 Knowles added to this phrase an inconsistency of a previously stated need for a study of the passions by attaching "... without pains or study. . . . "2?^ James

Sheridan Knowles reported only the negative implication to

^ I b i d .,' p. 121. 2?2Ibid. 2?3ibid., p. 113. Wlbid. 125 Walker’s projection, but he failed to report that Sheridan projected an applicable system of studying the passions. Knowles emphasized that the hand and eyes were the most expressive of the body based on Sheridan's statements: By the exertion of such skill and pains, it would be found that the visible language alone, which can be shown in the features and limbs of man, is of itself sufficient, without other aid, to every purpose of social communication.2''5 Did John Walker consider any physical gesturing which was not expressed by the "features and limbs of man"? If attitude is to be reflected In physical expression, Sheridan stated that the speaker should ". . .at least appear himself to believe. . . ."2T6

Sheridan made no attempt to discuss the passions in detail. His major chapter concerning gestures in A Course of lectures on Elocution was not devoted to an analysis of the passions but considered gesturing in general reference, and he projected the themes that gesturing should be natural and related to the ideas, that it was important to public speaking, and that it should be Investigated more thoroughly. Surely Walker would not have disagreed with these ideas for, in fact, he did the very thing that Sheridan had suggested. The confusion here was not between Sheridan and Walker’s Ideas, but rather from James Sheridan Knowles' implications

275Ibld., p. 116. 276Ibid., p. 121. to Sheridan’s ideas in contrasting them to the writings of

Walker.

In modern philology, such a detailed listing of emo­ tions appear to mingle into confusion rather than clarity.

The assumption that confusion existed in Walker's period is not substantiated. Due to the change of terminology, the various values placed upon emotions, the differences in methodology, and a re-evaluation of the relative importance of various emotions, the values placed upon the passions have changed from Walker's period in England to those of the same period in the United States to those of modern philology,

Granted, the emotions of man have not changed, but the value placed upon them and the terminology involved have changed.

For the purpose of analysis, what Walker stated

about physical expressiveness will be divided into (l) a

listing of the passions and (2) physical expressiveness

stated in Walker's writings other than the passions.

Walker did not state where he obtained his listing of

the emotions, if a source existed aside from the author's

sensitivities. However, he did recognize Burgh's Art of

Speaking and probably extended this listing and applied them

to the early training of speakers and readers. Walker stated

Mr. Burgh, in his Art of Speaking, has given us a system of the Passions; and has shown us how they appear in the countenance, and operate on the body; but his system, however useful to people of riper 127 years, Is too delicate and complicated to be taught in schools.277

However, the listing of fifty-nine emotions, some being divided into passive and active states, tend to cover a wide range but certainly not the totality of emotions. It seemed obvious that John Walker considered several general physical areas that produce movement and he based the expressions of the various emotions upon the display from these areas. Generally, these areas were (1) the hands, (2) the eyes, (3) the arms, and (4) body tension and posi­ tion. These were all included in (5) the countenance. He was not consistent in mentioning all these areas in defining every emotion. Evidence of the completeness of his descrip­ tions follows.

For the purpose of stating precisely what Walker specifically emphasized concerning physical emotion display, the movements concerned in his descriptions of each passion will be stated. Walker’s directions for aiding the idea has been skeletonized to include only those references which

cite physical display or movement. The following listing

from Elements of Elocution278 include only the physical

aspects of gesturing:

TRANQUILITY . . . appears by the composure of the countenance, and general repose of the whole body, without the exertion of any one muscle. The countenance open, the forehead smooth, the eyebrows

277walker, Academic Speaker, op. clt., p. A3. 27%alker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 292- 410. 128 arched, the mouth Just not shut, and the eyes passing with an easy motion from object to object . . .

CHEARFULNESS . . . opens the mouth a little more [than tranquility] . . .

MIRTH . . . opens the mouth horizontally, raises the cheeks high, lessens the aperture of the eyes, and when violent, shakes and convulses the whole frame, fills the eyes with tears, and occasions holding the sides from the pain the convulsive laughter gives them . . .

RAILLERY . . . puts on the aspect of cheerfulness; the countenance smiling . . .

SNEER . . . countenance of mirth somewhat exaggerated . . . sly, arch, satirical . . . look and gesture . . .

JOY . . . opens the countenance with smiles, and throws, as it were, a sunshine of delectation over the whole frame; when it is sudden and violent, it expresses itself by clapping the hands, raising the eyes towards heaven, and giving such a spring to the body as to make it attempt to mount up as if it could fly; when Joy is extreme, and goes into transport, rapture, and ecstacy, It has a wildness of look and gesture, that borders on folly, madness, and sorrow

DELIGHT . . . same as joy, but less forcible and more permanent . . .

PITY . . . a feeling of pain in the countenance, and a gentle raising and falling of the hands and eyes . . . mouth is open, the eyebrows drawn down, and the features contracted or drawn together . . .

HOPE . . . brightens the countenance, spreads the arms with the hands open . . .

HATRED, AVERSION . . . painful sensation . . . draws back the body . . . the hands at the same time thrown out spread . . . face turned away from the side towards which the hands are thrown out; the eyes looking angrily, and obliquely the same way the hands are directed; the eyebrows are contracted, the upper lip disdainfully drawn up, and the teeth set . . .

ANGER, RAGE, FURY . . . wrinkles the brows, enlarges and heaves the nostrils, strains the muscles, clinches 129 the fist, stamps with the foot and gives a violent agitation to the whole body . . .

REVENGE . . . like malice, but more openly, loudly, and triumphantly . . .

REPROACH . . . casting in his teeth . . . brow is contracted, lip turned up . . . the head shaken . . .

PEAR, TERROR . . .Pear violent and sudden, opens wide the eyes and mouth, shortens the nose, give the countenance an air of wildness . . . draws back the elbows parallel with the sides, lifts up the open hands with the fingers spread, to the height of the breast . . . One foot is drawn back behind the other . . . The heart beats violently, the breath is fetched quick and short, and the whole body is thrown into a general tremor . . .

SORROW . . . In moderate sorrow . . . the countenance is dejected, the eyes are cast downward, the arms hang loose, sometimes a little raised, suddenly to fall again; the hands open, the fingers spread . . . In excess sorry . . . it wrings the hands, beats the head and breast, tears the hair, and throws itself on the ground . . .

REMORSE . . . raises the eyes . . . and suddenly casts them down again . . . the right-hand sometimes beats the breasts, and the whole body writhes . . .

DESPAIR . . . bends the eye-brows downward, clouds the forehead, rolls the eyes frightfully, opens the mouth horizontally, bites the lips, widens the nostrils, and gnashes the teeth. The arms are sometimes bent at the elbows, the fists clinched hard, the veins and muscles swelled; the skin livid, the whole body strained and violently agitated . . .

SURPRIZE, WONDER, AMAZEMENT, ADMIRATION . . . wonder, amazement . . . opens the eyes, and makes them appear very prominent. It sometimes raises them to the skies, but more frequently fixes them on the object; the mouth is open, and the hands are held up nearly in the attitude of fear . . . in admiration . . . the eyes are raised, the hands lifted up, or clapped together . . •

PRIDE . . . assumes a lofty look, bordering upon the aspect and attitude of anger. The eyes full open, but with the eyebrows considerably drawn down, the mouth pouting, mostly shut, and the lips contracted . . . the 130 hands sometimes rest on the hips, with the elbows brought forward in the position called a-kimbo; the legs at a distance from each other, the steps large and stately . . .

CONFIDENCE, COURAGE, BOASTING . . . head is erect, the breast projected, the countenance clear and open . . . swaggering; the arms are placed a-kimbo, the foot stamped on the ground, the head drawn back with pride, the legs take large strides . . .

PERPLEXITY, IRRESOLUTION, ANXIETY . . . collect the body together . . . the eye-brows are contracted, the head hanging on the breast, the eyes cast downwards, the mouth shut, the lips puffed together . . . the whole body alters its aspect . . . then falls into contemplation . . . motions are restless and unequal, sometimes moving quick, and sometimes slow . . .

VEXATION . . . gestures . . . of perplexity, adds to these, complaint, fretting, and remorse . . .

PEEVISHNESS . . . like anger but more moderately . . . The upper lip is disdainfully drawn up, and the eyes are cast obliquely upon the object of displeasure . . .

ENVY . . . a mixture of joy, sorrow, and hatred . . . nearly a-kin to malice but more moderate in its tones and gestures . . .

MALICE . . . sets the jaws, or gnashes the teeth, sends blasting flashes from the eyes, stretches the nose horizontally, clinches both the fists, and bends the elbows in a straining manner to the body . . .

SUSPICION, JEALOUSY . . . shews itself by restless­ ness, peevishness, thoughtfulness, anxiety, and absence of mind . . . bursts out into piteous com­ plaint, and weeping . . . a momentary smile . . . the face shews the mind overcast again . . .

MODESTY, SUBMISSION . . . modesty . . . bends the body forward, has a placid downcast countenance, levels the eyes to the breast* if not to the feet of the superior character . . . submission adds to these a lower bend­ ing of the head, and a spreading of the arms and hands downwards towards the person we submit to . . .

SHAME . . . turns the face from the beholders; covers it with blushes, hangs the head, casts down the eyes, draws down and contracts the eye-brows . . . puts him /

131 upon making a thousand gestures and grimaces to keep himself in countenance . . .

GRAVITY (PERIODS NESS) . . . smooths the countenance, and gives it an air of melancholy, the eye-brows are lowered, the eyes cast downward, the mouth almost shut, and sometimes a little contracted. The posture of the body and limbs is composed, and without much motion

ENQUIRY . . . fixes the body nearly in one position, the head somewhat stooping, the eyes poring, and the eye­ brows contracted . . . ATTENTION . . . nearly the same aspect as inquiry, and requires silence; the eyes often cast down upon the ground; sometimes fixed upon the face of the speaker, but not too familiarly . . . TEACHING or INSTRUCTING . . . requires a mild serene air,, sometimes approaching to an authoritative gravity. The features and gestures altering according to the age or dignity of the pupil, and importance of the subject inculcated. To youth it should be mild, open, serene, and condescending: to equals and superiors, modest and diffident . . . The eye steady and open, the eye-brow a little drawn down over it, but not too much as to look surly or dogmatical . . . ARGUING . . . with much demonstration by the hand . . . and sometimes rises to great vehemence and energy . . . ADMONITION . . . the head Is sometimes shaken at the person we admonish . . . the right hand is directed to the person spoken to, and the fore-finger projected from the rest . . . AUTHORITY ... . opens the countenance, but draws down the eye-brows a little . . . to give . . . an air of gravity . . . COMMANDING . . . air a little more peremptory, with a look a little serene, or stern. The hand is held out, and moved towards the person to whom the order Is given with the palm upward, and sometimes it is accompanied by a nod of the head to the person unwilling to obey, the right hand is extended and projected forcibly towards-the person commanded . . . c . FORBIDDING . . . draws the head backwards, and pushes the arm and hand forwards, with the palms downwards . . . the air of aversion . . .

AFFIRMING . . . lifting the right hand and eyes towards heaven, by laying the right hand open upon the heart

DENYING . . . expressed like affirmation . . . DIFFERING . . . nearly as refusing . . . AGREEING . . .nearly as granting . . . JUDGING . . . demands a grave, steady look with deep attention, the countenance altogether clear . . . with little action . . . REPROVING . . . stern aspect . . . accompanied with gestures, not much different from those of threatening, but not so lively . . . like reproach . . . without the sourness and ill-nature . . . ACQUITTING . . . benevolent tranquil countenance . . . right hand is open, and waving gently towards the per­ son acquitted expressing dismission . . . CONDEMNING . . . a severe look, but sometimes mixed with pity . . . PARDONING • . . some degree of severity . . . DISMISSING . . . a kind aspect . . . the right hand open, the palm upwards, gently waving towards the per­ son. Dismissing with displeasure, besides the look . . . of . . . displeasure, the hand Is hastily thrown out towards the person dismissed, the back part of the hand toward him, and the countenance at the same time turned away from him . . . REFUSING . . . when accompanied with displeasure, Is done nearly in the same way as dismissing with dis­ pleasure. Without displeasure . . . a shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders . . . GIVING, GRANTING . . . with unreserved good-will . . . the right hand open, with the palm upwards, extending towards the person we favour . . . the head . . . inclining forwards . . . 133 GRATITUDE . . . full of complacency . . . submission . . . right hand open with fingers spread, and pressing upon the breast just over the heart . . CURIOSITY . . . opens the eyes and mouth, lengthens the neck, bends the body forwards, and fixes it in one posture, nearly as in admiration . . . PROMISING . . . benevolent looks . . . sometimes by inclining the head, and hands open, with the palms upwards, towards the person to whom the promise is made. Sincerity in promising is expressed by laying the right hand gently on the left breast . . . VENERATION . . . head and body is inclined a little forward, and the hand, with the palm downward, just raised as to meet the inclination of the body, and then let fall . . . the eye is sometimes lifted up, and the immediately cast downward . . . eye-brows are drawn down . . . composed to the most profound gravity . . . RESPE6T • . . lesser degree of veneration . . . allied to modesty . . . DESIRE . . . bending the body forwards, and stretching the arms towards the object . . . countenance smiling . . . eyes wide open, and eye-brows raised; the mouth open . . . COMMENDATION . . . the arms are gently spread, the hands open with the palms upwards, directed towards the per­ son approved, and sometimes gently lifted up and down

EXHORTING . . . the arms are sometimes spread, with hands open . . . and sometimes the right hand is lifted up, and struck rapidly down as enforcing what we say

COMPLAINING . . . distorts the features, almost closes the eyes; sometimes raises them wilfully; opens the mouth, gnashes the teeth, draws up the upper lip, draws down the head upon the breast, and contracts the whole body. The arms are violently bent at the elbows,and the fists strongly clinched . . .

FATIQUE . . . a general languor to the body; the coun­ tenance is dejected, the arms hand liftless; the body, if not fitting or lying along, stoops as in old age; the legs, if walking, are dragged heavily along, and seems, at every step to bend under the weight of the body . . . 134

SICKNESS . . . infirmity or feebleness in every motion . . . the eyes dim and almost closed, the cheeks are pale and hollow, the jaw falls, the head hangs down . . . the head shaking, and the whole body, as it were sinking under the weight that opresses it. The listing of the emotions presented several synonyms of expression and meaning. These words in bold subject type were (1) hatred and aversion, (2) anger, rage, and fury, (3) fear and terror, (4) confidence, courage, and boasting, (5) perplexity, irresolution, and anxiety, (6) suspicion and jealousy, (7) teaching and instructing, and (8) giving and granting. Ferociousness was listed after gravity but was differentiated from.any other title of the listing because it was set into parentheses. Although surprize, wonder, amazement, and admiration were combined in bold type, Walker discussed wonder and amazement as synonyms and admiration as a separate expression. Modesty and submission were listed together but discussed separately and with differentiated characteristics.

Walker did not attempt to clarify why two or more

terminologies were grouped in the same printed title but

discussed separately. Obviously, Walker considered some

relationship between the terms that were discussed separ­

ately although listed under the same bold title. It Is

doubtful that the purpose was that of brevity for other

words were defined as merely "... similar to . . ." and

these would probably have been eliminated had the author

Intended brevity. 135

The two most logical reasonings for the author classifying these emotions together are, firstly, that the emotions were so alike In expression and definition that they could not be differentiated for discussion or, secondly, that they were the same emotion.

In negating the second theory with consistency,

Walker defined several words in referring to the similarity of expressions with a second emotion. For example, denying was to be ”. . . expressed like affirmation . . ., ” differ­ ing was ”... nearly as refusing . . .,” agreeing was ". . . nearly as granting « . .,” pardoning was ”... some degree of severity. . .“ Thus, some differentiation was obvious to Walker.

Since one of the major considerations for selecting

these emotions was that each emotion was distinctive and

obvious, the physical expressions of these various emotions

did not consistently substantiate his implication. They

lacked both obvious and distinctive characteristics. This

reasoning did not dispute Walker's theory of organizing the

emotions that were distinctive and obvious for in consider­

ing the definitions, vocal and visual expression, and the

attitudes, the emotions were distinctive although the one

factor of physical expression was not consistently distinc­

tive. However, the previous analysis did not substantiate

Walker's listing of two or three major emotions and a

singular definition implied that the two or three terms were 136 synonyms. However, two-thirds of Walker’s terminologies were singularly presented and critics did not attack these

considerations. Pew attacks of Walker's classification of the emotions

were found. Was there a difference between giving and

granting, between fear and terror, among confidence, courage,

and boasting, among perplexity, irresolution, and anxiety?

An analysis of these emotions would not only show a differ­

ence in the current meanings of these terms, but may also

demonstrate a similarity of meaning present during Walker's

period.

The general arrangement of emotions seemed to lack

pattern. They were not presented alphabetically, from less

violent to more violent, from a deductive or inductive

arrangement, or from simple to more complex. The random

pattern did not substantiate the assumption that the arrange­

ment of emotions were in a learning sequence since both

obvious and subtle emotions were distributed throughout the

sequence.

Some expressions of the attitudes seem incongruous to

our present knowledge concerning the styles of speaking in

the late seventeen hundred if Walker's classification was to

be used as a model. His definitions of action supported his

approach of presenting these emotions solely for demonstra­

tion purposes, not to be firm rules of expression. "Stamps

with the foot" and "burst out into piteous complaint, and 137 weeping" seem inconsistent with our present knowledge of the speaking of this period. Secondly, the author mentioned such physical factors that couE seldom be controlled by the most experienced actors much less the inexperienced public speaker. References to a rapidly beating heart, blushing, hands sweating were seldom controlled factors even for the most experienced actors. Thus, Walker's definitions of the emotions tend to substantiate his theorizing about them. The passions were to be vised as study of the reactions of the emotions. Basing his theories upon speculation and observa­ tion, Walker's correctness of observation and his accurate­ ness of recording his observations could be questioned. In a description of the passions Walker presented what he considered to be the more acceptable physical pro­ cedure of expression in accordance with the acceptable style of his period. In various texts he attempted to consider many parts of the body for use in adequate physical expres­ sion. Examples of the directions to physical display of various movements follow considering (1) the arms, (2) the hands, and (3) the procedure for oral reading. Walker stated that the movements of the arms were very important to adequate expression, and he felt they "... must move upwards from the shoulder. . , ."^79 He

stated ". . . when they are not speaking, the arms must hang

2^%alker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. ix. 138

in their natural place by the sides. . . Emphasis upon the idea was to be expressed as the arm "... approach­ es the head, the arm should, with a jerk, be suddenly

straightened into its first position, at the very moment the

emphatical word is pronounced."2®1 The author made no

attempt to differentiate gesture of the arm from the idea,

but he consistently considered both in his discussion.

The hands also served as an expression of meaning and

although Walker spoke of the hands and the arms separately,

he inferred that effective gesturing utilized both arm

movements and hand movements. Specific use of the hands for

expression was considered by the philologist when he stated:

"When the pupil has pronounced one sentence in the position

thus described, the hand, as if lifeless, must drop down to

the side, the very moment the last accented word is pro­

nounced. . . . "2®2 The author referred to the preceding

position as that of the alerted speaker. Foppishness had

grown out of vogue. The lack of the use of the wrist was

stated as a correct position for the hands. Walker stated

that the most acceptable speaker should hold "... the hand

in an exact line with the lower part of the arm, so as not

to bend at the wrist, either when it is held out without

2®°Ibld., p. xvi.

2®1Ibld.. p. x.

282Ibid., p. vii. 139 motion, or when It gives the emphatic stroke."2^ Walker felt that the angle of the hand and the arm implied meaning, the tension of the hand and the angle of the facing of the palm related to the body implied various degrees of emotion.

The extended fingers suggested grace.

Walker stated specific presentational methods for the oral reader concerning his starting posture, his execution of gestures, and his emphasis. A more fully developed analysis of this was presented in "Theory and Methodology," but the author capsuled his advice in the following:

. . . we should accustom ourselves to read stand­ ing; that the book should be held in the left hand; that we should take our eyes as often as possible from the book, and direct them to those that hear us. The three or four last words at least of every paragraph, or branch of a subject, should be pro­ nounced with the eye pointed to one of the auditors. Whfcn anything sublime, lofty, or heavenly is expressed, the eye and the right hand may be very properly elevated; and when anything low, inferior, or gravelling is referred to, the eye and hand may be directed downwards: when anything distant or extensive is mentioned, the hand may naturally describe the or extent; and when conscious virtue, or any heart-felt emotion, or tender sentiment occurs, we may as naturally clap the hand on the breast.

Not only does this advice to the oral reader state specific gestures which may be utilized, but it also reveals some

implications of the style of oral reading during Walker’s period.

^ P» xi* ‘^Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 266 267. 140

Walker's most severe critic scoffed at all the divi­ sions of the emotions. James Sheridan Knowles stated "To instance only in two articles, the eyes and hand: what in­ ward emotion is there that cannot be manifested by these?"2®5 Walker could hardly have been satisfied with expressing the many emotions he cited utilizing only the hands and the eyes.

The extensive emphasis upon proper stylings began to be lessened by the late seventeen hundreds. Walker was caught in a transitional period of heavy stylization to a lessening of this stylization, and his procedures for gestur-. ing reflect both trends. Although not always opposed in theory but rather in degree, his theories to modern expres­ siveness seemed equivalent to the degree that we still maintain some of the stylizations of that period. Much of the stylizations have been discontinued, but many, and we prefer to think the more natural ones, have remained in

English and American culture. Others have completely faded.

The reflections of these on American culture seemed impera­ tive. The deep graceful bows, the heeled stance, etc., were descending from the protocol of Walker's period. The trend away from stylization increased in the following years with more emphasis upon the naturalness of the figure.

In summary, Walker stated the passions for the purpose of the reader or the speaker recognizing these gestures,

2&5Knowles, Orthoepy and Elocution, op. cit., pp. 205- 206. 141 positions, attitudes, etc., which would guide him to better understandings of the expression of the ideas. The pro­ cedure was limited by the time of the author, but also in­ consistencies within his reasoning and writing. Walker’s listing of the emotions did not consider the change of style from his period of this and a re-evaluation of the impor­ tance of the emotions, the predominance of various emotions

related to the era of the emotion, and the change of

terminology. Specific movements or methods of movements were

stated in accordance to the style of Walker’s period, many

not currently applicable.

Thus, Walker's handling of the passions and posture

emphasized his general theory that consciousness of the

expressions of emotions and the style of the period pre­

sented to the speaker more vivid expression of his ideas to

the audience. He seemed to have based his examinations and

procedures on his observations and conjectures. Generally,

his advice to the reader or speaker concerning gesturing was

consistent with his theory of language expression.

Thus, this chapter defined what Walker stated about

physical action in public speaking and oral reading in terms

of John Walker's writings and the emphasis of the period.

Generally, Walker's theories substantiated his specific

advice to the reader and the speaker, and his directions

for expressing the passions and posture were relatively

consistent. CHAPTER VIII

APPLICATIONS AND PROJECTIONS OF JOHN WALKER'S THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES

An understanding of these early writers [Walker and Sheridan] should give us an insight into the reason for the widely differing systems and methods of teaching speech delivery which existed through the whole of the 19th Century and which are found to §- slightly lesser extent even at the present time. The purpose of this chapter is to associate John Walker's theories to modem applications of teaching, and, secondly, to project from Walker's theories and iheir appli­ cations to current teaching where there is need for further research. These findings will be related to the teaching of public speaking and oral reading with particular emphasis directed to gesturing. A discussion of the use and projection of Walker's theories to current application does not lend itself to a systematic organization. Many of the theories which he stated relied on other ideas. Some disciplines of public speaking and oral reading were assumed by Walker; some were not considered. For the purpose of organization of this chapter, the general applications will be considered to the ------Charles A. Fritz, "Sheridan to Rush; the Begin­ nings of English Elocution,11 op. cit., p. 88.

142 143 more specific Ideas. The following areas will be considered: (l) language, (2) purposes of oral reading and public speak­ ing, (3) the use of humor, (4) the disciplines of oral read­ ing and public speaking, (5) historical analysis, (6) the pause, (7) pronunciation, (8) specific methods of teaching, and (9) physical movement.

The Growth of Elocution Before beginning an investigation of the applications of Walker's theories to modem teaching, It becomes neces­ sary to trace the development of elocution from England to the United States. In doing this, a more sharply defined understanding of the influence of both Walker and Sheridan Is brought forward. For clarification this brief history of Interpretation will be divided into (1) the beginnings of elocution, (2) British elocution during Walker's period, (3) the influence of Sheridan's writings in America, and (4) the influence of Walker's writings in America. Within the last twenty years there has been a renewed Interest in investigating the basic sources of interpretation. Generally, histories of the elocutionary movement start with the writings of Sheridan and Walker, but current interest seems to indicate that there were many earlier writings. The standard text by William Phillips Sandford begins his account of the elocutionary movement with Sheridan. Wilber Samuel Howell traced the beginnings of the elocutionary 144 movement back to such writings as John Mason's Essay on

Elocution, or, Pronunciation" published in London in 1757* Robert Robinson's The Art of Pronunciation published in London in 1617 and John Holmes The Art of Rhetoric Made Easy* Howell gave great importance to a writing by a Frenchman named Michel La Faucheur and stated that this translated work, An Essay upon the Action of an Orator; As to His Pro­ nunciation and Gesture. Useful both for Divines and Lawyers, and necessary for all Young Gentlemen, that study how to Speak well in Publlck, was a major influence on the develop­ ment of elocution. Howell also made reference to a Neo- Ciceronian movement including Thomas Vicars, William Pemble, Thomas Farnaby, Odadiah Walker, Thomas Bulwer and John Smith.Fritz stated a passage identified from Murdoch's A Plea for Spoken Language, page 22:

Thus the English writers had little data upon which to base their work. The first writer to speak of acuteness or gravity of the voice was an old English grammarian, Charles Butler of Magdalen College, Oxford. . . . The next impor­ tant contribution was that of Sir Joseph Steele who 'discovered' that the slide or accent of the Greeks was a necessary accompaniment of every syllable of spoken language.200

Fritz attempted to relate the elocutionary movement

in England with the rise of elocution in the United States.

287wilbur Samuel Howell, "Sources of the Elocutionary Movement in England, 1700-1748, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 45 (1959)* PP. 1-18. 2®®Fritz, op. cit., p. 88. 145

In doing this, he attributed acclaim to both Walker and

Sheridan. The mechanical theories of Walker coming into con­ flict with the 'follow Nature1 ideas of Sheridan gave rise to the two schools of elocution Which were destined to exist for so long. The followers of Sheridan attacked Walker's system of inflec­ tions as highly artificial. The conflict was car­ ried over to the American colleges and academies. Several American editions were published of the works of both Sheridan and Walker and were used as texts in the schools until well into the 19th Century.2°9

The sixth chapter of this study attempted to show that these differences between the theories and methodologies of Walker and Sheridan were not as great as Fritz purported. Perhaps more accurate was Fritz's statement: The elocution which was taught for so many years in American schools owes its origin to the work of the English writers of the 18th Century. Here was the first attempt to work out a philosophy of the voice or to place elocution upon a scientific basis.290

There seems to be some evidence that the elocutionary movement in the United States did follow a Sheridanian approach: The earliest texts published in America were based upon Sheridan and added nothing to his theory. Two of these, namely, James Burgh's The Art of Speaking (1795) and William Scott's Lessons in Elocution (1795) were discussed by this writer in a previous article. Two others, The Orator's Assistant (1797) by Alexander Thomas and The Pious Instructor (l80o) by Daniel Colledge were also reviewed by this writer In the Old Books section

2^9Ibid., pT 82. 29°lbid., p. 75. 146

of the Quarterly Journal of Speech of June, 1928. Another American book based directly upon Sheri­ dan's theories was William Enfield's The Speaker (1799).291 It has already been stated that Sheridan had a Philadelphia printing of A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language in 1788. However, the influence of Walker's writings were also felt in the United States. Marie Hochmuth and Richard Murphy's history acclaim that Walker's books became quickly available in college libraries and were often consulted for preparation of declamations.2^2 Mary Margaret Robb pointed out that the McGuffey readers credited John Walker for the principles of elocution it utilized.293 James E. Murdoch stated in 1883: The two great American works of definition and pronunciation of Webster and Worcester, which are now rivals for popular supremacy as authorities, are largely indebted to John Walker for facilities in the progress of construction, and for instances of governing laws.294

Charles Fritz stated: The first Important American writer to follow the theories of Walker and the most popular author of

291ibid., p. 8 3. 2^2Marie Hochmuth and Richard Murphy, "Rhetorical and Elocutionary Training in Nineteenth-Century Colleges," History of Speech Education in America, ed. Karl R. Wallace (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 162. 293jyiary Margaret Robb, "The Elocutionary Movement and Its Chief Figures," History of Speech Education in America, ed. Karl R. Wallace (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1954), pp. 179-180. 294j/[urdoch, op. cit., p. 22, footnote. 147

the early American period was Ebenezer Porter, president of Andover Theological Seminary. In 1827 he published An Analysis of the Principles of Delivery. This was a text for colleges and there is a record of its use at Harvard, Middle- bury, Bowdoin and Andover Theological Seminary. The author stated his purpose in writing as follows: 1. . . guard against the tendency of withdrawing attention from emotions and at the same time to accomplish the ends at which Walker aims, in his Elements of Elocution, I have much desired to see a manual' for students, free both from the obscurity and the extremes particularity of his system.l295 Ebenezer Porter's text was reportedly based on Walker's writing and appears to be the earliest American publication heavily concerned with gesturing. In action, the author [Ebenezer Porter] feels that the best course is to follow nature. There are two extremes, he says, in teaching action, (l) that which encumbers a speaker with so much technical regulation of his movements as to make him an automation, and (2) that which condemns all precepts.29°

Fritz recognized Ebenezer Porter by stating that he ”. . . was the latest important writer on elocution who acknowledged the influence of the English writers and carried on their theories."297 Other influence by Walker's theories included the publication of the Rhetorical Grammar. In the first American edition of the Rhetorical Grammar, published in Boston in 1814, the essen­ tial theories are the same, but so much of the old material has been omitted and rules for

295pritz, op. cit., p. 84. g96ibia. 297ibid.. p. 85. 148

composition have been supplied from 'the best „ source, Blair's 'Lectures' and what was deficient in these has been furnished from War’d*s 'Lectures on Oratory,* so . . . it is presumed the present work is tbeftmost perfect of its kind in the language.2°a Thus, the elocutionary movements in the United States was influenced by both Sheridan and Walker according to texts available. As previously shown, the theories of the two men were not vastly different. However, the elocutionary movement changed differently in the United States than it did in England. Wallace A. Bacon suggests a logical reasoning for the differentiation: But interpretation today is interpretation with something of a difference. Psychology, the new criticism (which is no longer new, and no longer reigns), the nature of contemporary literature, and the nature of teachers and students now enter­ ing into the study of our subject [interpretation] have all combined to point sharply and incisively to the literary text as the source of all the problems with which students and teachers of interpretation are concerned.2°9

Language Walker viewed language as a learned aspect of man, not natural in degree although peculiar to man. Language, speech, and writing were limited by the training of the individual. The training of the individual implies a degree of propriety.

29aIbid., p. 79- 299Bfc6on, op. cit., p. 152. 149 Generally, language is today considered a learned process with cultural limitations. Prom studies of feral children and reasoning, most evidence indicates that language is learned although a degree of communication, often oral sounds or physical responses, can be communicated without much learning. Considering language in the broad sense of communications, action becomes a part of language. There seems to be a relationship between action and communication, perhaps heavily based on the conditioned-response implica­ tions of behaviorism. Currently in the United States, the porpoises are being studied in terms of attempting to define their com­ munication system currently thought to be transmitted orally. Zoologist Harald Esch of the University of Munich recently found a highly developed sound communication with bees.^00 The a ssumption of the peculiarity of language to man is now being investigated and perhaps the sounds of animals are more highly developed than is currently realized. Undoubt­ edly, the implications of such investigations are seemingly endless. Thus, by the implications of the research which is currently taking place, it is doubtful that language is peculiar only to man but, perhaps more accurately, our degree of development of language and our type are distinctive of

^00Editorial, Time Magazine, May 31* 1963* P» 34. 150 man. With current research, Walker's assumption of the peculiarity of language to man is highly questionable.

Purposes One of the outstanding qualities which must be drawn between Walker's theories of elocution and the modern rami­ fications of his system concern the change of purposes. Walker expressed that propriety and effect, piety and virtue were the major aspects of oral reading training. If propriety Is defined as socially acceptable behavior, it remains a major quality of oral Interpretation. However, modern propriety appears more liberal, perhaps more natural, than the propriety of Walker's period, but this can seldom be accurately proven. Many of the styles of Walker's period are not applicable to today's public speaking and oral reading, but this does not negate the value of them to their period. Perhaps many of the styles of current public speaking and oral reading will not be applicable in the

future. Effect remains as one of the most important purposes of public speaking and oral reading. Persuasive speaking appears entirely based upon the effect of the presentation. Much of public speaking is persuasive speaking. The enter­ tainment speech, after dinner speech, and much of oral reading appears to be based upon the effect. Debate is based upon persuasiveness and logic. Theatre appears as a 151 medium of effect. Parliamentary procedure is closely aligned to effect. Thus, effect remains a major purpose of communi­ cation training. If piety is defined as reverence for God, the effect of piety upon current public speaking and oral reading appear as obvious today as in Walker's period. Probably paralleled to the degree of religion in education, the American educational inferences have been to exclude direct religious instruction from the general education, except in specific exceptions. However, the basis of the American educational system is founded on and of religion. With the role of reverence in the New World, elocution in America reflected the general religious principles underlying the variety of religions in the new country. As the United States grew, the religious principles were inherent within their rules, and these remain the basis of democratic living and respect for the individual. Democratic living, respect ' for the individual, and ethics are currently accepted cri­ teria for effective public speaking in America. The modern ethics of public speaking and oral reading are direct reflec­ tions upon the society's rules; American society's rules are reflections of their religious beliefs. Perhaps most dominate is the implication that public speaking and oral reading today have more of a general appli­ cation from the teacher's^viewpoint. No longer are public speaking and oral reading designed specifically for the 152 clergy. Although the purposes of teaching reading and writ­ ing In the New World were to acquire the knowledge of the Bible and to enrich the individual through the Bible, modern implications have been much broadened from their sources to where American public speaking and oral reading are now directed toward the enrichment of the individual within his society. The definition of society includes more concepts than those originally associated with religion. A similar progression has taken place with the British trend. This, however, is certainly not incompatible with the religious implications of piety suggested by Walker, but rather a broadening of the concepts. The Christian implications of virtue are today consid­ ered part of piety and seldom separated from the religious implications. Today we expect the speaker to be an ethical and respectable person (concepts built from our religious understandings), and without these qualities the current evaluators consider a speaker or reader to lose validity of persuasiveness. Thus, the four purposes which Walker put forth have been readjusted to meet the demands of the New World and current values. There is still use of propriety. Effect plays a major purpose in current public speaking and oral

reading. Piety has undergone a change, currently includes virtue, but still remains. There has been some change in 153 the emphasis upon these values, but the values still remain as some of our purposes for oral reading and public speaking. The underlying purpose of oral reading and public speaking appeared to be that of relaying the ideas to the members of the audience. Concerning oral reading, the author's phraseologies are his medium of expression, the tools of his craft. Preparation becomes a major means. In public speaking, the speaker's ideas are the most important element and his skill in expressing his ideas meaningfully, both physically and orally, becomes his tool. Thus, both public speaking and oral reading were closely tied to the demands of the author's ideas, or what would have been referred to in Walker's period as “Sense." The speakers effectiveness in presenting these ideas was tied to the audience's demands. What the audience demands is often tied to the particular period. Thus, the ideas of the author were also tied to his particular period. Although readings from Dante were applicable to Walker's period and, perhaps, not as applicable to ours, does not imply the value of the idea. Modern emphasis upon oral reading and public speaking still state that ideas are the most important singular ele­ ment in both types of presentation. In appearing truthful to the author's intent or truthful to the ideas of the speech, the style of presentation should enhance the meaning. This indicates that there are certain types of materials 154 that are more appropriate to public speaking, and others that are more appropriate to oral reading. Perhaps it is the style of the material rather than the ideas. However, the differences of presentational types and/or styles demanded by various types of writing and speaking have seldom been clearly defined. The preceding suggests many possibilities for quanti­ tative studies. What are the most appropriate manuscript characteristics for the effective oral reader? What are currently acceptable public speaking and oral reading stand­ ards? Since the changes of acceptable public speaking and oral reading standards are characteristic of the period, what characteristics can be projected with some reasonable assurance they will be relayed in the future?

Humor The application of humor to serious subject matter has been mainly an introvention closely aligned to the psycholog­ ical incerts into public speaking and oral reading. Many psychologists recognize the variety factor for maintaining attention. The beginning speaker is told to use variety of approaches, manner of expression, and style of presentation. Humor generally serves the function of relief from the serious tones of the presentation and can often be used effectively to present emotional variety to a speech or

reading or to relieve the tension of the audience. 155 John Walker and most of the other prominent philolog­ ists of his period found little application in using humor in serious subjects. The speeches and writings of the late seventeen hundreds were marked by a direct, constant level of approach by the speaker or reader. Humor was seldom injected as a relief device during Walker’s period. One reason may have been that those who read were generally of the intellectual level that they did not need the added encouragement of humor. Perhaps more logical, humorous writing was a separate style. The author stated that the comic speaker was born rather than made^01 and with the advent of greater analysis and investigation, we are learning some of the qualities which, perhaps, produce these various types of creativity. Investigations of creativity seem to have been rapidly increasing during the past years, and it is generally felt that creativity stems today from a combination of person­ ality factors and background elements. If humor and variety

are forms of creativity, certainly they also are inspired through personality combinations. It is doubtful if these are as much inherited characteristics as environmental and learned characteristics. Thus, Walker's assumption that the comic speaker (like the poet) was born with the talent appears to be unfounded.

3°%alker, Academic Speaker, op. cit., p. xx. 156

The Disciplines of Oral Reading and Public Speaking John Walker recognized public speaking and oral read­ ing as distinctive forms of presentation but also controlled by many of the same rules. Not only must one associate public speaking and oral reading to a closely knit relation­ ship emphasizing the aspects of each which are in common, but he should also consider the relationship of other speech disciplines, debate, theatre, writing, parliamentary pro­ cedure, into a multi-dimensional framework. Walker considered oral reading and public speaking when he spoke of training in elocution. The terminologies of these disciplines have changed compared to their content during Walker’s period. No longer is elocution used as a subject area title in most schools and colleges partially because of the tainted reputation it received in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With the progress of the scientific advance throughout all mediums, the gen­ eral area of public speaking also split the subject matter into individual units for study. Public speaking became one emphasis; oral reading became another.

Walker divided pronunciation, language, grammar, and rhyming into various parts for analysis, and his major con­ tributions were those that dealt with the individual units. He was often criticized for this approach, generally for

inadequately separating the whole. Some authors felt that 157 Walker should relate the parts back to the whole, which he generally failed to do. This appeared to be a common fault of the scientific implications in many fields. However, this in no way negates the procedure, but rather implies that the procedure should be completed. This same incompletion is often present in modern educational practice where a college presents a general course and breaks it into separate units for further study, but seldom relates the parts back to the whole. Some col­ leges and high schools of the United States recommend or require a basic course in speech as an introduction to the many areas of study. Some present public speaking courses as the introduction; others present the oral reading course. After this basis, the student is then allowed to investigate more specifically designed courses, and the general assump­ tion seems to be that the student will relate the specific courses to the more general approach. Current practice of establishing a firm speech back­ ground also needs investigation concerning which course \ serves as the most firm basis of speech training. Does an introductory course of public speaking or oral reading present the most effective foundation for the beginning student? To what degree is there an interrelationship be­ tween public speaking and oral reading? To what extent do effective public speakers make effective readers? The list­ ing of questions to establish the relationship between 158 public speaking and oral reading compared to the entire discipline of communication seems endless. In a similar approach to the interrelationship of the disciplines, Walker believed that learning was the mastering of progressive steps of learning, and that the student should not continue until the first basis was completely controlled. Walker placed a greater concentration upon sequential learning than is currently accepted. In many areas of studythe progression of various steps is obvious and the knowledge cannot be continued until the steps have been accomplished. A logical, progressive building becomes evident. But in other disciplines, the progressive building is not as obvious and, perhaps, necessary. Sequential learning implies an organization of material. The current basic public speaking books generally contain similar ideas, but the organization of them differ and the order of teaching is generally left to the teacher. Walker stated a general progression of learning, but, in being general, this has seldom been validated. There is also an implication that the interrelationship of subject areas in communications is not necessarily progressive. The interrelationship of public speaking, oral reading, theatre, debate, etc., has been seldom clarified. An effective public speaker does not necessarily become an effective debater or oral reader. Yet, therecbes appear to be a relationship between the disciplines. Generally, the effective public 159 speaker Is a more effective reader than the untrained stu­ dent, the common medium being the knowledge of the control of the voice. Many actors have become effective readers, but being an effective reader does not- assure your success as an actor. Several questions arise. What are the relationships between the various disciplines of communications? What is the relationship between the training of students in these disciplines? What common factors are the basis of all com­ munications? What is the degree of transfer between disciplines? Can this basis be taught?

Historical Analysis The current teachers of speech draw from past history and past research to direct them In establishing some basic theory of public speaking and oral reading. Drawing from past experience has been established as one of the major sources of knowledge and, undoubtedly, some or much of what has been established In the past is currently applicable. Socrates used habit to establish learning, used practical experience to enhance interpretation, etc., but most of the practices of the past have been brought forth in generali­ ties. Equally as important, one must consider what has not been brought forth from the past. A common fault of histori­ cal research is accepting that which the researcher cares to accept and not considering those ideas or methods that are not applicable. One must establish to what degree the specifics of the past are applicable to the specifics of the present, and, extending this further, to what degree is what we teach today applicable to what will be demanded in the future? We must also consider what will not be vised in the future as well as what is not currently used. For example, Walker's generalities of teaching posture are currently acceptable. Do not current teachers of public speaking give direct posture rules when that state that a student should stand on his two feet, use good posture,,hold his head in a position to give his vocal mechanism the fullest advantage, etc.? Although the methodology of teaching has not changed, Walker's ideas of what comprise acceptable posture for speaking are no longer applicable. Walker drew many of his implications from history, but fewer than his contemporaries. Walker cannot be criti­ cized for drawing from the history of public speaking and oral reading, but he could be criticized upon his selections from history. The philologist often dealt with generalities of past teaching procedures, and if he accepted specific teaching procedures, he did not recognize them in print as such. Undoubtedly, many current practices in the classroom seldom reach print. Thus, our knowledge of the approach Walker used in teaching speech must, by necessity, be based upon what the author stated as his approach or what others l6l wrote about his approach, but whether Walker adhered to his own advice cannot be answered. Thus, an underlying assumption of the historical approach seems just as applicable to Walker's historical approach as it would to modem researchers. Walker could only project from his theories what he felt would be appli­ cable in the future. Current historical researchers can only make similar projections. The validity of the projec­ tion rests with time. John Walker explained the layman's approach' to public speaking and oral reading by stating that the attitudes toward public speaking and oral reading during his period were that by having the facility to speak and having the practice throughout one's life assured the individual of being an effective speaker. Walker's students were probably financially secure sons of some social prestige or members of the qlergy. Speech was often an academic discipline in the traditional sense. Audiences were limited and selec­ tive. The lay class was not a part of his audience. Today, the educational level of the masses have been improve; college audiences contain a greater intellectual variety, and with the progressive advance of education, the practi­ cality of effective speaking has constantly been emphasized. However, today there are still schools at all academic levels which do not require emphasis in public speaking and oral reading. Even in British education, the trend appears 162 to be towards teaching speech rather than Ignoring it. To what extent this trend will continue is conjecture.

The Pause A major disagreement between the approaches of Walker and Sheridan was in the pause emphasis of a line of poetry. Sheridan found necessity in stopping at the end of every formally written line. Walker directed his pausing for meaning regardless of the physical set-up of the line. Sheridan felt that pausing at the end of every line more clearly revealed the style, and Walker felt the style could often hamper the meaning. Both regarded the major element of the meaning. Since the current emphasis is that meaning should generally be enhanced before the style, one could easily infer that Sheridan's approach would be inappropriate to oral reading today. Although inappropriate to modern verse and much of the poetry written today, the poetry with which Sheridan dealt was generally a more formalized pattern in which emphatic meaning can be read by pausing at the end of each line. Sheridan did not state that style was secondary to meaning, but that meaning was enhanced by stopping at the end of each line which, according to the superior literature of that period, was generally true. Generally, Walker's inferences that meaning dominated style has been carried forth, but Sheridan would not have been consistent with his own writings had he insisted that style was more important 163 than meaning. With the advent of new styles of writing, Sheridan's implications have become less applicable. Thus, the disagreement between the two men considering the liter­ ature of their period was not as great of a disagreement as some current writing implies. There appears to be a great volume of writing concern­ ing the current use of the pause for effective meaning. Seldom does a public speaking book or an oral interpretation book not contain a section devoted to the proper use of the pause. One of the major aspects of correct pausing is closely aligned to punctuation. Both Sheridan and Walker emphasized the use of pausing at punctuation. However, standards of punctuation have also changed, and the necessity of pausing at punctuation depends today upon the author of the selec­ tion and how he considered punctuation to work for his writing. In many modern writings, there is no longer the necessity to pause at every comma, and in scane current writings the pause must be added where no punctuation exists. The literature of Walker and Sheridan's period was more formal and the necessity of stopping at the comma was much greater. This in no way implies that either man was incorrect in his considerations, but rather that through the change of time different procedures have been accepted and, thus, different rules must be established. 164

Pronunciation There appeared to be a much greater emphasis upon pronunciation in relationship to public speaking and oral reading used by Walker than now practiced. Four points clarify the approaches used by the philologist and suggest the reason for such a change. Firstly, Walker was basically an orthoeplst and lexicographer and the implications of his background undoubt­ edly shadowed his approach toward elocution. This background gave him greater validity as a teacher of elocution, but it also established practices that were not as heavily dwelled upon by other elocutionists of his period. Secondly, there appeared to be a greater value placed upon pronunciation during the late seventeen hundreds than were present in America during the same period. Walker was living and writing in London, and the refinement of an established, traditional background presented a different value system than the frontier life of America. Class, tradition, and behavior had been established in England and these values were respected. Financial gain seemed to be one of the major factors for respect in the New World. Also^.

a deliberate desire to turn from the values of the Mother­ land, plus the variety of nationalities which settled in America, all added to a lesser value on pronunciation for the American than the British. In risking gross simplifi­ cation, a similar situation exists today. Indicative of this 165

Idea, British classes are often based according to their language and background where American class systems are based upon financial earning and position. Thirdly, probably with the rise of the scientific emphasis, philology has been separated into areas of speech in America where the influence of the scientific was not so severe in England. Pronunciation today is generally con­ cerned with voice and diction and, unfortunately, too seldom emphasized as a most important part of vocal training. Con­ trasting this to the modern British emphasis, voice and dic­ tion are not a separate consideration, but integrated to a much higher degree into all the academic disciplines. Per­ haps indicative of the emphasis upon voice and diction is a parallel emphasis upon word play in punning and satire which appear inborn in the British. Fourthly, the audience of Walker's period was composed of those who had an understanding of the propriety of language. The audiences had been trained in recognizing correct pronunciation and, thusly, in appreciating correct pronunciation. The audience of the speaker in the New World was a more rugged, basic group, composed of aiaverage skill or tradesmen. The audience of the United States was not as literary or trained, and the audience accepted the "common man" ideal. The political influence of the types of government effected the audiences and, thus, effected the 166 types of speech training necessary to meet the demands of the audiences. Thus, not only had the amount of emphasis upon pro­ nunciation in public speaking and oral reading changed from Walker's period in England to the same period in the United States, but the standards and the audiences were greatly different. Modern examinations of the language of various countries still maintain a pronunciation difference, but with the common langugge countries, rapid communications and travel, this difference appears to be lessening. In applying the use of pronunciation to public speak­ ing and oral reading in the modern scene, the differences of language still seem prevalent. The class system of Britian is still more heavily characterized by a language difference than the class system of the United States. In London alone there are still the extremes of the "cockneys” and the "King's English," but with ramifications much greater than language usage. Although the implication does exist in the United States, the value placed upon an individual because of his pronunciation does not seem as great in American society. There are also the implications of the role of tradi­ tion upon communications. Understandably, English as spoken by the British seems to be more bound to tradition than American English. However, in the establishing of a new country, the British immigrants attempted to maintain their 167 traditional patterns of pronunciation. Changing tradition seems to be a slower process than changing usage standards. Some of the pronunciation differences are probably due to a reliance upon traditional patterns. Social and economic trends also have influenced the change of language. The theories of pronunciation should be more thor­ oughly analyzed although a great amount of work has been done in this area of language study. M. L. Menken's volumes of the analysis and historical background of language has been one approach. Language should also be approached from a pronunciation viewpoint. Esther Keck Sheldon's disserta- tion^02 associating the disagreements between Walker's pronunciation and those of Sheridan, used a more specific approach*

Specific Methods of Teaching Walker stated that teaching youthful students pre­ sented a different approach from teaching adult students because of the older students establishing firm habits that were difficult to change. Modern speech has established that the approach to the two groups differs from effectiveness.

The approach of teaching more mature students has been applied in such writings as the Dale Carnegie courses,

302Esther Keck Sheldon, "Standards of English Pro­ nunciation According to the Grammarians and Orthoepists of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1938). 168 speech for the military man, after dinner speeches, etc. The implications of teaching the more youthful students can be cited by viewing the place of public speaking in the public schools compared to 1900. John Walker did not concern himself with the teaching of mature students. He considered the teaching of boys, and thus, evaluation of his theories' application to teaching adult students seems questionable. Walker felt the students should be classed according to their abilities, and this implication is only partially considered today. The implications of maturing and adjust­ ment appear to play a much greater role in American education than in British education, and classifying the students is often divided into age categories in the United States. Often with a general introduction of speech in the elementary grades, in high school public speaking and/or debate can often be taken anytime during the three or four years of training. In higher education, public speaking and/or oral reading are often first or second year requirements. Walker stated that the size of the class should be maintained at ten or fewer students. Practicality and utilitarian values of American education make a class of this size very difficult to justify financially. Modern theories of teaching speech generally agree that an average class of twenty students is, to a degree, a compromise between effectiveness of group size in maintaining attention

/ 169 and practicability. As we currently approach public speak­ ing and oral reading, the class of twenty allots the oppor­ tunity for each to participate to a reasonable extent. Many questions can be projected from the author’s statements. To what degree does the size of the class limit or heighten the effectiveness of the teaching and the con­ trol of the subject matter? Can a larger class be effec­ tive? If this is directly related to the effectiveness of the teacher, what qualities of the teacher are operating to control the learning of the larger class? Is the approach currently used one which is directly related to a certain size of class? With the advent of educational television and an increasing amount of correspondence courses, can the approach to public speaking be one to a large audience and could it be presented without the direct aid of the teacher? Walker theorized that one of the most effective means of teaching was that of the student mimicing the teacher. It is desirable that a teacher be proficient in subject discipline. Realizing that the current study of public speaking is more of a study of the subject from many direc­ tions and emphases, discipline of the medium is not the only objective. However, the current teacher of public speaking and oral reading is greatly aided by having skill over the process. One great difference between Walker’s approach to public speaking and oral reading compared to current 170 application concerns the course objective of the teacher. Walker emphasized the process of the medium of speech, and all investigations were directed to these controls. The passions was a method of control of the discipline. Cur­ rent implications are that not only a control of the medium is essential, but an understanding of the background and principles of the disciplines lead to a better control of the process. The author's major inference of mimicing is subject to current educational challenge. Generally, mimlcing seems to be a teaching technique of more elementary training, and it is not used so emphatically in higher education. However, teaching of techniques are more conducive to mimicing that teaching theories. In speech, demonstration appears to be a major method of relaying an idea. The teacher often "shows" since one important aspect of speech is the visual element. However, mimlcing for the sake of itself seems not to be as effective as having the student reason out the pro­ cedure and adapt what he considers to be appropriate. Teaching stage movement seems to be an appropriate example of reasoning and mimicing. Often the director will pace out the moves according to his ideas, and often the director will simply state where he wants the actor to eventually be placed and allow the actor to move in a logical method to acquire this position. Similarly, teaching a student to add a gesture at an emphatic idea does not seem as worthy as 171 making him reason to acquire his own gesture so long as his gesture is understandable to the listener. Walker placed more emphasis upon mimicing than most modern teachers of speech. Thus, the necessity of the teacher being proficient in the process of speaking and reading was probably more dominate in Walker’s writings than in current practice.

Walker emphasized a procedure of teaching where the most proficient student spoke first and the order continued according to the superior degree of proficiency. His reason­ ing was that the best example was then before the students.

In agreement with teaching by example, this seemed logical for Walker's procedures. Current theories of the sequence of speaker appears not to be as profound. Several different approaches are used, (l) The arrangement of order, or the sequence in speakers, is selected by the teacher to be in that order which best holds the attention of the audience. Perhaps the superior student is asked to speak first for an example; per­ haps he is called later in the round to increase interest. (2) Random order is often used. (3) Some teachers simply call the names as they are listed in the grade book, but this alphabetical selection appears to have little value in the order of selection. The contrast between having a good speaker and a weak speaker is generally avoided so the com­

parison may not be individually damaging, but reasoning often side-steps this procedure. To maintain variety and interest 172 appear to be the dominating reason for selection. Risking simplification, American education is so highly tied to personality development that it is difficult to make general­ ities of the procedures used.

Walker cautioned the teacher against discouragement for the lacking of the students to appear graceful. One of the major attributes of the philologist's period was that of grace. The control of the passions was designed to enhance the grace of the human body and expression of it.

Grace was closely aligned to propriety.

In m o d e m American speech books, the stress of grace in public speaking has generally become that of the psycho­ logical advantage. Grace has lost its emphasis but is prob­ ably more reflected in poise. Control has gained the emphasis. Obviously, inherent within grace is control and inherent within control is a degree of grace. However, they are differentiated in degree. Current American public speakers are taught poise to the degree that it does not interfere with their communications of ideas.

Walker thought it was necessary for each student to have a book of readings and Exercises for Improvement was designed for this purpose. The advalice in printing methods and protocol have made the textbook inseparable for many modern courses of speech. The author emphasized variety of material in the text and this is often a common objective of many writers of speech books. However, where Walker's text 173 included references to the classical writers and the more formal and, perhaps, literary styles, m o d e m emphasis is upon the currently established writers and speakers, and there appears to be more of a relationship between current happen­ ings and education today than in Walker's period.

Physical Movement

Does the preceding imply that Walker's theories of teaching gesturing are not applicable to contemporary teach­ ing? Not at all. Similarly, it does not imply that current

teachers of speech should teach gesturing according to

Walker's theories. The implication is tfcat the degree of

emphasis placed upon teaching gesturing is much less today

than it was with the early elocutionists particularly because

of the amount of emphasis placed upon the qualities which

result from acquiring acceptable gesturing. The direction

of the early philologist toward style seems to be replaced

in current public speaking with naturalness and ease. How­

ever, the lack of control or the lack of grace is not sub­

stantiated by either theory. The direction of the control,

toward grace or toward confidence of control, becomes the

major differentiation in the approach of teaching gesturing.

Most modern public speakers and readers believe that

ideas are the dominant element of the effective speaker.

Physical display of any type becomes secondary to the ideas

although the distraction of physical display or the appro- 174 priateness of it can hinder or aid the speaker or reader.

This was also Walker’s theory.

Modern teachers often direct a student into socially acceptable posture and base the reasoning of their choice « upon psychology. For example, the psychological implication of standing on both feet, distributing the weight equally on both legs, looking directly at the audience, etc., is that the individual will appear more direct to the listeners, and appearing direct, he will also gain persuasiveness and respect. Correct posture becomes an approach toward positive speaking to aid the idea, but not to replace it. Walker, not having the implications of psychology, stated correct posture related to the acceptable style of the period.

The author stated two major characteristics of public speaking and oral reading. He referred to the "excellence in action” implying a standard of acceptance upon the trained speaker. Secondly, he referred to the differences of national tastes in acceptance of the actions of the speaker.

The first characteristic suggests that we must inves­ tigate to find to what extent public speaking action is trainable, and to what extent should we place emphasis upon its teaching. Current emphasis upon action seems to often lack a method of training actions, but suggests that a speaker should be free and physically expressive to the extent that it enhances the subject matter, and modern 175 emphasis often suggests that an abundance of gesturing or

the lack of gesturing often detracts from the speaker's ideas.

The second characteristic has seldom been directly

investigated, but it is purported that future studies con­

cerning the inter-cultural applications and acceptance of gesturing will be increasingly more important to public

speakers and oral readers. Perhaps a clue could be taken

from an international language of pantomine. To what extent

are Araerican-English gestures accepted abroad? With the

advent of Telestar and the scientific advances, the need for

a much greater emphasis upon the implications of cross-

cultural gesturing patterns are constantly in demand.

A qualitative approach should be designed which

establishes the degree that physical responsiveness effects

meaning, relating this to ideas that are both positive and

negative to the audience. To what degree is physical

responsiveness responsible for relaying persuasive quali­

ties? Is a higher degree of confidence placed in those

speakers who are more physically responsive to their ideas?

How important is posture to the speaker's relaying of ideas?

What characteristics are more important than good posture,

and when can the social standards of good posture be set

aside for more important values?

A historical approach could be designed to trace, if

possible, the degree of physical responsiveness of various

speakers. Not only may this show a difference in national 176 tastes, but it also may show a trend of social acceptance within a particular country. Motion pictures have been recording speakers for the past forty years, but little has been accomplished by the investigation of the speaking procedure through this valuable resource. A major assumption Which Walker made was that there is a relationship between habit and physical responsiveness.

Walker assumed that physical responsiveness to an idea was trainable by repetitions of the action forming into habits of responsiveness. In the new learning situation, when the emotion is demanded, the speaker calls upon the trained response which has been learned through developing a habit.

The assumption is also made that emotions are trainable by repetitions of an action into a habit.

There are several questions which appear from Walker's theory of habit and physical responsiveness. How many repetitions of an action are necessary to form a different habit? How long must an individual repeat an action before it becomes established into habit? If this differs with individuals, what variables cause these differences? Learn­ ing theory currently establishes that there is a relation­ ship between the amount of repetitions and the establishment of habit, but it fails to precisely define what this rela­ tionship may be and the variables involved, if this can be precisely established. 177 The historical approach could trace the beginnings of habit learning, but it is purported that developing habits and learning have not only grown hand in hand, but are often the same discipline. Learning theory and developing habits are closely related in modem education. Operating under the three assumptions of the basis of gesturing, those of trainable habit, cross-cultural implica­ tions, and teaching gesturing, Walker put forth many specific directions which should be questioned in relation to the period of the author and in relation to the modern practices and procedures, some of which this study has attempted to define. In obtaining a clearer understanding of Walker’s relationship to philology, one is constantly blocked by the procedure of the late 1 7 0 0's. Some modern academicians tend to make the assumption that the acceptance of certain styles of behavior, the acceptance of patterns of action for example, from their British source are also indicative of the same acceptance of the style in the United States. Examples of this can readily be seen in the inaccurate reporting of the influ­ ence of Walker and Sheridan’s text in America developing into an assumption that Walker had little acceptance in the United States. The similarity of British and American elo­ cution eventually began to separate and divulge new struc­ ture and definitions of words although still remaining quite similar. This presents two major propositions which should 178 be reasoned in modern application. To what extent was the English language different in England during the late seventeen hundreds than language in America during the same period? What are currently the differences between British- English and American-English? The same approach should be used considering gesture. To what extant has the gesture and posture of the late seventeen hundreds in Britain differed from the gesture and posture of the speakers of the United States? What are the current differences? Generally modern philologists assume that the rules governing elocution in London during Walker and Sheridan’s period were the same rules that governed the new elocution­ ists in the United States. Undoubtedly, training in elocu­ tion was inspired through Britain, training of the teachers and those who eventually became the leaders of the elocu- tionary movement was based on British principles. However, the new problems of the settlement of a new country shaped differently the direction of elocution and the teaching of elocution in the United States. As vast a difference existed between Southern education and Eastern education. The new societies presented different demands on the speaker. The economic and political implications of the South had its effect. The religious movements of the East also reshaped elocution. Granted, British elocution was concerned with teaching the clergy, but Eastern education was concerned with 179 teaching similar principles of piety to the masses. Did not the many changes of values Imply a new criteria of judgment? Walker recognized that both public speaking and oral reading were considered in elocutionary training. Although they both encompassed many of the same rules, they were dif­ ferentiated by the degree of subtlety of expression. Generally, modern teachers of elocution agree that physical responsiveness of oral reading°is limited by the use of the manuscript. Walker stated that the procedure of reading from a manuscript limited the oral reader in his physical expressiveness. The over use of physical expres­ siveness blocks the listeners in the imagination of the manuscript. Walker became quite specific in stating advice to the oral reader. However, this advice cannot be separated from Walker's reasoning about the procedures of oral reading. The author stated that the reader should stand before the audience. Modern emphasis seems to be that the reader should be visually prominent before an audience regardless if he sits on a tall stool, stand, or sits cross-legged. Before a change in the standards of acceptance, greater emphasis upon the formality of position during Walker's period made his advice relative to. his period. Secondly, the author stated that the oral reader should hold his manuscript in his left hand. Current empha­ sis is that the speaker should allow his hands freedom to 180 gesture and often suggest that the reader place the manu­ script upon a stand. Remembering that the left hand was not allowed to be dominate in British and American education during Walker’s period, the author emphasized the most expressive communication of ideas. Thirdly, the author emphasized control over the manu­ script’s ideas, and this has remained a major objective. Although he stated that the last three or four words of an idea should be directed to the audience, so formalized a pattern of persentation is rarely adhered to in current prac­ tice. Modern academicians imply a higher degree of control over the manuscript, as high as 90 per cent eye contact with the audience.303

The general Implication that much less action is dis­ played in oral reading than in public speaking is currently substantiated by practice. Today, oral reading as a disci­ pline is often more subtlely physically expressed than the discipline of public speaking. Although Walker listed the passions as an example of various emotions, he suggested to the oral reader specific gesturing techniques to acquire the attitude of the emotions. An example of the psychological implication follows: Specific advice to the reader expressing stibllme, lofty, or heavenly emotions by raising the hand and looking up is still accepted

3°3i)onald Cross Bryant and Karl R. Wallace, Funda­ mentals of Public Speakfeig (New York, London: D. Appleton- Century Co., Inc., 1947)* P* 310. 181 as part of the gesturing of the emotions. This can be analyzed in accordance with our psychological Investigations. To most countries of a Christian implication, and this includes both Britain and the United States, Heaven or good is in the direction of up, Hell or evil is still a downward direction. For example, pride, faith, and courage are expressed looking up; shame, guilt, or humility are expressed looking down. Thus, some of Walker's suggestions are cur­ rently being associated to a psychological foundation. There appears to be a cross-cultural set of patterns or pantomines equally understandable. Pointing with the finger toward the direction is universally legible. The extension of the hands may display the distance between what is being described with the listener assuming the limitations of the speaker. It is interesting to note that in receiving directions the speaker usually displays the relative size of the distance and/or the direction by using his hands. The many cross cultural actions have seldom been listed, particularly extensively. Thirdly, the change of gesturing should be considered. The clasped hand to the breast expressing any heart-felt emotion appears to modern expression as melodramatic. How­ ever, only thirty years ago it was a standard technique of expression in acting for the silent films. It is also the hand position for saluting the American flag. Although

propriety has somewhat changed the expression of the emotion. 182 it still remains an expressive gesture on the American stage. Considering the application of gesturing to public speaking, Walker divided a study of the emotions in fifty- seven separate and distinctive emotions, according to the author's judgment. These have been previously discussed. He considered these to be the most common emotions of expres­ sion to his period. These emotions have been related to Walker's period, but the &tempt has not been made to relate these specific emotions to current practice. Only the theory has been considered. A quantitative approach using photographs of the physical expressiveness of the emotions as defined by Walker could be compared to the recognition of the3e emotions by a sample group. A study of this type could test the validity of what Walker stated concerning physical expressiveness, and also check the current recognition of the expression of the emotions. A future study could determine their applica­ tion to current expressions of the emotions. The quantitative approach would, perhaps, verify some of the findings of this study. Undoubtedly, one would find that some -of, the emotions if not completely eliminated from the form of expressiveness currently have lost their descriptive titles through the progression of the years. Secondly, it may imply a further relationship between Walker's listing of the emotions and their current recog- 183 nltion. Thirdly, the implications of a study concerning style would probably be heightened through a quantitative approach to the listing. Fourthly, a clearer understanding of the style of the late seventeenth century would emerge and these findings could be compared to the purported ideas of this study. Perhaps the most recent application of a heavily placed reliance upon physical movement and posture was brought forth through the motion picture medium of the silent films. Posture and action had to relay meaning to the audience. The popularity of such personalities as Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Theda Bara, Blanche Sweet, Earle Williams, and, above all, Rudolph Valentino and Charles Chaplin, implied that they were relaying meaning to an audience through the medium of physical movement and dis­ play. With the advent of voice to the medium, the physical display was changed, but not necessarily limited. Reflect­ ing back, the action of the silent movies seems melodramatic, but the inference is the tastes change, and thus, styles change. Physical responsiveness is still a vital part of relaying meaning. One great factor that effects the selec­ tion of television shows over radio shows is the visual factor. Much of the communication of television is basically visual. Adding the visual element to public speaking over

television presents the radio speaker a new form of 184 discipline. With the advent of Telestar the proposition becomes even greater and more crucial. The most important implication accepting that styles of presentation are chang­ ing is to cite the current changes which are least acceptable to the accomplishing of relaying the author's or speaker's ideas to the audience. Lastly, Walker stated that there are few who are hardy enough to gain control of physical gesturing.^02* The author did not state if he was referring to physical health or taking the time to acquire acceptable gesturing techniques. Perhaps more a figure of speech, the author might have been referring to the lack of emphasis upon gesturing during his period. Modern implications seem to show that there is only random emphasis placed upon physical responsiveness of the speaker, few teachers directing their attention to it. If we place a value on physical responsiveness of the public speaker and oral reader, it appears that a way must be found to adequately teach the discipline. Does this mean that we should return to teaching Walker's listing? No. Many of his listings are too closely aligned with his period and lack application to our period. But it does Imply that a study of our physical responsiveness in gesturing, a directed look at our passions and posture, be attempted.

3Q2*Walker, Elements of Elocution, op. cit., pp. 260- 261. ~ Thus, this chapter has presented some of the applica­ tions and projections of John Walker's theories and method­ ology. An attempt has been made to trace the development of British elocution to the American elocutionary movement by citing that both Walker and Sheridan influenced American elocution. This chapter has considered (1) language, (2) purposes of oral reading and public speaking, (3) the use of humor, (4) the disciplines of oral reading and public speaking, (5) historical analysis and the current flaws of application, (6) the pause, (7) pronunciation, (8) specific methods of teaching, and (9) physical movement and posture. The applications and projections of Walker's theories are certainly not complete, but a better understanding of the author's theories and methodologies in relation to their period and in relation to current usage emerges to more fully define the present state of philology. It is this researcher's hope that these will aid future researchers and, perhaps, clarify several important Implications of public speaking and oral reading. CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSIONS

The organization of this chapter presents a brief review of each chapter and, secondly, supports or negates the three purported hypotheses. The organization and progres­ sion of the material becomes evident in this analysis. The second chapter presents some of the biographical information of the philologist John Walker. The chronologi­ cal order shows that the author had a theatrical background, but stopped his role in theatre to become a teacher of elocution. Walker was recognized, both favorably and unfavorably, by some of the most prominent men of his period, and he maintained his greatest prestige as a lexicographer and orthopist. Having helped to establish Kensington Col­ lege, the teacher toured the Isle giving lectures concerning elocution. Records of recognition by his contemporaries, notes from diaries, letters, and accounts suggest that Walker was recognized as a3eader of philology during his period. To further suggest Walker's acceptance, the chrono­ logical development of the acceptance of his ideas and the number of publications derived from his ideas implies that

186 187 the philologist was not only prolific in writing but also covered a wide range of subject matter from rhyming to public speaking to orthoepy. The acceptance of his ideas in the writings of his renowned contemporaries implies recognition of his theories. Thus, the third chapter, "The Publications of John Walker, " substantiates the second chapter. However, the profile of the author did not seem com­ plete for although this study deals with Walker as an elocutionist, he was not solely considered an elocutionist by his contemporaries. Thus, elocution and related disci­ plines had to be defined in terms of the late seventeen hundreds. This relationship established, one could more easily view Walker as an orthoepist and lexicographer. To a degree, this approach clarifies some of the current criticisms that frequently attack Walker's theories without fully understanding the interrelationships which the author drew among many areas related to language study. The major types of attacks upon the author's approach by his contem­ poraries are presented. Thus, the purpose of the fourth chapter is to qualify the profile of Walker and the criti­ cisms of his theories in relation to his period. The fifth chapter examines the implications of mechanicalism and naturalism in the theories of Walker's writings by reviewing the first publications of the author. This chapter indicates that Walker intended his theories to be natural, but also selective of Nature. Hius, "controlled- natuia lism" seems to describe the author's approach. Impli­ cations from Sheridan's writing concerning elocution suggest that a feud between the two men never existed. James Sheridan Knowles was responsible for rewriting Sheridan's text as an attack upon Walker. Thus, the generalizations of mechanicalism and naturalism upon both Sheridan and Walker were really not a part of their disagreements. This chapter emphasizes that both men approached elocution in a similar . manner and the differences that arose between the two men's theories concerned pronunciation. Disagreements concerning pronunciation were directed at Sheridan by Walker, but were seldom recognized by Sheridan. Thus, the fifth chapter clarifies the mechanical-natural arguments concerning Walker. The sixth chapter examines some of the methodology used by Walker to advance his theories of gesturing in particular, but also of the role of gesturing in a larger scope of methodologies of general speech and oral interpre­ tation. A study of his methodology enlightens our under­ standing of the mechanical implications reportedly present in his approach. This chapter dwells on Walker's two major concepts of developing habit and advancing expressive gesturing, and it presents the methodology which Walker used in applying his theories. These theories are related to the period of the author and the definitions and expectations from training in elocution during that time. 189 The seventh chapter continues to examine the theories of the philologist and considers what Walker stated about gesturing. Posture and physical expressiveness are related to public speaking and oral reading. A listing of precisely what Walker considered to be physical expressiveness in his listing of fifty-seven emotions clarifies the extent to which the author defined his material, and an examination of what Walker stated about his material clarifies the use of the material according to the author's desires. Again, the clarification of what the author stated concerning posture and physical responsiveness and their use by the effective speaker or reader suggests generalities that are frequently misinterpreted in current criticisms. The eighth chapter reviews not only what Walker stated concerning the use of gesturing in language, but also attempts to project the use of his theories in modem prac­ tice in teaching public speaking and oral reading, and sug­ gests some of the possibilities, both historical and quantitative, which should be investigated to further clarify language study. Some of the methodology is reasoned to be inappropriate to current usage; others have found a definite place in our educational progress. A more thorough under­ standing of the early philologist in relation to his period

is cited to clarify the current application of Walker's ideas. A plea for more extensive study, both historical and quantitative, is cited not only for the theories of Walker, 190 but for a more thorough Investigation of many of the early philologists. This chapter, the ninth, reviews and generalizes some of the findings more completely clarified in the preceding chapters. Three hypotheses were purported at the on-set of this study: Hypothesis I: John Walker maintained a high degree of recognition as a leading philologist of his period. Hypothesis II: The emphasis of John Walker's mechani­ cal analysis of sentence structure was often confused with a mechanical methodology of teaching gesturing. Criticisms of - John Walker's theories were generally based upon an analysis of language rather than of gesturing. Hypothesis III: Portions of John Walker's methodolo­ gies of teaching gesturing and portions of his theories are applicable to current teaching practices. Support of the first hypothesis js cited specifically in the second, third, and fourth chapters. The second chapter emphasizes the training and experience of the author and his recognition by renowned men of his period. The third chapter traces the many implications of his ideas through not only his many publications but also the publica­ tions of other renowned philologists. The fourth chapter attempts to associate the degree of emphasis Walker placed 191 upon the various disciplines of language study with elocu­ tion. Thus, through a biography, a chronological review of publications, and an investigation of the author's ideas of language study, it is concluded that the author did maintain recognition as a leading philologist during his period. The fourth chapter begins the considerations of the second hypothesis: criticisms of Walker's theories and methodologies generally were based on an analysis of sentence structure rather than on gesturing. The mechanical analysis of sentence structure was often confused with a mechanical manner of teaching and training gestures. The author's relationship to the natural and the mechanical was examined in the fifth chapter to find that the author desired gestur­ ing to be natural and not unrelated to ideas, but he also realized the demands of protocol upon expression and its - importance in speaking and reading. Thus, the sixth chapter examines the reasoning and the methodology advised by Walker to obtain a better form of expression. The seventh chapter examines what Walker stated concerning posture and the expression of the passions and stated some of the weaknesses and strengths of the author's ideas. Thus, the second hypothesis is confirmed by reviewing what the author stated and how he intended his theories to be applied. It is shown

that Walker's mechanical analysis of sentences structure was often confused with a mechanical methodology of teaching

gesturing, and that criticisms of Walker's methodologies of 192 teaching gesturing were often based upon an analysis of language. The third hypothesis dealing with the application of Walker’s theories was researched by relating Walker's con­ cepts to those included in current public speaking and oral interpretation texts. The importance of gesturing in the current teaching of public speaking and oral reading is con­ sidered in the eighth chapter. Walker's theories found to be currently used and applicable were: emphasis upon developing ease and control, the theory of habit in gestur­ ing, and the purpose of gesturing related to ideas and the author's intent. Specific teaching techniques were examined and Walker's desire for a limited amount of students, each student possessing a text, teaching by mimicing, etc., were found to be relevant to current practices. It was shown that changes in protocol demand a varied approach from some of Walker's theories and practices. Some of what the author implied or stated is currently unacceptable. The practicabil­

ity of a small class, order of presentation, approach to mimicing as the only approach, progression of learning sequence according to Walker's theories, etc., were found to be questionable teaching techniques for today's classroom. Thus, the research pertinent to the third hypothesis reveals some acceptable techniques from Walker's statements as well

as some unacceptable techniques. Perhaps most important, 193 attempts to search out some possible considerations which should and might be investigated in the future are presented. It was this researcher*s intent that this study should more fully define the theories and methodologies of John Walker for the oral reader and public speaker. It Is hoped that from this study John Walker can be viewed in an improved perspective as to his contributions to communica­ tions . BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Boswell, John. Boswell^ London Journal, 1762-1763. Edited by Frederick A. Pottle. New York, London, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950. ______. Life of Johns bn. Edited by R. W. Chapman. London: Oxford University Press, Amen House, 1953* Browne, Thomas. The Union Dictionary. London: F. W. Myers, 1800. (12981 bbb 36)* Bryant, Donald Cross and Wallace, Karl R. Fundamentals of Public Speaking. New York, London: D. Appleton-Century, Co., Inc., 19^7• Cunliffe, J. W. England in Picture, Song and Story. New York, London: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1943. Davenport, R. A. Walker^ Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. London: 1824. (1331 a 1) _ . Walker*s Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. London: 1852. (12982 e 5) Funke, Lewis and Booth, John E. Actors Talk about Acting. New York: Random House, 1961. Gerin-Roze, L. de. Langue Anglaise. Paris: Adolph Everat, 1837. Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. 1828. ______. Johnson^ Dictionary. Improved by Todd and Abridged by Chalmers. Boston: Charles Ewer and T. H. Carter, 1828. (12983 c 46) ______. Johnson^ Dictionary. Improved by Todd. Boston: Jenks and Palmer, 1839* _. Johnson*s Dictionary. London: 1 85 6. (12985 a 52)

*Call numbers from British Museum Library, London. 194 195 Kelly, Hall J. The American Instructor. Concord, N. J.: Isaac Hill, 1826. (12983 aaa 37) Knowles, James Sheridan. The Elocutionist. Belfast: Simms and M*Intyre, 1831. Seventh edition. Orthoepy and Elocution. Glasgow: 1829 • (1088 h"23) ------Lee, Sidney. Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. LIX. London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1899. Lindsay, Jack. 1764. London: Frederick Muller, Ltd., 1959* Longmuier, J. Walker and Webster Combined in a Dictionary of the English Language^ London: William Tegg, 1864. (12983 bb 31) . Walker and Webster Combined in a Dictionary of the English Language. London: William Tegg, 1866. (12985 aa 21) ______. Walker and Webster Combined in a Dictionary of the English Language. London: William Tegg and Co., printed by McCorguodale and Co., 1876. (12983 bb 37) Mencken, H. L. The American Language. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949. ______. Supplement I, The American Language. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952. ______. Supplement II, The American Language. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952.

Mozley, Henry. Exercises of Transposition to Walker*s Themes and Essays. Part I. Derby: 1 8 1 8. (1212 h 2 5) Murdoch, James E. A Plea for Spoken Language. Cincinnati: Van Antwerp, Bragg' and Co., 1883.

Murray, Llndley. The Pronouncing English Reader, 1824. (12270 b 1 7)

The Pronouncing English Reader. Boston: Robert S. Davis, 1835.(12295 a 12) . Murray's English Reader. Albany: S. Shaw, 1826. (122269 a 3} 196

Nicholson, W. (of Halifax). The Excelsior Pronouncing Dictionary. Wakefield: William Nicholson and Sons, 187^ Nuttal, P. A. Routeledge’s Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. London: George Routeledge and Sons, ld&7. (12984 bbb 22) ______. Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary. The Pearl Edition. London: Newton Press, 1869• (12984aa 53) _____. Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary. She Pearl Edition. London: 1872. (12983 de 20) ______. Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary. The Pearl Edition. London: 1873- (129&3 del9) ______. Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary. London: 1855* [I2985 c 12)

Osborne, James M. Dr. Johnson and the Contrary Converts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. (Cup 500 e 2) Perry, W. Alger’s Perry. Edited by Israel Alger under title Only Sure Guide to the English Tongue. Boston: Richardson and Lord, 1825. (12982 a 1) Alger’s Perry. Boston: 1832. Rivington, P. and C., Wilkie, G. and T., Seeley, L. B., and Goadly, Lerpiniere, and Langdon. A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as Are of Dubious, or Unsettled Accentuation, 1797. Robb, Mary Margaret. Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Colleges and Universities. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1941. Sheridan, Thomas. A Complete Dictionary of the English Language.^ London: for Charles Dilly in Poultry, 1789.

_____ . A Course of Lectures on Elocution. London: W. Strahan,' 1762. (836 k 18) : Lectures on the Art of Reading. 2 vols. London: 1775. (73 e 17) Smart, B. H. Walker’s Pronouncing Dictionary. 2nd ed. London: 1H5FI (2052 b 1) 197 ______. Walker Remodelled. London: 1836. (626 h 4) Smith, Edward. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. Eaenburg: Nelson and Sons, 1837• Walker, John. The Academic Speaker or A Selection of Parliamentary Debates, Orations, Odes, Scenes, and Speeches"! London: S. Hamilton (Falcon Gardents, Fleet Street), 1801. (1162 b 15) ______. The Academic Speaker or A Selection of Parliamentary Debates, Orations, Odes, Scenes, and Speeches. London: FtiT'ea; 1806. (12270 c 2 )------______. The Academic Speaker or A Selection of Parliamentary Debates, Orations, Odes, Scenes, and Speeches!! 7th ed. London: Weybrldge Printer, l8l2. (1091 b 11) ______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. Edited by- Edward Smith. London, Edinburgh: T. Nelson and Sons, 1857. (1298 t 22) ______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. Edited by Joseph Smith. London: 1835* _____. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of ” the English Language. 1st ed. London: 1791* (12982 f 2), second copy: (69 f 9) ______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 2nd ed. London: 1797• (12982 f 6) . A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 3rd ed. London: 1802. (626 l7 11)

______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 4th ed. London: 1806. (12982 g 2) ______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 5thed. London: 1810. (12982 i 1) ______. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 28th ed. London: 1826. (12983 bb 25) ______. A Dictionary of the English Language. London: private printing for T. Cadell, Strand, 1775* (12984 bb 35), second copy (66 a 2 5) 198

. Elements of Elocution. 2 vols. London: 1781. (840 d 29) . Elements of Elocution. 3rd ed. London: 1 8 0 6. (11806 dd 7) . Elements of Elocution. United States edition. Boston: l8l0. (11805 g 7) . Elements of Elocution. 4th ed. London: 1810. (11805 k 21) . Elements of Elocution. 6th ed. London: 1820. 111805 g B) . Exercises for Improvement In Elocution. London: 1777. (11633 bbb 39) . A General Idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language^ London: 1774. (626 k 21 (3))7 second copy (117 e 40) . Hints for Improvement In the Art of Reading. London: 1783 • (1526 h 26 (20)') . The Juvenile Reader's Assistant. London: Maldon, 1830. (tV 1354 "(7)") . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek: and Latin Proper Names. London: 1798* (828 f 40(2)), another copy, Imperfect (827 h 2 7) . A Keytto the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names'. London: l804. (827 h 28) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names. 4th ed. London, l8l'2. (12934 g 1) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Name's . 6th ed. London: 1818. (12983 g 4) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names. 7th ed. London: T. Cade11, 1822. (1331 g 23) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names. 9th ed. London: 1830'. " (12983 g 4) 199 . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek and Latin Proper Names. With emendations by W. Trollope. London: 1831. (327 h 2 9) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, and Latin, and Scripture Proper Names. Additions by J. E. Worcesler. London: 1874. (12982 d 3 2) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, LatinT~and Scripture Proper Names. London: R. Griffin and Co. (Glasgow), printed for Thomas Tegg, 1829. (c 109 a 5) . A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin and Scripture Proper Names. London: l88l. (12982 1 5^ . The Melody of Speaking Delineated or Elocution Taught Like Music. London: 178 9. (74 c 9l Outlines of English Grammar. London, 1805. T ^26 b 23 (2 ) J ------. A Rhetorical Grammar or Course of Lessons in Elocution. London: 1785* (IO89 L. 2 7) . A Rhetorical Grammar or Coursejof Lessons in Elocution. 3rd ed. London: 1801. (1086 d 20) . A Rhetorical Grammar or Course of Lessons in Elocution. 6th ed. London: l8l6. (11805 g 6) • A Rhetorical Grammar or Course of Lessons in Elocution. 7^h ed. London: 1823. (11824 dd 22)

• A Rhyming Dictionary. London: 1824. T12985 bb 5 8) . A Rhyming Dictionary. Revised and enlarged by J. Longmuir. London: Aberdeen Printing, 1865. (12985 ee 12) . A Rhyming Dictionary. 3rd ed. London: 1819* T 12982 c g) . The Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language. Revised and enlarged by Lawrence H. Dawson. London: George Routledge and Sons; New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1824. (2050 b) 200

______. The Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language. Enlarged by J. Longmiulr. Part of Routledge *3 Popular Library of Standard Authors. London: G. Routledge and Sons, 1898. (012204 ee 10) ______. The Teacher’s Assistant In English Composition or Easy Rules for Writing Themes and Composing Exercises. 2nd ed. London: 18027 (1089 1 2 9), second copy (1162 b 16) Wallace, Karl R . (ed.). History of Speech Education In America. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954• Ward, A. W. and Waller, A. R. The Cambridge History of English Literature. Vol. XIII. New York: The Macmillan Company; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939* Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1 8 30. (129B2 f 7) ______. An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1846.(1331 h 10) ______. An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1852.(12982 e 13) . An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1854. (12982 d 11) . An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1857*(12982 d 9) . An American Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: 1869.(12983 bb 24) White, John. The Elementary Elocutionist. London: 1826. (992 c 291 Worcesler, J. E. Pronouncing Dictionary. 2 vols. London: 1 8 69. (12984 aa 6l) Young, Townsend. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. Revision of John Walker^ writing. Dublin: James Duffy; C. M. Warren, 1858. (012986 ff 8)

______. English Language. London: 1797* (828 f 39) 201

Periodicals

Bacon, Wallace A. "The Dangerous Shores: from Elocution to Interpretation," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 46, I9 6 0. Pries, Charles C. "implications of Modem Linguistic Science," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 33, 1947* Fritz, Charles A. "Sheridan to Rush; the Beginnings of English Elocution,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 16, 1930. Gray, Giles Wilkeson. "What Was Elocution?", Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 46, i9 6 0. Griffin, Leland M. "Letters to the Press: 1778," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 33, 1947* Guthrie, Warren. "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1735-1850,""The Elocution Movement-England," Speech Monographs, Vol. XVIII, March, 1951• Haberman, Frederick W. "John Thelwall: His Life, His School, and His Theory of Elocution," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 22, 1947* Howell, Wilbur Samuel. "Sources of the Elocutionary Move­ ment in England, 1700-1748," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 45, 1959* Newman, Benjamin, "The Phonetic Concepts of John Walker and Daniel Jones," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 27, October, 1941. Newman, John B. "The Role of Joshua Steele in the Develop­ ment of Speech Education in America," Speech Monographs, Vol. XX, March, 1953- Tousey, Gail Jordan. "McGuffey's Elocutionary Teachings," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 34, 1948. Time Magazine, editorial, May 31, 1963*

Unpublished Material Sheldon, Esther Keck. "Standards of English Pronunciation According to Grammarians and Orthoepists of the Six­ teenths, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1938. AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, M. Leon Dodez, was born In Cuyahoga Palls, Ohio, on May 4, 1934, and raised in Massillon, Ohio, where I graduated from Jackson Memorial High School in 1952. My college studies started at Kent State University and con­ tinued at The Ohio State University where I received the Bachelor of Science degree in 1957* After my military obligation, I taught two years at Coral Gables High School, Coral Gables, Florida, and studied at the University of Miami. I received a Master of Arts degree from The Ohio State University in i960, and became an Instructor at that Institution while pursuing my doctorial degree during the following two years. Leaving Ohio State In 1952, I taught one year as a Lecturer with the European Division of the University of Maryland during which time I had the oppor­ tunity to gather the bulk of my research. Returning to Ohio

State in the summer of 1963* I completed my requirements for a Doctorate.

202