JOSEPH PRIESTLEY ON LANGUAGE, ORATORY. AND CRITICISM By ROSS STAFFORD NORTH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNQL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA January, 1957 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08552 2372 aCKNOv/LEDGMENTS The writer gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to those who have made this study possible, and to whom is due much of the credit for whatever merit it may possess. First, he would like to acknowledge the assistance given by his committee chairman. Dr. Douglas Ehninger, whose previous investigations in eighteenth- century English rhetoric provided much of the necessary groundwork for this study, and who has given his guidance to the work from its inception. His assistance even when on leave from the University and his handling of many of the final details while the writer was away from Gainesville are indicative of his unselfish con- tributions to this endeavor. Particular mention should also be made of Dr. Dallas C. Dickey, who was, at first, chairman of the writer's com- mittee, and who gave direction to his over-all program until the qualifying examination, and who also has given valuable assistance on this dissertation. Others serving on the writer's committee and who have influenced this study both by their teaching in the classroom and by their direct help on the undertaking are: Professor H. P. Constans and it iii Dr. Roy E. Tew, both of the Department of Speech; and Dr. Del ton Scudder and Dr. Charles S. McCoy, both of the Department of Religion. Two other members of the faculty of the University of Florida have been of special service: Dr. James E. Congleton, Department of English, and Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Department of Psychology. The writer would also like to express his appreciation to the College of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School of the University of Florida, who have generously extended to him a fellowship which enabled him to devote full time to his studies during the entire period of his doctoral work. The facilities of a number of libraries and the assistance of many librarians have been usdd during the course of this study, and the writer wishes to acknowledge his obligation to them. Mrs. Betty Taylor, Mrs. Sue Jones, Miss Martha Covey, and Mrs. Mary rfolfe, all of the University of Florida Inter-Library Loan Division, have been of particular help. The writer was also extended generous aid by the Library of Congress, ./ashington, D. C; Dickinson College Library, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; the Priestley-Forsyth Memorial Library, Northumberland, Pennsylvania; the University of Pennsylvania Library, the American Philosophical Society Library, and the Library Company, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the University of Tulsa Library, Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the Central Christian College Library, ) iv Bartlesville, Oklahoma. In addition to these libraries which have been visited in person, many books have been made available to the writer through inter-library loan, partiotxlary from the Library of Congress, the University of Michigan, Yale University, and the Peabody Institute. The writer is also grateful to those whose iavesti- gations into rhetoric and into the life of Joseph Priestley have been at his disposal for this investigation. (See B ibl iography • Finally, the writer desires to express appreciation to his wife, Jo Anne, who has not only been patient and understanding during the course of this study, but who has been of real value as a travel companion, research assistant, and typist. TiiBLE OF CONTENTS Page aCKNOv/LEDGIvIENTS ii PREFACE vii Chapter I. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY aND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY . 1 Priestley's Connection ,\^ith His Age; Biographical Sketch of Priestley. II. PRIESTLEY'S RUDBIENTS AND UNIVERSAL GR^iI-LIaR . 45 Introduction; :£^ ]^^d,i^^^X^ M English Grammar ; Language £jk CpHTg^ ^ U9t^yQ? i^ 1^ Th^PfY of ^ad Universal ^i^maai; The Significance and Influence of Priestley's Grammars. III. PRIESTLEY'S i^g^wg? OR QM^^QEX ^M criticism . 84 Introduction; General View of the Lectures on Qyat9rY .and gyitiiCiffm; Priestley's Introduction to Oratory; Priestley's Doctrine of Recollection; Priestley's Doctrine of Method; Priestley's Doc- trine of Style; Priestley's Doctrine of Elocution; Summary. IV. DOMINANT TREiroS IN LaTER EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH RHETORIC 138 The Classical Trend; The Belletristic Trend; The Elocutionary Trend; The Psychol ogical- Epistemological Trend; Summary. Tl Chapter Page V. PRIESTLEY AND CLASSICISM 170 Introduction; The Classical Features of Priestley's Rhetorical System; The Sources of Priestley's Classicism; Conclusion, VI. PRIESTLEY AND THE RHETORIC OF BELLES LETTRES . 202 Introduction; Priestley and Belles Lettres; Conclusion. VII. PRIESTLEY AND ELOCUTION 236 Introduction; Priestley and the Characteristic Doctrines of Elocution; Priestley's Elocu- tionary Sources; Conclusion. VIII. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY aND PSYCHOLOGICAL RHETORIC . 265 Introduction; Recollection and Association; Method and Association; Style and nssociation; Elocution and association; Summary. XI. CONCLUSION 304 Appendix I. FIGURES ILLUSTRATING PRIESTLEY'S RHETORICAL SYSTEM 316 II. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY AND LORD BaCON 322 BIBLIOGRAPHY 332 PREFACE Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), although best known today for his contributions to science, actually spent more time in the pulpit and the classroom than he did in the laboratory. Among his educational endeavors was a six-year period (1761-1767) as "Tutor of Languages and Belles Lettres* at Harrington Academy, one of the foremost Dissenting schools of the period. In preparing for the lectures he delivered in this capacity, Priestley both enlarged his study of English grammar, begun earlier in his own grammar school, and entered upon an investigation of rhetorical theory, as a result of these inquiries, he wrote three works on language, oratory, and criticism: The Rudiments ^ English Gramia^r (1761), with an enlarged edition following ^n^ in 1768; ii Course ^ Lectures .aa iM Theory o£ I^ncp^q^ Universal Grammar (1762); and the work upon which this study is particularly focused, A Course siL Lectures ^ii Ql^tPrV and Criticism (1777). Modern scholars, in discussing eighteenth- century English rhetoric, have considered Priestley's work significant enough to warrant their attention. J. P. il 3 viil Sandford, who surveyed English theories of public address froin 1530 to 1828, devotes several pages to a summary of Priestley's Lectures .211 Oratory ^M SliUfiiSS;^ and Harold larding, whose study concentrated on English rhetorical theory between 1750 and 1800, lists Priestley's work as one of the six most iii?)ortant of that period. 2 The most extensive consideration given to Priestley's rhetorical theory, however, is found in Douglas Ehninger's doctoral study on theories of invention in English rhetoric from 1759 to 1828, In Chapter V of this thesis, Ehninger treats Priestley's invent ional theory in detail; but, while his study is thorough, the author does not atten5>t to cover more than this one phase of Priestley's rhetorical system. Priestley's name also makes frequent incidental appearances in the literature of rhetorical theory. Karl //allace, for example, in his study of Francis Bacon on communication, notes the similarities between Priestley and Irfilliam Phillips Sandford, ^aaiifiil Ih^yrA^fi £il Public Address . 1530-1828 (Columbus, Ohio, 1938), pp. 115-117. ^Harold F. Harding, "English Rhetorical Theory, 1750-1800" (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1937), p. 166. Douglas Ehninger, "Selected Theories of Invent io in English Rhetoric, 1759-1828" (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1949), pp. 221-266. ix Bacon on certain theoretical points;^ Thonssen and Baird give brief mention to Priestley's views on emotion;^ and Thonssen and Fatherson, in their Bibliography j^f Speech Education , give recognition to Priestley's Lectures j2ll Oratory and Criticism , but list only the 1781 edition, overlooking entirely the original edition of 1777,^ Also n of importance is the fact that both Clarence Edney' and .barren Guthrie^ give Priestley a place in their discussions of the development of rhetorical theory in iimerica. From the foregoing facts, it is evident that Priestley's work in the field of rhetoric has generally been considered significant and deserving of attention; but it likewise is evident that no con^rehensive study of his writings on language, rhetoric, and criticism has yet been made. In addition to this comparative lack of ^rl R. ./allace, Francis Bacon sin Communication and Rhetoric (Chapel Hill, 1943), pp. 223-224. ^Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech qriticism (New York, 1948), p. 357. ^Lester Thonssen and Elizabeth Fatherson. Biblioaraphy sil Speech Education (New York, 1939), p. 29. ''clarence i. Edney, "English Sources of Rhetorical Theory in Nineteenth Century America," t^ History ^ gpe^ch (New York, 1954), Education Is iimerica . ed. Karl R. //allace p. 85. ^rfarren Guthrie, "Development of Rhetorical Theory in America," Speech Monographs . XIV (1947), 44, attention, there are also other reasons which make eui investigation of Priestley's rhetoric desirable. The period in which Priestley wrote and lectured was the very period in which such theorists as George Canipbell, Thomas Sheridan, and Hugh Blair were begirming to lay the foundations of modern rhetorical theory. Moreover, Priestley's eminence in the fields of science, religion, politics, and education makes his comments