A Discourse Being Introductory to his Course of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language (1759)

by Thomas Sheridan

"As the religion of the ancients consisted chiefly of rites and ceremonies, it could derive no assistance from oratory; but there is not the smallest branch of ours which can be well executed, without skill in speaking; and the more important parts, calculated to answer the great ends, evidently require the whole oratorial powers."

Let it be observed, that in this profession alone, there are more persons employed throughout these realms, than there were citizens of Athens, at any given period.

Since, therefore, we have so much stronger motives to the cultivation of this art, what can be the reason that even an attempt towards it has never hitherto been made? One would imagine, that in a country where the ancients are admired, revered, nay, almost adored, that we should certainly follow their example, and adopt all their wise institutions, so far at least as they coincided with the spirit of our government, and were of equal necessity to the well being of the state. But on the contrary, we seem to have made it a law, that we should sit down contented with seeing and admiring their excellence, but that we should never attempt to use the means, by which alone we might be enabled to rival them. If it were difficult to come at the knowlege of those means; if the method taken by the ancients, in educating their youth to qualify them for such great performances, had not been handed down to us; or if there were any thing in the method itself, which would be found impracticable in these times, there might be some excuse for not taking the same course. But on the contrary, when many of their most eminent writers have minutely described to us the precise course of education, passed through by all who were liberally trained; when they tell us, that both at Athens and Rome, one of the chief studies was that of their native language in each country; and that the art most assiduously sought after, and practised in both, was that of oratory: shall we be surprised that their languages were more polished and beautiful, and consequently that all works which depended upon the elegance and charms of language, should be more finished than those of a people, who never took any pains in that way? or that oratory, and all the arts dependant on it, or connected with it, together with all the benefits and advantages resulting from it, should appear in a more conspicuous light, in regions, where that art was cultivated with the utmost pains and labour, than in a country where it has been utterly neglected. Is there any natural impediment in our way, is there any invincible obstacle to the pursuit of these studies, and to the attainment of these arts? Have we not a language to study as well as they? and do we not, on many accounts, stand in more need of studying that language? Have we not the same organs of speech, the same features, the same limbs, muscles, and nerves, that the ancients had? What want we then, but to apply ourselves to the regulation of these, and to study their true use in enforcing and adorning our sentiments, when delivered by speech, to rival or even excel them in their favourite art? How did the ancients attain this art? By study, and practice. Would not the same means bring us to the same end? And have we not the advantage of all their lights to guide us in our enquiries? Have we not the foundation of their experience to build upon, ready to our hands, whenever we are wise enough to set about raising the noble edifice? Did the ancients possess any advantages over us from nature, either in point of intellectual faculties, or the animal œconomy? With respect to the mental powers, it is undoubtedly clear, that we have carried our discoveries much farther than they did, both in the physical and moral world. And with respect to the bodily organs, true philosophy must deride any attempts, to shew that we are not framed exactly in the same manner. In all the sciences, to which we have applied, we have far outdone them; and if they still excel us in many of the arts, it is either because we have wholly neglected their cultivation, or where we have made the attempt, we have taken a wrong course; and unwisely deserted the method pointed out by the ancients towards their attainment, and which, with them, had been always crowned with success.

In short, the difference between the ancients and us, arises from one obvious cause. In the course of education, we have pursued most of the studies, which they did; but some we have wholly omitted. In all studies, which we followed in common with them, we have far excelled them: that they have excelled us in those which were peculiar to themselves, cannot be a matter of wonder. The chief points in which they differed from us, were the study of their native language, and oratory. And it can be indisputably shewn, that they possessed no advantage over us, but what arose, either immediately, or consequentially from their knowlege, skill, and practice; in grammar, rhetorick, and oratory. Now, as we have excelled them far, in all the studies to which we have applied, there can be no good reason assigned, that with a due degree of attention and pains, we might not surpass them in these also? On the contrary, I hope, on another occasion, to be able to prove, that from certain lights furnished by time, from peculiar advantages arising from our pure and holy religion, and from the nature of our admirable constitution, we might, with moderate pains, and in no long space of time, as far surpass them in those arts, and all that depend upon them, or have a connection with them, as we have already done in the sciences.

But though, upon trial, we should not find ourselves able to surpass the ancients, let us not shamefully suffer ourselves to be outdone in those arts by the moderns. If the Briton should own himself unequal to the contest with Greeks and Romans, let him not yield the palm to Frenchmen also. If, in despair of victory, he should say like Mnestheus in Virgil, "Non jam prima peto," let him add to his countrymen, "extremos pudeat rediisse!"

Believe me, there is no time to be lost. The Italians, the French, and the Spaniards, are far before you. Their languages and authors are well known through Europe, whilst yours have got admission only into the closets of a few. You have but to rouze yourselves from your lethargy, and to exert your native vigour, soon to outstrip them all. Should you set about refining and ascertaining your language, with the same spirit of industry, which you have often exerted on less important occasions, the work will not be long accomplishing; and you will not only immediately raise your credit in the eyes of Europe, but hand down to your posterity, one of the noblest legacies which it is in your power to bequeath. If the task should be accomplished, how will that posterity wonder, that their ancestors should have been for more than two centuries in possession of so rich a jewel, without once examining its value; and that, merely through a neglect of polishing, they should have suffered a diamond of the first water and magnitude, to be outshone by the cut glass, or pebbles, of their poorer, but more industrious neighbours.

The true source of the neglect of these studies, will, upon examination, be found to be this; that from the first introduction of letters into this kingdom, the minds of all trained in the knowlege of them, have to this hour, from early institution, got a wrong biass with respect to language: in consequence of which, the universal attention of the natives of this country, has been turned from the natural, the more forcible, and more pleasing kind, to that which is artificial, weaker, and accompanied with no natural delight.

I do not doubt, but that this proposition will excite no small surprise in my hearers; nor do I suppose, they will easily comprehend my meaning, till they recollect a distinction, which is hardly ever thought of, and yet, which ought often to be had in remembrance, that we have two kinds of language; one which is spoken, another which is written. Or that there are two different methods used of communicating our ideas, one through the channel of the ear, the other through that of the eye.

It is true, that as articulate sounds are by compact symbols of our ideas, and as written characters are by compact symbols of those articulate sounds, they may, at first view, seem calculated to accomplish one and the same end; and from habit, an opinion may be formed, that it is a matter of indifference which way the communication is made, as the end will be equally well answered by either.

But, upon a nearer examination, it will appear that this opinion is ill founded, and that, in whatever country it prevails, so far as to affect the practice of the people, it must be attended with proportional bad consequences, both to individuals, and to society in general.