manifested and communicated in speech."

The methodology of science was indirectly responsible for giving added support to this facet of elocutionary rationale. When British empiricism was pressed to the limit, considerable doubt and scepticism resulted; and the Scottish common sense philosophy was, in large part, a counter response. The operation of the natural language became one of the first principles of common sense; and in their discussions of philosophy, aesthetics, and rhetoric, the Scots argued for the study of elocution.[12]

Science contributed directly to the movement by providing the framework for analysis. Without the empirical approach and the confidence in scientific methodology, theorists simply would not have attempted to isolate and describe the elements in the external signs of the emotions. Science forced Sheridan to think in terms of empirical observation and categorization, and science permitted him to call for "sure and sufficient rules" in order that "the art of speaking like that of writing ... be reduced to a system." It is even symptomatic that he should have referred to the design of the "Great Mechanist."

Almost as enthusiastic as Sheridan, a number of other elocutionists expressed similar views and found their theories invigorated by the same forces. James Burgh in the Art of Speaking (1761), John Walker in Elements of Elocution (1781) and a number of other works, and Gilbert Austin in Chironomia (1806) were among the more influential elocutionary theorists. Numerous other writers in both England and America participated in making the study of elocution an established part of the English rhetorical tradition.

In America, the study gained acceptance at all levels of education, and the class in elocution became a standard course in colleges and universities. Elocution centered upon oral reading and public speaking, and written composition came to be the exclusive province of the rhetoric class. The resultant distinctions between oral and written discourse played a significant role in the eventual development of separate departments of speech and English in American colleges and universities.[13]

Although speech departments grew out of elocutionary studies, elocution disappeared from the curriculum because of an association with an excessive emphasis upon performance as performance. Reaction was compounded by a sophistication in psychology that made early theory seem naïve, but neither later excesses nor seeming naïvety should be permitted to distort the main thrust of the elocutionary movement. Concentrating upon language in use, the elocutionists encouraged and anticipated analyses now being vigorously pursued in a range extending from linguistics to nonverbal communication. Their contribution has for too long been ignored, and it is happily foreshadowed in Thomas Sheridan's enthusiastic Discourse.

University of California,
Davis

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION