just at this point begins where grammar stops. It accepts the whole doctrine of the sentence as taught in grammar. It does not investigate nor elaborate the principles of the sentence. It is not a department of grammar, as grammar is not of rhetoric. It presupposes grammar, and with these grammatical principles assumed, it proceeds to treat of the communication of thought through language, through the sentence, to another mind.. Grammar, thus, is conditional to rhetoric; but not, like logic, æsthetics, and ethics, conditional as a science, but as an art, elementary and constitutive. It stands much in the relation to rhetoric in which arithmetic stands to mensuration. It is rudimental, preliminary, and introductory to the proper art of discourse. It should be familiarly understood by the student of discourse before he commences this art, as arithmetic should be practically mastered before one studies engineering or surveying.

As the common treatises on grammar in the English language are rather sciences than arts, having as their governing end knowledge or science rather than skill, and, being analytic rather than constructive in their method, it will not be out of place here to indicate the proper study of grammar as conditional and introductory to rhetorical

studies.

Grammar should be studied as an art rather than as a science, since the more important object, by far, to be attained by the study, especially if the grammar be that of one's vernacular tongue, is skill in speaking and writing the language, not skill in interpreting discourse. The study therefore, should proceed, as already indicated, by distinct stages, giving opportunity for thorough exercises on each successive element or principle, for acquiring a perfect practical mastery of the whole art of sentence-construction. There are three widely distinguishable stages in the art, bearing a close analogy to those in arithmetical study. There is, first, what may be viewed as grammatical notation,` embracing the art of paragraphing, punctuating, and capitalizing. This

should be first and separately mastered, as not only preventing distraction in proper rhetorical practice, but also as positively helpful in working into the mind of the learner that idea of progress by stages which is so essential in all discourse through all its clauses, sentences, and paragraphs, and, moreover, of unity and relative subordination in its parts. The second stage embraces the ground-rules, so to speak, of the sentence, founded on the principles of its constituent elements, the subject, the predicate, and the copula, with their respective forms and modifications. The third stage embraces the more general processes in sentence-construction, in which the elements of the second stage, the subject, the predicate, and the copula, in their respective forms and modifications, are constructed into proper sentence-form. This stage exactly corresponds to that stage in arithmetic which embraces the doctrines of Fractions, of Roots and Powers, and of Proportion, it contains the rules of Concord or Agreement, of Arrangement, of Propriety, and of Precision. Here, also, may be properly included a familiar and practical introduction into the use of imagery the doctrine of symbolism in language. With this thorough methodical grounding in the principles of proper sentence-construction, the learner is prepared intelligently and without distraction to enter upon proper rhetorical studies.

§ 9. The art of rhetoric cannot in strictness be regarded as having accomplished its end until the mental states to be communicated are actually conveyed to the mind addressed. It, therefore, may properly comprehend Delivery.

The mode of communication, however, is not essential. The thought may be conveyed by the pen or by the voice. ELOCUTION, or the vocal expression of thought, is not accordingly a necessary part of rhetoric.

Elocution or vocal delivery has, indeed, generally been

esteemed a constituent part of the art of rhetoric. Diverse considerations, however, justify the propriety of separating them.

First, Elocution is not essential to rhetoric in order to constitute it an art; because, as has been already remarked, there are other ways of communicating thought than by the voice.

Secondly, we have a complete product of art when the thought is embodied in a proper form of language. Short of this, of incorporating into language, the artist cannot stop. For no art is complete till its product is expressed, or embodied. Mere invention does not constitute the whole of

artistic power, in any proper sense of that expression. But when the thought is invested in language, a work of art is completed. A further exertion of artistic power is not necessary in order to give it expression. It requires no skill to dictate, no oratorical dexterity, certainly, to commit to writing. We have then the limits of a complete art before elocution.

Thirdly, the arts of rhetoric proper, and of elocution, are so distinct that great excellence in either may consist with great deficiency in the other. There have been many orators who could write good orations but were miserable speakers; and many excellent actors, who were utterly unable to construct an original discourse.

Fourthly, the modes of training in these different arts are so unlike, that convenience, both to the instructor and to the pupil, requires that they be separated.

CHAPTER III..

OF THE UTILITY OF RHETORIC.

§ 10. As every proper art respects a faculty, and as every such faculty is susceptible of development and invigoration which the art seeks as its great aim to promote and secure, every true conception of rhetoric must regard it as a developing and invigorating art.

There is a most remarkable opposition between the views of the ancients in this respect and the current opinions of the moderns. With the ancients, rhetoric was chiefly prized as an art which developed and cultivated the faculty of speaking. Their written systems and their teachings in schools were designed and fitted to draw out this faculty, and strengthen and improve it by judicious practice. They sought this even, as there is some reason to believe, at the sacrifice of good taste. They loved luxuriance and labored in every way to promote it. The moderns, on the other hand, have too much regarded rhetoric as a merely critical art. They have directed their attention mainly to pruning, repressing, and guiding; and have almost wholly neglected to apply any stimulus to the faculty of discourse itself. Their influence on the student of oratory has been, accordingly, at best but a negative influence, and any thing but fostering and nourishing. This has been an almost unavoidable result from their excluding from their systems the art of invention. For it is here - in invention that the creative work in discourse mainly lies. Style, considered apart from invention, is lifeless and dead, and can feel no stimulus if applied.

It is, thus, not without reason that merely critical systems of rhetoric are generally regarded as of more injury than benefit to the student of eloquence, at least until the faculty of speaking has been considerably developed.

The commonly received maxim, "He who is learning to speak with accuracy and order is learning also to think with accuracy and order," expresses but a part of the truth. The study of style, and especially the study of style as an art in the exercise of composing, undoubtedly conduces to accurate and methodical habits of thought. But "to speak with accuracy and order," including in the expression not only the selection of language, but also the invention of thought, acts more directly on the intellect in determining its habits. The exercise not only disciplines it to regular and accurate thought; it also directly invigorates and develops the intellect itself. Indeed, there is no exercise that more directly and more powerfully tends to mental development and invigoration, when pursued in conformity with the principles of thought and expression. The mental effort called forth in the invention of thought and the embodiment of it in appropriate language is, when directed intelligently and correctly, at the same time, the most pleasing and also the most invigorating and fostering which is possible to the human mind. Rhetoric, therefore, studied as an art, in connection with a practical application of its principles, may and should be one of the most pleasing and one of the most profitable of studies.

§ 11. The faculty of discourse or the power to communicate thought by language is the common attribute of men, and is susceptible of indefinite degrees of improvement and cultivation.

Speech is the distinctive attribute of humanity. This general truth needs no modification to meet the case of deafmutes. While, undoubtedly, individuals differ indefinitely in the degrees to which they rise in the power of vigorous