The remarks which come next to be made on gesture, are more various.* * One principal fault which I have noticed in this, is want of appropriateness. By this I mean that it is not sufficiently adapted to circumstances. An address to an assembly of common men, admits a boldness of action, that would be unseemly in one delivered to a prince.† self, and will be offended at so gross a want of that seriousness which becomes his sacred office. In minor points,-what constitutes decorum depends not on philosophy nor accident, but on custom. From real or affected carelessness on such points, the preacher may fix on some trivial circumstance, that attention of his hearers, which should be devoted to greater things. He may do this, for example, by standing much too high, or too low in the pulpit; by rising, as in the act of commencing his sermon, before the singing is closed; or delaying for so long an interval, as to excite apprehension that something has befallen him; by an awkward holding of his Psalm book, or especially his Bible, with one side hanging down or doubled backwards;-by drawing his hands behind him, or thrusting them into his clothes. In these things, as in all others, connected with the worship of God, it is the province of good sense to avoid peculiarity in trifles. * The prevailing taste in our own country, like that of England, has been to employ but little action in the pulpit. Whitefield, in the last century, broke through the trammels of custom, in a boldness and variety of action, bordering on that of the stage. But his gesture, like his elocution, was far from the declamatory. His hand had scarcely less authority than Cæsar's; and the movement even of his finger gave an electric thrill to the bosoms of his hear ers. Massillon's action was less diversified, and less powerful, though more refined, as was the general character of his eloquence. On this principle it is, that gesture is felt to be so unseasonable in personating God, and in addresses made to him. When we introduce him as speaking to man, or when we speak of his adorable perfections, or to him in prayer, the sentiments inspired demand composure and reverence of manner. Good taste then can never approve the stretching upward of the hands at full length, in the manner of Whitefield, at the commencement of prayer; nor the frowning aspect and the repelling movement of the hand, with which many utter the sentence of the final Judge," Depart, ye cursed,"&c. does not look at any thing. There is in its expression, a generality, a vacuity, so to speak, that expresses nothing. To the same class belongs that indefinite sweep of the eye, which passes from one side to another of an assembly, resting no where; and that tremulous, waving cast of the eye, and winking of the eyelid, which is in direct contrast to an open, collected, manly expression of the face.* So fatal are these faults to the impression of delivery, that too much care cannot be taken to avoid them. Attitude I use, not in the theatrical sense of the word, (for this has no concern with oratory,) but as denoting the general positions of the body, which are becoming or otherwise in a speaker. In some few instances I have observed the head to be kept so erect, as to give the air of haughtiness. In others, it is dropped so low, that the man seems to be carelessly surveying his own person. In others it is reclined towards one shoulder, so as to give the appearance of languor or indolence.† As to the degree of motion that is proper for the body, it may be safely said, that while the fixedness of a post is an extreme, all violent tossing of the body from side to side, rising on the toes, or writhing of the shoulders and limbs, are not less unseemly. *Here again the habit acquired by some preachers, from closely reading their sermons, is such, that when they raise their eye from the paper, they fix it on the floor of the aisle, or on a post or pannel, to avoid a direct look at their hearers. + There is often something characteristic in the air with which a preacher enters a church, ascends the pulpit, and rises in it to address an assembly. If he assumes the gracefulness of a fine gentleman, as if he were practising the lessons of an assembly room, every hearer of discernment will see that his object is to exhibit him The remarks which come next to be made on gesture, are more various.* One principal fault which I have noticed in this, is want of appropriateness. By this I mean that it is not sufficiently adapted to circumstances. An address to an assembly of common men, admits a boldness of action, that would be unseemly in one delivered to a prince.† self, and will be offended at so gross a want of that seriousness which becomes his sacred office. In minor points,-what constitutes decorum depends not on philosophy nor accident, but on custom. From real or affected carelessness on such points, the preacher may fix on some trivial circumstance, that attention of his hearers, which should be devoted to greater things. He may do this, for example, by standing much too high, or too low in the pulpit; by rising, as in the act of commencing his sermon, before the singing is closed; or delaying for so long an interval, as to excite apprehension that something has befallen him; by an awkward holding of his Psalm book, or especially his Bible, with one side hanging down or doubled backwards;-by drawing his hands behind him, or thrusting them into his clothes. In these things, as in all others, connected with the worship of God, it is the province of good sense to avoid peculiarity in trifles. *The prevailing taste in our own country, like that of England, has been to employ but little action in the pulpit. Whitefield, in the last century, broke through the trammels of custom, in a boldness and variety of action, bordering on that of the stage. But his gesture, like his elocution, was far from the declamatory. His hand had scarcely less authority than Cæsar's; and the movement even of his finger gave an electric thrill to the bosoms of his hear ers. Massillon's action was less diversified, and less powerful, though more refined, as was the general character of his eloquence. On this principle it is, that gesture is felt to be so unseasonable in personating God, and in addresses made to him. When we introduce him as speaking to man, or when we speak of his adorable perfections, or to him in prayer, the sentiments inspired demand composure and reverence of manner. Good taste then can never approve the stretching upward of the hands at full length, in the manner of Whitefield, at the commencement of prayer; nor the frowning aspect and the repelling movement of the hand, with which many utter the sentence of the final Judge," Depart, ye cursed," &c. If there is language in action, it requires propriety and precision. The indiscriminate movement of the hands signifies nothing. Want of emphasis in this language is a great, but common fault. When the speaker, however, has an emphatic stroke of the hand, its effect is lost if that stroke does not accompany the emphasis of the voice; that is, if it falls one syllable after the stress of voice, or if it is disproportionate in force to that stress, in the same degree its meaning is impaired. The direction of the hand too, in which the emphatic stroke terminates, is significant. The elevated termination suits high passion; the horizontal, decision; the downward, disapprobation. And any of these may denote definitive designation of particular objects. Another fault of action is excess. In some cases it is too constant. To enter on a discourse with passionate exclamations and high wrought figures, while the speaker and audience are both cool, is not more absurd than to begin with continual gesticulation. No man probably ever carried the language of action to so high a pitch as Garrick. Yet Dr. Gregory says of this great dramatic speaker; "He used less action than any performer I ever saw; but his action always had meaning; it always spoke. By being less than that of other actors, it had the greater force." But if constant action has too much levity, even for the stage, what shall we say of that man's taste, who, in speaking on a subject of serious importance, can.scarcely utter a sentence without extending his hands. "Ne quid nimis."* * Fenelon says,-" Some time ago, I happened to fall asleep at a sermon; and when I awaked, the preacher was in a very violent But action may be not merely too much;-it may be too violent. Such are the habits of some men, that they can never raise the hand, without stretching the arm at full length above the head, or in a horizontal sweep; or drawing it back, as if in the attitude of prostrating some giant at a stroke. But such a man seems to forget that gentleness, and tranquillity, and dignity, are attributes that prevail more than violence, in real oratory. The full stroke of the hand, with extended arm, should be reserved for its own appropriate occasions. For common purposes, a smaller movement is sufficient, and even more expressive. The meaning of a gesture depends not on its compass. The tap of Cæsar's finger was enough to awe the Senate. Action is often too complex. When there is want of precision, in the intellectual habits of the speaker, he adopts perhaps two or three gestures for one thought. In this way all simplicity is sacrificed; for though the idea is complex, an attempt to exhibit each shade of meaning by the hand, is ridiculous. After one principal, stroke, every appendage to this, commonly weakens its effect. Another fault of action, is too great uniformity. Like periodic tones and stress of voice, the same gesture recur agitation, so that I fancied at first, he was pressing some important point of morality. But he was only giving notice, that on the Sunday following, he would preach upon repentance. I was extremely surprised to hear so indifferent a thing uttered with so much vehemence. The motion of the arm is proper, when the orator is very vehement; but he ought not to move his arm in order to appear vehement. Nay, there are many things that ought to be pronounced calmly, and without any motion." 14* |