men; but when he was called on to illustrate his remark by his own performance, he repeated a stanza of a ballad with such false emphasis that he was condemned by all present.

Davies, in his life of Garrick, tells us, that when Glover read his Boadicea to the actors, his voice was so harsh, and his elocution so disagreeable, that he disgusted his auditors. Garrick politely offered to read it for him; but Glover declined the favour, and appeared to think that he acquitted himself extremely well*. Corneille, Dryden, Addison, Akenside and Thomson were wretched readers. Of the latter, Dr. Johnson remarks, that among his peculiarities was a very unskilful and inarticulate manner of pronouncing any lofty or solemn composition. He was once reading to Doddington, who being himself a reader eminently elegant, was so much provoked by his odd utterance, that he snatched the paper from his hands, and told him

66

* Garrick's own recitation, however, was not perfect, and Dr. Johnson used to tell him that he often mistook the emphatic word in a sentence. There was a line in Hamlet, the emphases of which he entirely misunderstood:

Which he read:

I will speak daggers, but use none.

I will speak daggers, but use none.

وو

When Dr. Johnson requested him to read the Seventh Commandment, Garrick pronounced it, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "You are wrong, said the Doctor, "it is a negative precept, and ought to be pronounced, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery."" But Johnson himself was in error here, for the proper emphasis is: Thou shalt not commit adultery;" for the command is not in opposition to a contrary command, which would have required the emphasis on the word not alone.

66

Dr. Taylor told Boswell another anecdote of Dr. Johnson's triumphing over his old pupil. Garrick and Giffard (also an actor) were called on to repeat the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Both tried it and both mistook the emphasis, which Johnson explained was on the not and false witness. Sheridan in his Lectures on the Art of Reading places the emphasis wholly on the word false; but neither he nor Johnson, I think, are quite right, because they both omit some emphases that are obviously required. Besides the emphasis on the word not, there should be an equal emphasis on the words shalt not and false witness: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. There is no direct opposition understood that would require an exclusive emphasis on not or false. Such an emphasis would not be less absurd than an emphasis on the word no in the Sixth Commandment : "Thou shalt commit no murder," instead of "Thou shalt commit no murder."

66

that he did not understand his own verses." Dr. Johnson himself was an indifferent reader. His recitation is said to have been at once monotonous and violent. We learn from Miss Seward that Walter Scott's reading was equally imperfect* : though Scott has praised hers very handsomely. "The tone of her voice," he says, was melodious, guided by excellent taste, and well suited to reading and recitation, in which she willingly exercised it." Southey also speaks in high terms of her mode of reading. She tells Cary (the Translator of Dante) that he is almost the only poet she is acquainted with whose reading is entirely just to his Muse.

Byron is said to have read with feeling, but to have had a Northumbrian burr in his speech." Campbell reads very like a Methodist parson. His matter, and the choice of his expressions, in a formal speech, are always worthy of the poet and the patriot; but his manner is a sad disappointment to his admirers. Those who are familiar with him as a poet, and have felt the magic of his fine eye and his sweet though somewhat restrained smile, could not easily conceive that he would injure the effect of noble sentiments by such an extremely disagreeable delivery.

The

Amongst the clergy of the Church of England there are many correct and impressive readers of the Scriptures; but when they descend from the pulpit they are too apt to bring its atmosphere along with them, and to turn a poem into a sermon. Dissenters also, notwithstanding the many eloquent men amongst them, are generally still greater sinners in this respect, and in the most cheerful drawing-room make us fancy ourselves in a conventicle. There is a monotonous whine in their recitation of poetry that is perfectly intolerable. They regularly raise the voice

*Lockhart gives a very different account of Scott's mode of reading. "He read aloud high poetry with far greater simplicity, depth and effect than any other man I ever heard; and in Macbeth or Julius Cæsar, or the like, I doubt if Kemble could have been more impressive."-Lockhart's Life of Scott.

at the beginning of every line, and drop it into inaudible whispers at the close.

There are perhaps a greater number of good readers amongst actors than in any other profession. Mrs. Siddons used to be invited to read Shakspeare at Court*. Perhaps histrionic orators do not read other kinds of poetry so well as they read the Drama. They are too much inclined to act. Quin, however, was an exception. He is said to have read Milton with "marvellous propriety." Joseph Fawcett also was a beautiful general reader. Hazlitt tells us that his repeating some parts of Comus with his fine, deep, mellow-toned voice, particularly the lines, “I have oft heard my mother Circe, with the Syrens three," &c. and the enthusiatic comments he made afterwards, were a treat to the ear and to the soul. Henderson was a splendid reader; according to the testimony of Boaden his reading was superior to that of Kemble or Mrs. Siddons.

A good reader may even blind us to the faults of an author by the charm of his delivery. Spence, on the authority of Richardson, tells us that "Mr. Hooke read some speeches of his Roman History to the Speaker Onslow (who piqued himself upon his own reading), and begged him to give his opinion of the work: the Speaker answered in a passion, he could not tell what to think of it; it might be nonsense for aught he knew; for that his manner of reading had bewitched him.”

* After Mrs. Siddons had retired from the stage, she gave public readings of poetry at the Argyle Rooms in London. It was observed that her reading of Shakspeare was far more effective than her reading of Milton. Mr. Campbell attributes this to the supposed circumstance that the poetry of Milton is too spiritual to be susceptible of any improvement from elocution. I confess that I do not agree with him. The glorious music of Milton must be doubly delightful when worthily expressed by that divinest of all instruments-the human voice. In the case of Mrs. Siddons, we are to recollect that that Queen of Actresses was on her own strong ground in dramatic poetry, and that the sympathies and associations of the audience were naturally most at her command, when she was uttering the words of Shakspeare.

It is said that Sir James Mackintosh was a fine reader; though from the harshness of his voice, I should not have supposed it. A respected friend of mine tells me that one day in a large party at Hydrabad, on some person depreciating Cowley, Sir James took down the book from a shelf in the room, and saying that he was sure the gentleman could not have sufficiently studied that poet, he read the Chronicle" in a style that enchanted his audience. Perhaps his truth of emphasis and feeling overcame the disadvantage of a bad voice.

Though good poets are not necessarily good readers of verse, and I have given the names of several who illustrate the observation, I still think that the best readers amongst the poets must recite their own compositions or those of their brethren with a peculiar gusto and a magical effect. It is said that Virgil, Racine, and Boileau were admirable readers. Nat Lee was particularly distinguished for the beauty of his recitation. "He was so

pathetic a reader of his own scenes," says Cibber, "that while he was reading to Major Mohun at a rehearsal, Mohun, in the warmth of his admiration, threw down his part, and said, 'unless I were able to play it as well as you read it, to what purpose should I undertake it ?" "

Mr. De Quincy (the Opium Eater) gives an interesting account. of Charles Lamb as a reader; and in speaking of his own habits, says, that at one period during illness he could not read to himself with any pleasure, yet that he sometimes read aloud for the pleasure of others, for reading was an accomplishment of his, " almost the only one he possessed," and if he was proud of any thing it was of this, because he had observed that no accomplishment was so rare. He describes Charles Lamb as a delightful reader of verse, though his style of recitation wanted force, and was better suited to passages of quiet or solemn movement than to those of tumultuous passion. But the management of his pauses, it is added, was judicious, his enunciation distinct, his tones me

lodious, and his cadences well executed. This praise may excite some surprise, because it has been said that Lamb stammered even more in reading than in speaking. Amongst the best readers of modern times was Dr. Sayers, of whom William Taylor of Norwich has written such an affectionate and interesting biography. "Throughout life," says his biographer, "he was one of the finest readers ever heard; expression of every kind was at his command; his own emotion was always transitive, yet given with that subdued grace which is the expedient distinction between lecture and declamation." Mr. Polwhele (in his Traditions and Recollections) records that Dr. Wolcot (Peter Pindar) read poetry extremely well. He remembers the Doctor's reading some lines "with a voice so plaintively soft, so musical in its cadences, that his whole soul should seem to have been attuned to sensibility and virtue. But what a medley is man of good and evil!"

Wordsworth's reading of his own poetry is described by Hazlitt as particularly imposing. "In his favorite passages his eye beams with preternatural lustre, and the meaning labours slowly up from his swelling breast." Mrs. Hemans, in a letter to a friend, also gives a pleasing account of Wordsworth's style of recitation." His reading is very peculiar, but, to my ear, delightful; slow, solemn, earnest in expression, more than any I have ever heard; when he reads or recites in the open air, his deep and rich tones seem to proceed from a spirit-voice, and to belong to the religion of the place; they harmonize so fitly with the thrilling tones of woods and waterfalls." Coleridge was also a fine reader. The reporter of the poet's Table Talk mentions that upon his telling him, that he did not very well recollect the Prothalamion of Spenser, "Then I must read you a bit of it," said Coleridge, and fetching the book from the next room, he recited the whole of it in his finest manner. "I particularly bear in mind," continues the reporter (the poet's relative), "the sensible diversity of tone and rhythm with which he gave the concluding line of each of the strophes of the poem :