Replies

It is always easy to sanctify the past and downgrade the present and that has been done in every age and culture. Nineteenth century America was a land of little culture outside a few Eastern cities. In the South the majority of the poor were illiterate and the prevelence of illiteracy and lack of culture in general makes true eloquence and articulate speech difficult if not impossible for the vast majority of the population.

Prior to the spread of public education only the wealthy had any education to speak of. To think that there were very many Daniel Websters, John C. Calhouns, Hamiltons or Lincolns is simply mistaken.

Stories mumbled around a fire at night is not the same as articulate speech. To me articulate speech is correct or at least poetic speech. Incorrect speech can be articulate but it is the rare speaker who can pull that off. And some people can babble incessently without saying a thing worth hearing.

Rhetoric, the proper use of speech, was once a serious study for those who were formally educated and its disappearance as a subject of study does not help today's talkers but only a small percentage of the population of the past was exposed to it anyway.

As regards the oral tradition and the ability to have more conversational encounters that may be true however, it certainly is also true that I have all those I desire. Having a limited cultural background cannot make one's conversations MORE interesting rather the opposite.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think we are missing each other, but I am not sure how to rectify that.

I think we mean something different by expression and articulateness. I wished you had addressed my points about how contemporary use of language is very inarticulate. Did the Orwell article cause any sense of agreement in you?