The fecond degree of eloquence is, when the speaker aims, not merely to please, but alfo to inform, to inftruct, to convince; when his art is employed in removing prejudices against himself and his caufe; in felecting the most proper arguments, ftating them with the greatest force, arranging them in the best order, expreffing and delivering them with propriety and beauty thereby difpofing us to pass that judgment, or favour that fide of the caufe, to which he feeks to bring us. Within this degree chiefly is employed the eloquence of the bar.

The third and highest degree of eloquence is that by which we are not only convinced, but interested, agitated, and carried along with the speaker; our paffions rife with his; we share all his emotions; we love, we hate, we refent, as he infpires us; and are prompted to refolve, or to act, with vigour and warmth. Debate in popular affemblies opens the most extenfive field to this fpecies of eloquence; and the pulpit also admits it.

This high fpecies of eloquence is always the offfpring of paffion. By paffion we mean that state of mind in which it is agitated and fired by fome object in view. Hence the univerfally acknowledged power of enthusiasm in publick fpeakers for affecting their audience. Hence all ftudied exclamation and laboured ornaments of style, which show the mind to be cool and unmoved, are inconfiftent with perfuafive eloquence. Hence every kind of affectation in gesture and pronunciation detracts fo much from the weight of a speaker. Hence the neceffity of being, and of being believed to be, difinterested and in carneft in order to perfuade.

In tracing the origin of eloquence it is not neceffary to go far back into the early ages of the world, or to search for it among the monuments of Eastern or Egyptian antiquity. In thofe ages, it is true, there was a certain kind of eloquence; but it was more nearly allied to poetry, than to what we properly call oratory. While the intercourfe of men was infrequent, and force was the principal mean employed in deciding controverfies, the arts of oratory and perfuafion, of reasoning and debate, could be little known. The first empires were of the defpotick kind.. A fingle perfon, or at moft, a few, held the reins of government. The multitude were accustomed to blind obedience; they were driven, not perfuaded. Corfequently none of thofe refinements of fociety, which make publick fpeaking an object of importance, were introduced.

Before the rife of the Grecian Republicks, we perceive no remarkable appearances of eloquence, as the art of perfuafion; and thefe gave it fuch a field, as it never had before, and perhaps has never had again fince that time. Greece was divided into mary little ftates. These were governed at first by kings; who being for their tyranny fucceffively expelled from their dominions, there fprung up a multitude of democratical goverments, founded nearly upon the fame plan, auimated by the fame high fpirit of freedom, mutually jealous, and rivals of eachother. Among thefe Athens was moit noted for arts of every kind, but especially for lequence. We fhall pafs over the orators, who flourished in the early period of this republick, and take a view of the great Demofthenes, in whom eloquence fhone with unrivalled fplendour. Not formed by na

M

ture either to pleafe or perfuade, he ftruggled with, and furmounted, the most formidable impediments. He shut himself up in a cave that he might study with lefs diftraction. He declaimed by the fea-fhore, that he might be used to the noise of a tumultuous affembly; and with pebbles in his mouth, that he might correct a defect in his speech. He practifed at home with a naked fword hanging over his shoulder, that he might check an ungraceful motion, to which he was fubject. Hence the example of this great man affords the highest encouragement to every ftudent of eloquence; fince it fhows how far art and application availed for acquiring an excellence, which nature appeared willing to deny.

No orator had ever a finer field than Demosthenes in his Olynthiacks and Philippicks, which are his capital orations; and undoubtedly to the greatnefs of the fubject, and to that integrity and publick fpirit, which breathe in them, they owe much of their merit. The object is to rouze the indignation of his countrymen against Philip of Macedon, the publick enemy of the liberties of Greece; and to guard them against the infidious measures, by which that crafty prince endeavoured to lay them afleep to danger. To attain this end, we fee him ufing every proper mean to animate a people, diftinguished by juftice, humanity, and valour; but in many inftances become corrupt and degenerate. He boldly accufes them of venality, indolence, and indifference to the publick caufe; while at the fame time he reminds them of the glory of their ancestors, and of their prefent refources. His cotemporary orators, who were bribed by Philip, and perfuaded the people to peace, he openly reproaches, as traitors to their coun

try. He not only prompts to vigorous measures, but lays down the plan of execution. His orations are ftrongly animated, and full of the impetuofity and fire of publick spirit. His compofition is not distinguished by ornament and fplendour. It is energy of thought, peculiarly his own, which forms his character, and fets him above all others. He feems not to attend to

words, but to things. We forget the orator, and think of the fubject. He has no parade; no ftudied introductions; but is like a man full of his fubject, who, after preparing his audience by a fentence or two for hearing plain truths, enters directly on business.

The ftyle of Demofthenes is ftrong and concise, though fometimes harth and abrupt. His words are very expreffive, and his arrangement firm and manly. Negligent of little graces, he aims at that fublime which lies in fentiment. His action and pronunciation were uncommonly vehement and ardent. His character is of the auftere, rather than of the gentle kind. He is always grave, ferious, paffionate; never degrading himself, nor attempting any thing like pleasantry. If his admirable eloquence be in any refpect faulty, it is in this, he fometimes borders on the hard and dry. He may be thought to want smoothness and grace; which is attributed to his imitating too closely the manner of Thucydides, who was his great model for style, and whofe hiftory he tranfcribed eight times with his own hand. But these defects are more than compensated by that masterly force of mafculine eloquence,, which, as it overpowered all who heard it, cannot in the prefent day be read without emotion.

ROMAN ELOQUENCE. CICERO. MODERN

ELOQUENCE.

HAVING treated of eloquence among the Greeks, we now proceed to confider its progrefs among the Romans; where we fhall find one model at least of eloquence in its moft fplendid form. The Romans derived their eloquence, poetry, and learning, from the Greeks, and were far inferior to them in genius for all thefe accomplishments. They had neither their vivacity, nor fenfibility; their paffions were not fo eafily moved, nor their conceptions fo lively; in comparifon with them they were a phlegmatick people. Their language resembled their character; it was regular, firm and stately; but wanted that expreffive fimplicity, that flexibility to fuit every different species of compofition, by which the Greek tongue is peculiarly diftinguished. Hence we always find in Greek productions more native genius; in Roman, more regularity and art.

As the Roman government, during the republick, was of the popular kind, publick fpeaking early became the mean of acquiring power and diftinction. But in the unpolished times of the state, their speaking hardly deserved the name of eloquence. It was but a fhort time before the age of Cicero, that the Roman orators rofe into any reputation. Craffus and Antonius feem to have been the most eminent; but, as none of their works are extant, nor any of Hortenfius's, who was Cicero's rival at the bar, it is not neceffary to tranf cribe what Cicero faid of them and of the character of their cloquence.