from that loose and declamatory manner, to which he at other times is addicted, and becomes very forcible and vebement.

This great orator, however, is not without defects. In most of his orations there is too much art. He seems often desirous of obtaining admiration, rather than of operating conviction. He is sometimes, therefore, showy, rather than solid; and diffuse where he ought to be urgent. His periods are always round and sonorous; they cannot be accused of monotony, for they possess variety of cadence; but from too great fondness for magnificence, he is sometimes deficient in strength. Though the services which he performed for his country were very considerable, yet he is too much his own panegyrist. Ancient manners, which imposed fewer restraints on the side of decorum, may in some degree excuse, but cannot entirely justify his vanity.

Whether Demosthenes or Cicero were the most perfect orator is a question, on which critics are not agreed. Fenelon, the celebrated archbishop of Cambray, and author of Telemachus, seems to have stated their merits with great justice and perspicuity. His judgment is given in his reflections on rhetoric and poetry. We shall translate the passage, though not, it is feared, without losing much of the spirit of the original. "I do not hesitate to declare," says he, "that I think Demosthenes superior to Cicero. I am persuaded no one can admire Cicero more than I do. He adorns whatever he attempts. He does honour to language. He disposes of words in a manner peculiar to himself. His style has great variety of character. Whenever he pleases, he is even concise and vehement; for instance, against Cataline, against, Verres, against Anthony. But ornament is too visible in his writings. His art is wonderful, but it is perceived. When the orator is providing for the safety of the republic, he forgets not himself, nor permits others to forget him. Demosthenes seems to escape from himself, and to see nothing but his country. He seeks not elegance of expression; unsought he possesses it. He

is superior to admiration. He makes use of language, as a modest man does of dress, only to cover him. He thunders, he lightens. He is a torrent which carries every thing before it. We cannot criticise, because we are not ourselves. His subject enchains our attention, and makes us forget his language. We lose him from our sight. Philip alone occupies our minds. I am delighted with both these orators; but I confess that I am less affected by the infinite art and magnificent eloquence of Cicere, than by the rapid simplicity of De

mosthenes.'

The reign of eloquence among the Romans was very short. It expired with Cicero. Nor can we wonder at this; for liberty was no more, and the government of Rome was delivered over to a succession of the most execrable tyrants that ever disgraced and Scourged the human race.

In the decline of the Roman empire, the introduction of christianity gave rise to a new kind of eloquence in the apologies, sermons and pastoral writings of the fathers. But none of them afforded very just models of eloquence. Their language, as soon as we descend to the third or fourth century, becomes harsh; and they are generally infected with the taste of that age, a love of swollen and strained thoughts, and of the play of words.

As nothing in the middle ages deserves attention, we pass now to the state of eloquence in modern times. Here it must be confessed, that in no European nation public speaking has been valued so highly, or cultivated with so much care, as in Greece and Rome. The genius of the world appears in this respect to have undergone some alteration. The two countries, where we might expect to find most of the spirit of eloquence, are France and Great Britain: France, on account of the distinguished turn of its inhabitants toward all the liberal arts, and of the encouragement which more than a century past these arts have received from the public; Great Britain, on account of its free government and the liberal spirit and genius of its people. Yet in nei

ther of these countries has oratory risen nearly to the degree of its ancient splendour.

Several reasons may be given, why modern eloquence has been so confined and humble in its efforts. In the first place, it seems that this change must in part be ascribed to that accurate turn of thinking which has been so much cultivated in modern times. Our pubFic speakers are obliged to be more reserved than the ancients, in their attempts to elevate the imagination, and warm the passions; and by the influence of pre'vailing taste, their own genius is chastened perhaps in too great a degree. It is probable, also, that we ascribe to our correctness and good sense, what is chiefly owing to the phlegm and natural coldness of our disposition. For the vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks and Romans, ecpecially of the former, seem to have been much superior to ours, and to have given them a higher relish for all the beauties of oratory.

Though the parliament of Great Britain is the noblest field which Europe at present affords to a public speaker, yet eloquence has ever been there a more feeble instrument than in the popular assemblies of Greece and Rome. Under some foreign reigns, the iron hand of arbitrary power checked its efforts; and in later times ministerial influence has generally rendered it of small importance. At the bar our disadvantage in comparison with the ancients is great. Among them the judges were commonly numerous; the laws were few and simple; the decision of causes was left in a great measure to equity and the sense of mankind. Hence the field for judicial eloquence was ample. But at present the system of law is much more complicated. The knowledge of it is rendered so laborious as to be the study of a man's life. Speaking is therefore only a secondary accomplishment, for which he has little leisure.

With respect to the pulpit, it has been a great disadvantage, that the practice of reading sermons, instead of repeating them, has prevailed so universally in EngJand. This indeed may have introduced accuracy •

but eloquence has been much enfeebled. Another circumstance, too, has been prejudicial. The sectaries and fanatics, before the restoration, used a warm, zealous, and popular manner of preaching; and their adherents afterward continued to distinguish themselves by similar ardour. Hatred of these sects drove the established church into the opposite extreme of a studied coolness of expression. Hence from the art

of persuasion, which preaching ought ever to be, it has passed in England into mere reasoning and instruction.

ELOQUENCE OF POPULAR ASSEMBLIES.

THE foundation of every species of eloquence is good sense and solid thought. It should be the first study of him, who means to address a popular assembly, to be previously master of the business on which he is to speak; to be well provided with matter and argument; and to rest upon these the chief stress. This will give to his discourse an air of manliness and strength, which is a powerful instrument of persuasion. Ornament, if he have genius for it, will succeed of course; at any rate it deserves only secondary regard.

Fo become a persuasive speaker in a popular assembly, it is a capital rule, that a man should always be persuaded of whatever he recommends to others. Never, if it can be avoided, should he espouse that side of an argument which he does not believe to be the right. All high eloquence must be the offspring of passion. This makes every man persuasive, and gives a force to his genius which it cannot otherwise possess.

Debate in popular assemblies seldom allows a speaker that previous preparation which the pulpit always, and the bar sometimes, admits. A general prejudice prevails, and not an unjust one, against set speeches in public meetings. At the opening of a debate they may sometimes be introduced with propriety; but as the

debate advances, they become improper; they lose the appearance of being suggested by the business that is going on. Study and ostentation are apt to be visible; and consequently, though admired as elegant, they are seldom so persuasive as more free and unconstrained discourses.

This, however, does not forbid premeditation, on what we intend to speak. With respect to the matter, we cannot be too accurate in our preparation; but with regard to words and expressions it is very possible so far to overdo, as to render our speech stiff and precise. Short notes of the substance of the discourse are not only allowable, but of considerable service, to those especially, who are beginning to speak in public. They will teach them a degree of accuracy, which, if they speak frequently, they are in danger of losing. They will accustom them to distinct arrangement, without which, eloquence, however great, cannot produce entire conviction.

Popular assemblies give scope for the most animated manner of public speaking. Passion is easily excited in a great assembly, where the movements are communicated by mutual sympathy between the orator and the audience. That ardour of speech, that vehemence and glow of sentiment, which proceed from a mind animated and inspired by some great and public object, form the peculiar character of popular elequence in its highest degree of perfection.

The warmth, however, which we express, must be always suited to the subject; since it would be ridiculous to introduce great vehemence into a subject of small importance, or which by its nature requires to be treated with calmness. We must also be careful not to counterfeit warmth without feeling it. The best rule is, to follow nature; and never attempt a strain of eloquence which is not prompted by our own genius. A speaker may acquire reputation and influence by a calm argumentative manner. To reach the pathetic and sublime of oratory, requires those strong sensibilities of mind, and that high power of expression, which are given to few.