public tafte refined and judicious. Accordingly, it was improved to fuch a degree, that the Attic tafte and Attic manner have paffed into a proverb. It is true, that ambitious demagogues, and corrupt orators, did fometimes dazzle and mislead the people, by a fhowy but false Eloquence; for the Athenians, with all their acuteness, were factious and giddy, and great admirers of every novelty. But when fome important intereft drew their attention, when any great danger roused them, and put their judgment to a ferious trial, they commonly diftinguished, very justly, between genuine and spurious Eloquence: and hence Demofthenes triumphed over all his opponents; because he spoke always to the purpofe, affected no infignificant parade of words, ufed weighty arguments, and fhewed them clearly where their intereft lay. In critical conjunctures of the state, when the public was alarmed with fome preffing danger, when the people were affembled, and proclamation was made by the crier, for any one to rife and deliver his opinion upon the prefent fituation of affairs, empty declamation and fophiftical reasoning would not only have been hiffed, but refented and punished by an affembly fo intelligent and accuftomed to bufinefs. Their greateft orators trembled on such occafions, when they rofe to addrefs the people, as they knew they were to

be

be held answerable for the iffue of the counfel which they gave. The most liberal endowments of the greatest princes never could found fuch a school for true oratory, as was formed by the nature of the Athenian Republic. Eloquence there sprung, native and vigorous, from amidst the contentions of faction and freedom, of public business and of active life; and not from that retirement and fpeculation, which we are apt fometimes to fancy more favourable to Eloquence than they are found to be.

W

ROMAN ELOQUENCE.

THEN we compare together the various rival productions of Greece and Rome, we fhall always find this diftinction obtain, that in the Greek productions there is more native genius; in the Roman, more regularity and art. What the Greeks invented, the Romans polifhed; the one was the original, rough fometimes, and incorrect, the other, a finished copy.

As the Roman government, during the republic, was of the popular kind, there is no doubt but that, in the hands of the leading men, public speaking became early an engine of government,

and

and was employed for gaining distinction and power. But in the rude unpolished times of the State, their speaking was hardly of that fort that could be called Eloquence. Though Cicero endeavours to give fome reputation to the elder Cato, and thofe who were his cotemporaries, yet he acknowledges it to have been "a rude "and harsh ftrain of speech." It was not till a short time preceding Cicero's age, that the Roman Orators rofe into any note. Craffus and Antonius, two of the Speakers in the dialogue de Oratore, appear to have been the most eminent, whose different manners Cicero defcribes with great beauty in that dialogue, and in his other rhetorical works. But as none of their productions are extant, nor any of Hortenfius's, who was Cicero's cotemporary and rival at the bar, it is needless to tranfcribe from Cicero's writings the account which he gives of those great men, and of the character of their Eloquence.

The object in this period moft worthy to draw our attention, is Cicero himself; whofe name alone fuggefts every thing that is splendid in Oratory. His method is clear, and his arguments are arranged with great propriety. He never attempts to move, till he has endeavoured to convince; and in moving, efpecially

the

the fofter paffions, he is very fuccefsful. No man knew the power and force of words better than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and pomp ; and, in the ftructure of his fentences, is curious and exact to the higheft degree. He is always full and flowing, never abrupt. He is a great amplifier of every subject; magnificent, and in his sentiments highly moral. His manner is on the whole diffuse, yet it is often happily varied, and fuited to the fubject.When a great public object roufed his mind, and demanded indignation and force, he departs confiderably from that loose and declamatory manner to which he leans at other times, and becomes exceedingly cogent and vehement.

CICERO AND DEMOSTHENES COMPARED.

THE different manners of these two Princes

of Eloquence, and the diftinguifhing characters of each are fo ftrongly marked in their writings, that the comparifon is, in many refpects, obvious and eafy. The character of Demofthenes is vigour and aufterity; that of Cicero is gentleness and infinuation. In the one, you find more manliness, in the other, more ornament. The one is more harfh, but more fpirited and

cogent;

cogent; the other, more agreeable, but withaf, loofer and weaker.

It is a difadvantage to Demofthenes, that, be Aides his concifenefs, which fometimes produces obfcurity, the language, in which he writes, is lefs familiar to most of us than the Latin, and that we are lefs acquainted with the Greek antiquities than we are with the Roman. We read Cicero with more eafe, and of course with more pleasure. Independent of this circumstance too, he is no doubt, in himself, a more agreeable writer than the other. But notwithstanding this advantage, I am of opinion, that were the state in danger, or some great national interest at stake, which drew the ferious attention of the public, an Oration in the spirit and ftrain of Demofthenes, would have more weight, and produce greater effects than one in the Ciceronian manner. Were Demofthenes's Philippics spoken in a British Affembly, in a fimilar conjuncture of affairs, they would convince and perfuade at this day. The rapid Style, the vehement reasoning, the difdain, anger, boldness, freedom, which perpetually animate them, would render their fuccefs infallible over any modern affembly. I queftion whether the fame can be faid of Cicero's Orations; whofe Eloquence, however beautiful, and however well fuited to the Roman tafte, yet borders