but wherein they are separable, the first is here the special and dominant topic of inquiry.

It has been customary to divide the arts into fine, elegant, or liberal; and useful, mechanical, or practical: the design of the first being to refine the higher faculties, and thus to afford a larger amount of a more elevated kind of enjoyment; of the second, to qualify a human being to act the part of a dexterous instrument. If for convenience we admit the division, rhetoric evidently has the character of both classes. But the distinction is essentially superficial; for, with the progress of civilization, there is a progressive union of the useful and the beautiful; while, with the growth of a more spiritual view of human destiny, whatever is conducive to the highest education of the noblest powers is held to be of preeminent use. The rhetorician may, therefore, cheerfully profess himself a utilitarian, and, on the special ground of its utility, claim for his art its peculiar importance.

Every art is closely allied to one or more sciences which furnish the principles that govern and explain it. In making harmony between matter and manner, and using both to secure worthy ends, rhetoric subsidizes Grammar, which unites words in correct construction; and Logic, which tests the validity of the reasoning. In so far as it expresses moral states, or aims to excite them, it is related to Ethics. It is allied to Esthetics by conformity with the laws of taste- the great moderator that wars against excess. But it does not properly embrace these in their integrity. It does not assume into itself purely scientific investigations and discussions of them. It takes their laws as settled and applies them, where there is occasion, to its own purposes. Since thought is now conveyed far more frequently by the pen than by the voice, Elocution is but accidentally subsidiary. The two arts should be separated, because (1) their modes of training are different: