ferved 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 Ci- cero's rival at the bar; it is not necessary to transcribe, what Cicero faid of them, and of the character of their eloquence.

The object, most worthy of our attention, is Cicero' himself; whose name alone fuggests every thing splen did in oratory. With his life and character in other refpects we are not at prefent concerned. We fhall view him, only as an eloquent speaker; and endeavor tơ mark both his virtues and defects: His virtues are em inently great. In all his orations art is confpicuous. He begins commonly with a regular exordium, and with much address prepoffeffes the hearers, and ftudies to gain their affections. His method is clear, and his ar guments arranged with great propriety. In clearnefs of method he has advantage over Demofthenes. Every thing is in its proper place; he never attempts to move; before he has endeavored to convince; and in moving; particularly the fofter paffions, he is very fuccessful. No one ever knew the force of words better, than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and pomp ; and in the ftructure of his fentences is eminent. ly curious and exact. He is always full and flowing;

never abrupt. He amplifies every thing; yet, though: his manner is on the whole diffufe, it is often happily varied, and fuited to the fubject. When a great public' object roused his mind, and demanded indignation and force; he departs confiderably from that loose and declamatory manner, to which he at other times is addic→ ed, and becomes very forcible and vehement..

This great orator however is not without defects. In most of his orations there is too much art. He feems often defirous of obtaining admiration rather, than of operating conviction. He is fometimes therefore fhowy rather, than folid; and diffuse, where he ought to be urgent. His periods are always round and fonorous; they cannot be accused of monotony, for they poffefs variety of cadence; but from too great fondness for magnificence he is fometimes deficient in ftrength. Though the fervices, which he performed for his country, were very confiderable; yet he is too much his own panegyrift. Antient manners, which impofed fewer reftraints on the fide of decorum, may in fome degree excufe, but cannot entirely juftify his vanity.

Whether Demofthenes 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, feems to have stated their merits with great justice and perfpicuity. His judgment is given in his reflections on Rhetoric and Poetry. We

fhall tranflate the paffage, though not, it is feared, with-out lofing much of the fpirit of the original. "I'do "not hesitate to declare," fays he, " that I think De"mofthenes fuperior to Cicero. I am perfuaded, no "one can admire Cicero more, than I do. He adorns, "whatever he attempts. He does honor to language. "He difpofes of words in a manner peculiar to himself. "His style has great variety of character. Whenever "he pleases, he is even concife and vehement; for in"stance, against Catiline, against Verres, against An"thony. But ornament is too vifible in his writings. "His art is wonderful, but it is perceived. When the "orator is providing for the fafety of the Republic, he "forgets not himself, nor permits others to forget him. "Demofthenes feems to escape from himself, and to fee "nothing, but his country. He feeks not elegance of "expreffion; unfought he poffeffes it. He is fuperior: "to admiration. He makes ufe of language, as a "modest man does of drefs, 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. *tention, and makes us forget his language. We lose "him from our fight; Phillip alone occupies our. "minds. I am delighted with both these orators; but "I confefs that I am lefs affected by the infinite art and "magnificent eloquence of Cicero, than by the rapid: * fimplicity of Demofthenes."

His fubject enchains our atten

The reign of eloquence among the Romans was very fhort. 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 fucceffion of the most execrable tyrants, that ever difgraced and fcourged the human race.

In the decline of the Roman Empire the introduc tion of Christianity gave rise to a new kind of eloquence in the apologies, fermons, and paftoral writings of the fathers. But none of them afforded very juft models of eloquence. Their language as foon, as we defcend to the third or fourth century, becomes harfh; and they are generally infected with the taste of that age, a love of fwollen and strained thoughts, and of the play of words.

As nothing in the middle ages deferves attention, we pafs now to the ftate of eloquence in modern times. Here it must be confeffed, that in no European nation" public speaking has been valued so highly, or cultivated with fo much care, as in Greece or Rome. The genius of the world appears in this refpect to have undergone fome alteration. The two countries, where we might expect to find most of the fpirit 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 thefe countries has oratory rifen nearly to the degree of its antient splendor..

Several reafons may be given, why modern eloquence has been fo confined and humble in its efforts. In the first place, it feems, that this change muft in part be af-Gibed to that accurate turn of thinking, which has been fo much cultivated in modern times. Our public fpeakers are obliged to be more referved, than the antients, in their attempts to elevate the imagination, and warm the paffions; and by the influence of prevailing taste their own genius is chaftened 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 difpofition. For the vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks and Romans, efpecially of the former, seem to have been much fuperior to ours, and to have given them a higher relish for all the beauties of oratory..

Though the Parliament of Great Britain is the nobleft field, which Europe at prefent affords to a public fpeaker; yet eloquence has ever been there a more feeble inftrument, than in the popular affemblies of Greece and Rome. Under fome foreign reigns the iron hand of arbitrary power checked its efforts;. and in later times ministerial influence has generally rendered it of. fmall importance. At the bar our disadvantage in