In imitating the style of a favorite author a material distinction should be observed between written and spoken language. Thefe are in reality two different modes of communicating ideas. In books we expect correctnefs, precision, all redundancies pruned, all repetitionsavoided, language completely polished. Speaking allows a more eafy, copious ftyle, and less confined by rule; repetitions may often be requifite; parentheses may fometimes be ornamental; the fame thought must often be placed in different points of view; fince the hearers can catch it only from the mouth of the fpeaker, and have not the opportunity, as in reading, of turning back again, and of contemplating, what they do not entirely comprehend. Hence the ftyle of many good authors would appear stiff, affected, and even obfeure, if transferred into a popular oration. How unnatural, for inftance, would Lord Shaftsbury's fentences found in the mouth of a public speaker? Some kinds of public difcourfe indeed; fuch, as that of the pulpit, where more accurate preparation and more studied style are allowable; would admit fuch a manner better, than others, which are expected to approach nearer to extemporaneous speaking. But ftill there is generally fuch a difference between a compofition, intended only to be read, and one proper to be spoken, as should caution us against a close and improper imitation.

The compofition of feme authors approaches nearer to the style of speaking, than that of others; and they

may therefore be imitated with more fafety. In our own language Swift and Bolingbroke are of this de feription. The former, though correct, preferves the eafy and natural manner of an unaffected speaker. The style of the latter is more fplendid; but still it is the style of speaking, or rather of declamation..

Frequent exercise both in compofing and speaking is a neceffary mean of improvement. That kind of compofition is moft ufeful, which is connected with the profeffion, or fort of public fpeaking, to which perfons devote themselves. This they fhould ever keep in view, and gradually inure themfelves to it. At the fame time they fhould be cautious not to allow themfelves to compofe negligently, on any occafion. He, who wishes to write or fpeak correctly, fhould in the moft trivial kind of compofition, in writing a letter, or even in common converfation, study to express himself with propriety. By this we do not mean that he is. never to write or fpeak, but in elaborate and artificial language. This would introduce ftiffness and affectation, infinitely worse, than the greatest negligence.. But we must obferve, that there is in every thing a proper and becoming manner; and on the contrary there is also an awkward performance of the fame thing.. The becoming manner is often the moft light, and feemingly molt carclefs; but tafte and attention are: requifite to feize the juft idea of it. That idea, when acquired, fhould be kept in view, and upon it fhould be formed, whatever we write or speak.

Exercises in speaking have always been recommended to students; and, when under proper regulation, must be of great ufe. Thofe public and promifcuous focieties, in which numbers are brought together, who are frequently of low ftations and occupations; who are connected by no common bond of union, except a ridiculous rage for public speaking, and have no other object in view, than to exhibit their supposed talents; are inftitutions not only useless, but injurious. They are calculated to become feminaries of licentioufnefs, petulance, and faction. Even the allowable meetings, into which students of oratory may form themselves, need direction, in order to render them ufeful. If their fubjects of difcourfe be improperly chofen; if they fupport extravagant or indecent topics; if they indulge themselves in loose and flimfy declamation; or accuftom themselves without preparation to speak pertly on all fubjects; they will unavoidably acquire a very faulty and vicious taste in fpeaking. It should therefore be recommended to all those, who are members of fuch focieties, to attend to the choice of their fubjects; to take care, that they be useful and manly, either connected with the courfe of their ftudies, or related to morals and taste, to action and life. They fhould also be temperate in the practice of speaking; not speak too often, nor on fubjects, of which they are ignorant; but only when they have proper materials for a difcourfe, and have previously confidered and digefted the fubject. In fpeaking they should be cautious always to

keep good fenfe and perfuafion in view rather, than a fhow of eloquence. By thefe means they will gradually form themselves to a manly, correct, and perfuafive manner of speaking.

It may now be asked, of what ufe will the study of critical and rhetorical writers be to thofe, who wish to excel in eloquence? They certainly ought not to be neglected; and yet perhaps very much cannot be expected from them. It is however from the original antient writers, that the greateft advantage may be derived; and it is a difgrace to any one, whofe profeffion calls him to speak in public, to be unacquainted with them. In all the antient rhetorical writers there is indeed one defect; they are too fyftematical. They aim at doing too much; at reducing rhetoric to a perfec art, which may even fupply invention with materials on every fubject; fo that one would fuppofe they expected to form an orator by rule, as they would form à carpenter. But in reality all, that can be done, is to affift and enlighten tafte, and to point out to genius. the courfe, it ought to hold.

Ariftotle was the firft, who took rhetoric out of the hands of the fophifts, and founded it on reafon and folid fenfe. Some of the profoundest observations, which have been made on the paffions and manners of men, are to be found in his Treatife on Rhetoric; though in this, as in all his writings, his great, concifenefs often renders him obfcure. The Greek rhetoricians, who

fucceeded him, most of whom are now loft, improved on his foundation. Two of them still remain, Demetrius Phalereus, and Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus. Both wrote on the conftruction of fentences, and deferve to be confulted; particularly Dionyfius, who is a very accurate and judicious critic.

To recommend the rhetorical writings of Cicero is fuperfluous. Whatever on the fubject of eloquence is fuggefted by fo great an orator, must be worthy of attention. His molt extenfive work on this fubject is that De Oratore. None of his writings are more highly finished, than this treatife. The dialogue is polite; the characters are well fupported, and the management of the whole is beautiful and pleasing. The Orator ad M. Brutum is alfo a valuable treatife ; and indeed through all Cicero's rhetorical works are difplayed thofe fublime ideas of cloquence, which are calculated to form a just taste, and to infpire that enthusiasm for the art, which is highly conducive to excellence.

But of all antient writers on the fubject of oratory the most instructive and most useful is Quintilian. His inftitutions abound with good fenfe, and discover a taste in the highest degree juft and accurate. Almoft all the principles of good criticifm are found in them. He has well digefted the antient ideas concerning rhetoric, and has delivered his inftructions in elegant and polished language.