Cicero.

may safely be pronounced to be also the best of the syssematic writers on Rhetoric. Cicero is hardy to be reckoned among the number; for he delighted so much more in the practice than in the theory of his art, that he is perpetually drawn off from the rigid philosophical analysis of its principles, into dis cursive declamations, always eloquent indeed, and often highly interesting, but adverse to regularity of system, and frequently as unsatisfactory to the practical student as to the philosopher. He abounds indeed with excellent practical remarks, thongh the best of them are scattered up and down his works with much irregularity; but his precepts, though of great weight, as being the result of experience, are not often traced up by him to first principles; and we are frequently left to guess, not only on what basis his rules are grounded, but in what cases they are applicable. Of this latter defect a remarkable instance will be hereafter cited.*

Quinctilian is indeed a systematic writer ; Quinctilian. but cannot be considered as having much extended the philosophical views of his predecessors in this department. He possessed mnch good sense, but this was tinctured with pedantry; with that aλalovela, as Aristotle calls it, which extends to an extravagant degree the province of the art which he professes. A great part of his work indeed is a Treatise on Education, generally; in the conduct of which he was no mean proficient; for such was the importance attached to public speaking, even long after the downfall of the Republic had cut off the orator from the hopes of attaining, through the means of this qualification, the highest political importance, that he who was nominally a professor of Rhetoric, had in fact the most important branches of instruction intrusted to his care.

Many valuable maxims however are to be found in this author; but he wanted the profundity of thought and power of analysis which Aristotle possessed

* See Part I. ch. 3. § v.

The writers on Rhetoric among the ancients whose works are lost, seem to have been numerous; but most of them appear to have confined themselves to a very narrow view of the subject; and to have been occupied, as Aristotle complains, with the minor details of style and arrangement, and with the sophistical tricks and petty artifices of the pleader, instead of giving a masterly and comprehensive sketch of the essentials.

Among the moderns, few writers of ability have turned their thoughts to the subject; and but little has been added, either in respect of matter, or of system, to what the ancients have left us. Bacon's "AntiRacon. theta" however the rhetorical commonplaces are a wonderful specimen of acuteness of thought and pointed conciseness of expression. I have accordingly placed a selection of them in the Ap pendix.*

Campbell," It were most unjust in this place to leave unnoticed Dr. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhe toric: a work which does not enjoy indeed so high a degree of popular favour as Dr. Blair's, but is incomparably superior to it, not only in depth of thought and ingenious original research, but also in practical utility to the student. The title of Dr. Campbell's work has perhaps deterred many readers, who have concluded it to be more abstruse and less popular in its character than it really is. Amidst much however that is readily understood by any moderately intelligent reader, there is much also that calls for some exertion of thought, which the indolence of most readers refuses to bestow. And it must be owned that he also in some instances perplexes his readers by being perplexed himself, and be wildered in the discussion of questions through which he does not clearly see his way. His great defect, which not only leads him into occasional errors, but leaves many of his best ideas but imperfectly developed, is his ignorance and utter misconception of the nature and ob *See Appendix, [A.|

ject of Logic; on which some remarks are made in my Treatise on that Science. Rhetoric being in truth an off-shoot of Logic, that Rhetorician must labour under great disadvantages who is not only ill-acquainted with that system, but also utterly unconscious of his deficiency.

3. From a general view of the history of Rhetoric, two questions naturally suggest themselves, which, on examination will be found very closely connected to. gether: first, what is the cause of the careful and extensive cultivation, among the ancients, of an art which the moderns have comparatively neglected; and secondly, whether the former or the latter are to be regarded as the wiser in this respect; in other words, whether Rhetoric be worth any diligent cultivation.

Assiduous

cients.

With regard to the first of these questions, the answer generally given is, that the nature cultivation of the Government in the ancient democrati- of Rhetoric cal States caused a demand for public speak- by the an ers, and for such speakers as should be able to gain influence not only with educated persons in dis passionate deliberation, but with a promiscuous multitude; and accordingly it is remarked that the extinction of liberty brought with it, or at least brought after it, the decline of eloquence; as is justly remarked (though in a courtly form) by the author of the dialogue on oratory, which passes under the name of Tacitus: "What need is there of long discourses in the Senate, when the best of its members speedily come to an agreement? or of numerous harangues to the people, when deliberations on public affairs are conducted, not by a multitude of unskilled persons, but by a single individual, and that the wisest ?"*

This account of the matter is undoubtedly correct as far as it goes; but the importance of public speaking is "Quid enim opus est longis in Senatu sententiis, cum optimi cito consentiant? quid, multis apud populum concionibus, cum de Republica non imperiti et multi deliberent; sed sapientissimus, et

BAUS 7"

ers

The an

ers.

so great in our cwn, and all other countries that are not under a despotic government, that the apparent neglect of the study of Rhetoric seems to require some further explanation. Part of this explanation may be supplied by the consideration that the difference in this respect between the ancients and ourselves is not so great in reality as in appearance. When the only way of addressing the public was by orations, and cients hear when all political measures were debated in rather popular assemblies, the characters of orator than read- author, and politician, almost entirely coincided; he who would communicate his ideas to the world, or would gain political power, and carry his legislative schemes into effect, was necessarily a speaker; since, as Pericles is made to remark by Thucydides, " one who forms a judgment on any point, but cannot explain himself clearly to the people, might as well have never thought at all on the subject."* The consequence was, that almost all who sought, and all who professed to give, instruction, in the principles of government, and the conduct of judicial proceedings, combined these, in their minds and in their practice, with the study of Rhetoric, which was necessary to give effect to all such attainments; and in time the rhetorical writers (of whom Aristotle makes that complaint) came to consider the science of Legislation and of Politics in general, as a part of their own art

Much, therefore, of what was formerly studied under the name of Rhetoric, is still, under other names, as generally and as diligently studied as ever.

It cannot be denied however that a great difference, though less, as I have said, than might at first sight appear, does exist between the ancients and the moderns in this point;-that what is strictly and properly called Rhetoric, is much less studied, at least less systematically studied, now, than formerly. Perhaps this also may be in some measure accounted for from the circumstances * Thucydides, book ii See the motto.

moderns.

which have been just noticed. Such is the distrust excited by any suspicion of rhetorical arti- Disavowal fice, that every speaker or writer who is of rhetori anxious to carry his point, endeavours to cal studies disown or to keep out of sight any superi- among the ority of skill; and wishes to be considered as relying rather on the strength of his cause, and the soundness of his views, than on his ingenuity and expertness as an advocate. Hence it is, that even those who have paid the greatest and the most successful attention to the study of Composition and of Elocution, are so far from encouraging others by example or recommendation to engage in the same pursuit, that they labour rather to conceal and disavow their own proficiency; and thus, theoretical rules are decried, even by those who owe the most to them. Whereas among the ancients, the same cause did not, for the reasons lately mentioned, operate to the same extent; since, however careful any speaker might be to disown the artifices of Rhetoric, properly so called, he would not be ashamed to acknowledge himself, generally, a student or a proficient, in an Art which was understood to in clude the elements of political wisdom.

§ 4. With regard to the other question pro- Utility of posed, viz. concerning the utility of Rhetoric, Rhetoric it is to be observed that it divides itself into two; first, whether oratorical skill be, on the whole, a public benefit, or evil; and secondly, whether any artificial system of rules is conducive to the attainment of that skill.

The former of these questions was eagerly debated among the ancients; on the latter, but little doubt seems to have existed. With us, on the contrary, the state of these questions seems nearly reversed. It seems generally admitted that skill in Composition and in Speaking, liable as it evidently is to abuse, is to be con. sidered, on the whole, as advantageous to the public; because that liability to abuse is, neither in this, nor in