The genius of the world appears in this respect to have undergone some alteration. The two countries, where we might expect to find most of the spirit 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 neither of these countries has oratory risen nearly to the degree of its ancient splendour.

Several reasons may be given, why modern eloquence has been so confined and humble in its efforts. In the first place, it seems, that this change must, in part, be ascribed to that accurate turn of thinking, which has been so much cultivated in modern times. Our public speakers are obliged to be more reserved than the ancients in their attempts to elevate the imagination, and warm the passions; and by the influence of prevailing taste, their own genius is chastened 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 disposition. For the vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks and Romans, especially of the former, seem to have been much superior to ours, and to have given them a higher relish for all the beauties of oratory.

Though the parliament of Great Britain is the noblest field which Europe at present affords to a public speaker, yet eloquence has ever been there a more feeble instrument than in the popular assemblies of Greece and Rome. Under some foreign reigns, the iron hand of arbitrary power checked its efforts; and in later times, ministerial influence has generally rendered it of small importance. At the bar, our disadvantage, in comparison with the ancients, is great. Among them the judges were commonly numerous: the laws were few and simple; the decision of causes was left in a great measure to equity and the sense of mankind. Hence the field for judicial eloquence was ample. But at present, the system of law is much more complicated. The knowledge of it is rendered so laborious, as to be the study of a man's life.

Speaking is therefore only a secondary accomplishment, for which he has little leisure.

With respect to the pulpit, it has been a great disadvantage, that the practice of reading sermons, instead of repeating them, has prevailed so universally in England. This indeed may have introduced accuracy; but eloquence has been much enfeebled. Another circumstance too has been prejudicial. The sectaries and fanatics, before the restoration, used a warm, zealous, and popular manner of preaching: and their adherents afterward continued to distinguish themselves by similar ardour. Hatred of these sects drove the established church into the opposite extreme of a studied coolness of expression. Hence, from the art of persuasion, which preaching ought ever to be, it has passed, in England, into mere reasoning and instruction.

From whom did the Romans derive their eloquence?
How did the Romans differ from the Greeks?

What is said of the Roman orators before the time of
Cicero ?

Describe the style of Cicero's eloquence.

What are his principal faults?

How does Demosthenes compare with Cicero ?

When did eloquence decline among the Romans?

What eloquence succeeded?

What were its faults?

What is said of modern eloquence?

What reasons are assigned?

What is said of the eloquence of the parliament of Great

Britain ?

Why is there less room for eloquence of the bar?
What has enfeebled pulpit eloquence?

ELOQUENCE OF POPULAR ASSEMBLIES.

THE foundation of every species of eloquence is good sense and solid thought. It should be the first study of him, who means to address a popular assembly, to be previously master of the business on which

he is to speak; to be well provided with matter and argument; and to rest upon these the chief stress. This will give to his discourse an air of manliness and strength, which is a powerful instrument of persuasion. Ornament, if we have a genius for it, will succeed of course; at any rate it deserves only secondary regard.

To become a persuasive speaker in a popular assembly, it is a capital rule, that a man should always be persuaded of whatever he recommends to others. Never, if it can be avoided, should he espouse that side of argument, which he does not believe to be the right. All high eloquence must be the offspring of passion. This makes every man persuasive, and gives a force to his genius, which it cannot otherwise

possess.

Debate in popular assemblies seldom allows a speaker that previous preparation, which the pulpit always, and the bar sometimes, admits. A general prejudice prevails, and not an unjust one, against set speeches in public meetings. At the opening of a debate they may sometimes be introduced with propriety; but, as the debate advances, they become improper; they lose the appearance of being suggested by the business that is going on. Study and ostentation are apt to be visible; and, conséquently, though admired as elegant, they are seldom so persuasive as more free and unconstrained discourses.

This, however, does not foroid premeditation on what we intend to speak. With respect to the matter, we cannot be too accurate in our preparation; but with regard to words and expressions, it is very possible so far to overdo as to render our speech stiff and precise. Short notes of the substance of the discourse are not only allowable, but of considerable service, to those especially who are beginning to speak in public. They will teach them a degree of accuracy, which, if they speak frequently, they are in danger of losing. They will accustom them to distinct arrangement, without which, eloquence, however great, cannot produce entire conviction.

Popular assemblies give scope for the most animated manner of public speaking. Passion is easily excited in a great assembly, where the movements are com

municated by mutual sympathy between the orator and the audience. That ardour of speech, that vehemence and glow of sentiment, which proceed from a mind animated and inspired by some great and public object, form the peculiar character of popular eloquence in its highest degree of perfection.

The warmth, however, which we express, must be always suited to the subject; since it would be ridiculous to introduce great vehemence into a subject of small importance, or which, by its nature, requires to be treated with calmness. We must also be careful not to counterfeit warmth without feeling it. The best rule is, to follow nature; and never to attempt a strain of eloquence, which is not prompted by our own genius. A speaker, may acquire reputation and influence by a calm, argumentative manner. To reach the pathetic and sublime of oratory, requires those strong sensibilities of mind, and that high power of expression, which are given to few.

Even when vehemence is justified by the subject, and prompted by genius; when warmth is felt, not feigned; we must be cautious, lest impetuosity transport us to far. If the speaker lose command of himself, he will soon lose command of his audience. He must begin with moderation, and study to warm his hearers gradually and equally with himself. For, if their passions be not in unison with his, the discord will soon be felt. Respect for his audience should always lay a decent restraint upon his warmth, and prevent it from carrying him beyond proper limits. When a speaker is so far master of himself, as to preserve close attention to argument, and even to some degree of accurate expression; this self-command, this effort of reason, in the midst of passion, contributes in the highest degree both to please and to persuade. The advantages of passion are afforded for the purposes of persuasion, without that confusion and disorder which are its usual attendants.

In the most animated strain of popular speaking, we must always regard what the public ear will receive without disgust. Without attention to this, imitation of ancient orators might betray a speaker into a boldness of manner, with which the coolness of modern taste would be displeased. It is also neces

sary to attend with care to the decorums of time, place, and character. No ardour of eloquence can atone for neglect of these. No one should attempt to speak in public without forming to himself a just and strict idea of what is suitable to his age and character; what is suitable to the subject, the hearers, the place, and the occasion. On this idea he should adjust the whole strain and manner of his speaking.

What degree of conciseness or diffuseness is suited to popular eloquence, it is not easy to determine with precision. A diffuse manner is generally considered as most proper. There is danger, however, of erring in this respect; by too diffuse a style, public speakers often lose more in point of strength, than they gain by fulness of illustration. Excessive conciseness indeed must be avoided. We must explain and inculcate; but confine ourselves within certain limits. We should never forget that, however we may be pleased with hearing ourselves speak, every audience may be fired; and the moment they grow weary, our eloquence becomes useless. It is better, in general, to say too little, than too much; to place our thought in one strong point of view, and rest it there, than by showing it in every light, and pouring forth a profusion of words upon it, to exhaust the attention of our hearers, and leave them languid and fatigued.

Where is the most passionate eloquence to be found?
What caution is recommended?

1

Must regard be had to the decorums of time, place, and character?

Should popular eloquence be diffuse or concise?

ELOQUENCE OF THE BAR.

THE ends of speaking at the bar and in popular assemblies are commonly different. In the latter the orator aims principally to persuade; to determine his hearers to some choice or conduct, as good, fit, or useful. He, therefore, applies himself to every principle of action in our nature; to the passions and to the