"Of the first saith he, "there are as many forts, as there are "grammatical faults or folecisms in fpeech. [Prius fit iisdem generibus quibus vitia] for every figure, (i. e. every such figure, or every grammatical figure) would be a fault in style, "if it were meerly accidental [effet enim omne schema vi"TIUM fi non peteretur fed accideret.] However, the use of "this fpecies is warranted by authority, by antient or present

ufage, and frequently by fome reason.* Wherefore, as it "is a deviation from the plain and direct form of speech [i. e. "the definition of a figure agrees to it, we rank it among the "feveral forts of figures, and] it is allowed as an excellence or " ornament of style, if there be something plaufible to justify "the introducer of it."

I should by no means willingly mifreprefent the argument of my Lord Bishop; but upon repeated examination of the paffage here quoted, I must state it thus.

Сс

"Quintilian declares, that what are called grammatical figures are really no more than faulty violations of gramma"tical rules, unless when purposedly introduced upon fome "reasonable or plaufible grounds."

Therefore,

"He confeffes that Tropes and Figures of compofition,

"as

as they are a deviation from the Principles of Metaphyfics and Logic, are frequently vitious."

If this be a fair representation, it were to be wished that the learned Author had fo far condefceded to men of confined abilities, as to explain the connexion between these two propofitions.

*Of which he gives this inftance. Oculis capti Talpæ, et timidi Damæ, dicuntur a Virgilio: fed fubeft RA

TIO quia fexus uterque ab altero figfignificatur.

CHAP.

C HOA P. VI.

ITHERTO we have confidered Eloquence, in general,

HT that mode of speech which fignifies emotion or dif

paffion in the speaker, and tends to excite them in the hearer. But it is neceffary, as we advance in this enquiry, to be more particular: for the learned author, whose reasonings we take the liberty of examining, had endeavoured to establish his pofition on the basis of strict philosophical argument. In order to demonstrate that Eloquence is not effential to human fpeech, but meerly arbitrary, dependent on fashion and custom, he then proceeds to a regular examination of it's conftituent parts.

ELOQUENCE is a compound of these three qualities of speech, "PURITY, ELEGANCE, and SUBLIMITY. Purity is the use of "fuch terms with their multiplied combinations, as the in"tereft, the complexion, or the caprice of fome writer or fpeaker of authority hath preferred to it's equals. Elegance " is such a turn of idiom as a fashionable fancy hath brought "into repute. Sublimity is the application of fuch images as arbitrary and cafual connexions, rather than their own native

66

*Se&t. 3.

"grandeur have dignified and ennobled. Since then the "constituent parts are arbitrary and capricious, the compound "must be equally nominal and unsubstantial.”

I freely confefs that in confidering this argument, I cannot fo entirely divest myself of all prejudice, as is strictly proper in an enquiry after truth. I cannot help feeling a fecret hope and an inclination to believe that his Lordship may have been here. betrayed into fome mistake. Particularly, as it appears from his definition of fublimity, that the cenfure is not confined to the Style of Eloquence, but extends to the things fuggested, the objects presented to the mind, by such a style.

Poets and Orators have been ever the admiration of mankind. They have poffeffed their several stations in the Temple of Fame, for many ages, unmolefted and it is somewhat mortifying to be now at length awakened from an agreeable dream, and to find this auguft temple diffolve,

:

Like the bafeless fabrick of a vision:

*

to find, I fay, whatever ages have admired as elegant or grand, ftripped of its imaginary value, and refolved into chance, caprice, and fashion.So that the Poet of the piping Winds, and the twisted curls of flame, whom Longinus quotes with Ed. I earce. fo much difrefpect, poffeffed as great intrinfic excellence, was as elegant in his diction, in his images as fublime, as the author of the Iliad, however the ficklenefs of fashion hath been pleafed to confign the very name of one to oblivion, and to cast such a blaze of glory round the other, as time hath never yet beeen able to extinguish.GORGIAS, AMPHICRATES, and MATRIS, have then their appeal to the tribunal of reason and philosophy, against the arbitrary determinations of mankind, in favour of the nominal and unfubftantial merit of DEMOSTHENES. And to come nearer home.How cruel

is

is the contempt which the author of the Bathos has expreffed for poor BLACKMORE, when MILTON hath no fuperiority but what is capricious, arbitrary and cafual? And the Commentator on POPE, who difcovers the five kinds of fublimity mentioned by Longinus, in the concluding verses of the Effay on Man, hath done no more honour to his poèt, than to inform the world, that he was fortunate in setting the fashion, or nice and exact in following the fashion; and that it is the casual pleasure of the world, to confer fo great a degree of authority and reputation on his writings, while thofe of JoSUAH SYL-VESTER are as capriciously neglected.

Upon the first view of his Lordship's divifion, (which, as hath been already noted, feems not confined to style or diction) x it is obfervable that PATHOS, the very foul and life of eloquence is intirely omitted. If it was confidered, as included in the last member of the division, sublimity, I answer in the words of Longinus. Ἀλλ ̓ εἰ μέν ὡς ἕν τι ταῦ] ἄμφω, τά τε ὕψω * καὶ τὰ παθητικὸν, καὶ ἔδοξεν αυτῳς πίνῃ συνυπάρχειν τε αλλήλοις * συμπεφυκέναι, διαμαρμάνει; καὶ γὰρ πάθη τινὰ διετῶτα, ὕψεις καὶ ταπεινα εὑρίσκεται, καθάπερ οἰκτοι, λυπαι, φόβοι· καὶ ἔμπαλιν πολλά ύψη δίχα πάθες. Sed. 8.

"If the omiffion proceeded from imagining the fublime "and the pathetic to be one and the fame, or that they are infeperably united and co-existent; this is a mistake. There are paffions not only diftinct from fublimity, but of a direct contrary nature, low and depreffed. Again, there are in"ftances of the fublime without any mixture of Pathos."

PURITY of language, tho' properly belonging to the gram(matical art, is indeed ranked by antient Critics among the excellences of Rhetorical compofition. But by their confeffion, it is the loweft, leaft honourable and least valuable

part

part of eloquence. This is the fentiment of the great Roman. Ipfum latine loqui, eft illud quidem, ut paulo ante dixi, in magna laude ponendum, fed non tam fua fponte, quam quod est a plerifque neglectum; non enim tam præclarum est scire latine, quam turpe nefcire; neque tamen id mihi oratoris boni, quam civis Romani proprium videtur. CICER. de CLARIS ORAT. C. 37.--And again; Nemo enim unquam eft Oratorem, quod latine loqueretur, admiratus. De ORAT. L. 3. C. 14.

But as purity of diction, however in itself of little value, is yet a part of perfect and confummate Eloquence, let us examine whether it be truly defined as confifting in the " use of such "terms with their combinations, as the intereft, the complexion, or the caprice of fome writer or speaker of authority hath preferred to its equals."

We are not to be informed that words, as they fignify our Ideas, are indeed arbitrary, and that as to their primary and original value, all articulate founds are indeed strictly equals. But when once they are chofen, and established with their feveral connexions and modifications fo as to form a language, there are then rules and principles, to which men must accommodate themselves in the ufe and application of words, fo as to convey their thoughts with clearness. And no fpeaker or writer can become a fpeaker or writer of authority, I mean of authority for pure diction, but by conforming to these rules. He may invent new, or revive antiquated terms, and this, either from caprice or judgment. His countrymen may adopt the innovation; which they may confider as a proof of elegance, copioufnefs, or fuch like, but not of purity, unless fo far as it is conformable to the analogy or etymology of his Language,

If