\f>A

ORATORY.

cients used in writing. For a-; they commonly wrote upon thinboards covered over with wax, and sometimes upon the bark oftrees, they made use of a long instrument like a bodkin, pointedat Oiie end, with which they cut their letters ; and broad at theother, to erase any thing they chose to alter. This the Latinscalled stylus. But though this be the first sense of the word, yetafterwards it came to denote the manner of expression. In thissense we likewise use it, by the same kind of trope that we callanv one’s writing his hand. Style, then, in the common accep-tation of the word, is the peculiar manner in which a man ex-presses his conceptions by means of language. The reasons, whichoccasion a variety of sty le, are principally these. As speech andwriting are only sensible expressions of our thoughts, by which wecommunicate them to others, and as all men think more or lessdifterently, so they naturally differ in their style. No two per-sons, writing upon one subject, would use the very same words.And they would as ccrtaiuiv differ in their order and connection.From these internal characters, critics undertake to discover theauthors of anonymous writings. We may often observe in authorsa fondness lor some particular words or phrases; and a peculiarityin the turn of their sentences, by which their style mav be known,even when they design to conceal it. There is likewise often aconsiderable difference in the style of the same person, in differentperiods of bis life. Young persons, whose invention is quick andlively, commonly run into a pompous and luxuriant style ; andwhile they endeavour to represent every thing in the brightestcolours, they render their style verbose and florid, but weaken theforce and strength of it. But as their imagination cools, and theyacquire a more m:f m e judgement, they cut off many superfluities,and their style 'becomes more correct and nervous. But as oldage sinks the powers of the mind, and chills the imagination, thestyle, too, usually grows dry and languid. Critics have observedsomething of this difference in the w ritings of Cicero himself. Tobe master of a good style, therefore, it seems necessary that a per-son should be endowed with a vigorous mind and lively fancy, astrong memory, and a good judgement. Another cause of thevariety of style arises from the different nature and properties oflanguage. A difference in the letters, the form of the words, andthe order of them, all affect the style. Quintilian observes, thatthe Latin tongue cannot equal the Greek in pronunciation, becauseit is harsher. The Latins wantv, one of the softest of the Greekvowels ; and many Latin words end in m ; a letter of a broad andhollow sound, which never terminates any Greek word; but vdoes frequently, whose sound is much softer and sweeter. Be-sides, in tlie combination of syllables, the letters b and d are oftenso situated, as to require too strong and unequal a force to be laidupon them, as in the words obversu.s and adjungo. Another ad-vantage of the Greek tongue arises from the variety and differentseat of, the accents: for the Greeks often accent the last syllable,which both enlivens the pronunciation and renders it more musi-cal ; whereas the Latins never do this. But the greatest advantageof the Greeks lies in their plenty and variety of words ; for whichreason they have less occasion for tropes or circumlocutions, which,when used from necessity, have generally less force, and weakenthe style. But under these disadvantages, Quintilian gives hiscountrymen the best advice the case will admit of: That whatthey cannot do in words, they should make up in sense. If theirexpressions are not so soft and tender, they should exceed instrength; if tliev are less subtile, they should be more sublime ;and if they have few er proper words, they should excel in thebeauty as well as number of their figures. But the chief distinc-tion of style arises from lire different subjects of discourse. Thesame way of speaking no more suits all subjects, than the samegarment would all persons and all ranks. The style thereforeShould always be adapted to the subject, which rhetoricians havereduced to three ranks : viz. the low or plain style, the middle ortemperate, and the lofty or sublime: Which are likewise calledcharacter's, because they denote the quality of the subject uponwhich they treat. This division of style into three characters, wastaken’ notice of very early by ancient writers. Some observe iteven in Ilomer, who assigns the sublime to Ulysses, when he re-presents him so copious and vehement an orator, that his wordscame from him like winter snow : while he describes Menelaus asa polite speaker, but concise and moderate ; and represents Nes-tor’s manner as between these two, not so high as the one, nor so

low as the other; but smooth, even, and pleasant, or, as he ex-presses it, more swee t than honey. Quintilian observes, that al-though accuracy and politeness were general characters of the At-tic writers ; yet among their orators, Lysias excelled in (he lowand familiar way ; Isocrates for elegance, smoothness, and the fineturn of his periods ; and Demosthenes for flame and rapidity,bv which he carried all before him. And Gelltus tells us, that thelike difference was found in the three philosophers who were sent '•from Athenians to Rome (before the Romans had any relish forthe polite arts) to solicit the remittance of a fine laid upom them.Carneades was vehement and rapid in his harangues; Critolaus ,neat and smooth; and Diogenes , modest and sober.

Of the Low St/jle. This may be considered under two heads,thoughts and language; in each of v\ Inch the several charactersare distinguished.

I. With respect to the former, as the subjects proper for thisstyle are either common things, or such as should he treated in afamiliar way ; so plain thoughts are most suitable to it. By plainthoughts, are meant such as are simple and obvious, and seem torise naturally from the subject; so that any one, upon first hear-ing them, would be apt to imagine they should have occurred tohimself. For the more natural a thing is, the more easy it seemsto be; though in reality it is often otherwise ; and the perfectionof art lies in its nearest resemblance to nature. This natural plain-ness and simplicity very much contributes to give credit to whatis said. Nor is any thing more apt to impose upon us, than theappearance of this, when artfully assumed. Cicero ’s account ofthe tight between Milo and Clodius, in w hich Clodius was killed,is a remarkable instance of this, bee Oral, pro Milone. Rut asthings are sometimes best illustrated by their opposites, we shallmention ;l contrary instance of a very affected and unnatural wayof relating a fact. Val. Maximus tells us of a learned man atAthens , who, l>v a blow which he received by a stone upon hishead, entirely forgot all his learning, though lie continued to re-member every thing else. And in the course of his narrative, hetalks of a “ direful and malignant wound invading his mind, andsurveying the knowledge reposited there, and cruelly seizing aparticular part of if, and burying it with an invidious funeral ?This affected nonsense has no small resemblance to a great deal ofmetaphorical bombast, which we meet w ith in many of our mo-dern publications. Rut there are two properties of plain thoughts,one of which ought constantly lo attend them in common with allthoughts, and the other is often necessary to animate andenliven this character. The former is justness and propriety.What Cicero says of the death of Crassus the orator, seems just,and natural. “ It was (says he)-an affliction lo his lriends, a lossto his country, and a concern to all good men ; but such public ca-lamities followed upon it, that heaven seemed rather to have fa-voured him with death, than to have deprived him of life.” Thisthought seems agreeable to the sentiments of a good man, as Gras- 1sus was; to choose death rather that to outlive tlie happiness ofhis country. The other property, which should often accompanyplain thoughts, is, that they he sprightly. This is necessary toenliven such discourses as require the low style. The fewer orna-ments it admits of, the greater spirit and vivacity is requisite toprevent it from being dry and jejune. A thought may be verybrisk and lively, and at the same time appear very natural. Suciithoughts, attended with agreeable turns, are very suitable to thisstyle ; but care should he taken, lest, while fancy is indulged, thejustness of them be overlooked.

II. As to the. language proper for this style, it ought to be agree-able to the thoughts, plain, simple, and unaffected, 'j'be first thingis elegance, or a proper choice ot words and expressions; whichought always to suit the idea they are designed to convey. Tintnext thing is composition, which here does not require the greatestnicety. A seeming negligence is sometimes a beauty in tins style,as being more natural. Sliort sentences, or those of a moderatelength, are likewise best suited to. this character. Long and accu-rate periods, finely wrought up with a gradual rise, harmoniousnumbers, &c. are improper, as they are the effect of art. Yetsome proportion should he observed in the members, that n -itlicrthe ears be disappointed, nor the sense obscured. Of this kind isthat expression of a Greek orator, blamed by Demetrius: Cerescame readily to our assistance, but Aristides not. The latterclause is too short ; and by dropping so suddenly, both disappoints

8 the