now fpeaking, which we know the orators generally call flowers. ARTICLE the FOURTH. General reflections on the three kinds of Eloquence. Р T would be of no advantage to examine which of these three kinds is fitteft for an orator, fince he muft poffefs them all; P and that his ability confifts in making a proper use of them, according to the different fubjects he undertakes to treat; fo as to be able to temper the one with the other, fometimes foftening ftrength with beauty, and sometimes exalting beauty with ftrength. 9 Befides, thefe three kinds have fomething common in their diverfity of ftile, which unites them; that is, a folid and natural taste of beauty, abhorrent of paint and affectation. But I cannot help obferving, that this florid and fhining eloquence, which fparkles, as it were, throughout with wit; is immoderately lavish of its graces and beauties, upon which we generally fet fo great a value, and often prefer to all others; and which seems to be fo agreeable to the tafte of our age, though almost unknown to the judicious writers of antiquity, is, nevertheless, of no great ufe, and is confined within very narrow bounds. This kind of eloquence is, certainly, no way fuitable to the pulpit or the bar: • Ut confperfa fit verborum fententiarumque floribus, id non debet effe fufum æquabiliter per omnem orationem. 3. de Orat. n. 96. P Magni judicii, fummæ etiam facuitatis effe debebit moderator ille & quafi temperator hujus tripartitæ varietatis. Nam & judicabit quid cuique opus fit; & poterit. Quocumque mcdo poftulabit caufa, dicere. Orat. n. 70. Vol. II. E 9 Si habitum etiam orationis & quafi colorem aliquem requiritis, eft plena quædam, & tamen teres: & tenuis, & non fine nervis ac viribus, & ea, quæ particeps utriufque generis, quadam mediocritate laudatur. His tribus figurs infidere quidam venuftatis non fuco illitus, fed fanguine diffufus debet color. 3. de Orat. n. 199. neither neither is it proper for pious or moral fubjects, or books of controverfy, learned differtations, controverfies, apologies, nor for almost an infinite number of other works of literature. Hiftory, which should be written in a plain and natural ftile, would no way agree with one fo affected; and it would be ftill more intolerable in the epiftolary way, of which the chief characteristic is fimplicity. To what use then, fhall we reduce this fo much boafted kind of eloquence? I fhall leave the reader to examine the places and occafions where it may be reasonably admitted; and to confider whether it ought to engrofs our application and esteem. Not that all those writings I have mentioned, are void of ornament, of which Tully is a ftrong proof; and he alone is fufficient to form us for every fpecies of eloquence. His epiftles may give us a juft idea of the epiftolary ftile: Some of these are merely complimentary; others of recommendation, acknowledgment, and praise. Some are gay and facetious, in which he wantons with a great deal of wit; others again grave and ferious, when he difcuffes fome important queftion. In fome he treats of publick affairs, and thefe, in my opinion, are not the leaft beautiful. Thofe, for example, in which he gives an account of his conduct in the government of his province; firft to the fenate and people of Rome, and afterwards to Cato in particular, are a perfect model of the clearnefs, order and concifenefs which should be predominant in memoirs and relations; and we must particularly remark the dextrous and infinuating method he employs in those epiftles to conciliate the good opinion of Cato; and to make him favourable to him, in the demand he was to make of the honour of a triumph. His celebrated epiftle to Lucceius, where he requefts him to write the hiftory of his confulfhip, will ever be justly looked upon as a shining monument of Epift. 2. and 4. lib. 14. ad fa- f Epift. 12. 1.v. ad famil. mil. his eloquence, and at the fame time of his vanity. I have taken notice, in another place, of his beautiful epiftle to his brother Quintus, in which all the graces and refinements of art are comprized. His treatises of rhetoric and philofophy are originals in their kind, and the laft fhews us how to treat the most subtil and knotty fubjects with elegance and decorum. As to his harangues, they comprehend all the fpecies of eloquence, the various forts of ftile, the plain, the embellished and the fublime. t What fhall I fay of the Greek authors? Is it not the peculiar character of Homer to excel no lefs in little than great things; and to unite with a marvellous fublimity, a fimplicity equally admirable? Is any stile more delicate and elegant, more harmonious and fublime than Plato's? Was it without reason that Demofthenes held the first rank amongft the crowd of orators at Athens in his time; and has been always confidered as almost the standard of eloquence? In a word, not to mention all the ancient hiftorians, can any man of sense be tired with reading Plutarch? Of all thofe authors therefore, who were fo anciently and generally esteemed, did one of them degenerate into points and witty conceits, fhining thoughts, far-fetched figures, and beauties induftriously crowded upon each other? And how little, and how jejune and childish does this file, which is almoft banished from all ferious difcourfes, appear in comparison of the noble fimplicity, the wife greatnefs which characterise all good works, and are of ufe in all affairs, times and conditions? But in order to judge of it in this manner, we need only confult nature. It cannot be denied but those gardens fo exactly trimmed and laid out; fo enriched with whatever is fplendid and magnificent in art; those parterres which are disposed with such a delicacy of taste ; thofe fountains, cafcades and little groves, are not very pleafing and agreeable. But will any compare all this with * Quorum longè princeps De- fuit. Quintil. l. 1o. c. I. mofthenes, ac penè lex orandi E 2 the the magnificent profpect which a " fine country prefents us, where we scarce know what to admire most whether the gentle current of a river that rolls its waters with majefty; or those large and agreeable mea dows which the numerous herds continually grazing in them, almost animate; or the natural turf which feems to invite repofe, w its lively verdure unprofaned by needless works of art; or thofe rich hillocks, fa marvellously variegated with houfes, trees, vineyards, and ftill more, by its uncultivated native graces; or thofe high mountains, which feem to be loft in the clouds; or, in a word, those vaft forefts, whose trees, almoft as ancient as the world, owe their beauty folely to him who created them? Such is the moft florid ftile, in comparison of the grand and fublime eloquence. X The celebrated Atticus, fo well known by the epiftles which Cicero wrote to him, walking with him in a very agreeable island near one of the countryhouses, in which that orator * delighted moft, being the place of his nativity; fays to him, as he was admiring the beauty of the country: What is the magnificence of the moft ftately houfe; halls paved with marble, gilded roofs, vaft canals, which raife the admiration of others? How little and contemptible do all these appear, when we compare them with that ifland, that rivulet, and those delightful rural scenes before our eyes? And he observes judicoufly, that this opinion is no ways the effect of a whimfical prepoffeffion, but founded in nature itself. We must say the fame of works of wit; and cannot repeat it too often to youth, to put them upon their guard against a vicious taste of brillant thoughts; witty and far-fetched turns, which feem to aim at fuperiority, and has always foretold the approaching fall of eloquence. Quintilian had reason to say, that if he were obliged to choose, either the fimplicity of the ancients whilft grofs, or the extravagant licentioufness of the moderns, he would, without hefitation, prefer the former. I fhall conclude this article with fome extracts from a difcourfe, which, in my opinion, may be proposed as a compleat model of this noble and fublime, and at the fame time natural and unaffected eloquence, of which I shall endeavour to point out the characteristics here. This oration was fpoke by M. Racine in the French academy, upon the admiffion of two members, one of whom was Thomas Corneille his brother. M. Racine, after drawing a comparison between the laft Corneille and fchylus, Sophocles and Euripides; whom renowned Athens had honoured as much as it had Themistocles, Pericles, and Alcibiades, who were contemporaries with those poets, proceeds thus: "Yes, Sir, let ignorance defpife eloquence and poetry as much as it pleases, and treat great writers as perfons unprofitable to the ftate; we will not be "afraid of faying this in favour of learning, and of "this celebrated body of which you are now a mem 66 ber; from the moment that fublime genius's, which "far surpass the ordinary bounds of human nature, "diftinguish and immortalize themselves by fuch "mafter-pieces as thofe of your brother; whatever ftrange inequality fortune may make between them y si neceffe fit, veterem illum iftam novam licentiam. Quintil. horrorem dicendi malim, quam 1.8. c. 5. "" and E 3 |