« VorigeDoorgaan »
whilft it enlightened them; fo that, if Truth herself had affumed a human voice and form, fhe could have used no other language. Demofthenes and Ifæus, without having any thing forced or unnatural in their productions, took more pains than Lyfias in preparing the minds of the judges; in relating the facts which gave birth to the litigation; in dividing the parts of their address to the court; in marshalling their evidence; in difpofing and enforcing their obfervations; in digreffing without deviation; in returning to the fubject without abruptnefs; in amplifying; in aggravating; in extenuating; and, as Dionyfius fays particularly of Ifæus, in attacking their adverfaries, laying clofe fiege to the understandings, and ftorming the paffions, of the jury; not omitting any thing that might tend to fecure the fruit of all forenfic labours, a verdict or judgment for their clients: for this purpose, if the cause was weak, no infinuation, no address, no contrivance, was neglected by Ifæus in order to fupport it; but, when he happened to have juftice on his fide, his method feems to have been admirable. His manner of opening was various, according to the great variety of caufes in which he was employed; sometimes he told his story in a natural order, with concifenefs and fimplicity, without preparation, withost ornament, without any mixture of argumentation; fometimes be civided a long narration into several heads, proving each of them, as he went along; a method, of which he feems to have been fond, and which could not but conduce to the perfpicuity of his speeches: in all cafes he made frequent use of that oratorial fyllogifm, whica logicians call epichirema, where the premises are respectively proved by argument or evidence before the fpeaker draws his conclufion; white the enthymema, in which one propofition is fuppreffed, appears to have been more agreeable to the manner of Lynas; and Dioryfus, indeed, mentions this as a ftrong mark of difcrimination between the two advocates. His other modes of arguing, his anticipations, 75capitulations, digreffions, inversions, variations, trastors, were all happily and seasonably applied in conformity to the dipolation of his judges, and the nature of each particolar cafe.'
We cannot take leave of the prefent work without laying before our Readers Mr. Jones's examination of an opinion advanced by Cicero, which he combats with great fpirit and ingenuity. It will probably be thought not les interefting for being interfperfed with fome frieures on the nature and kinds of modern oratory. This opinion of Cicero is intimated in all his rhetorical pieces, and expreffed very fully in that, tthe frage ment which feems to have been part of a preface to bis man fiée tion of Demofthenes and Æfchines for and argint Culy but the authenticity of which is doubted by Manutius, I tel gins with an affertion, that there are no o gdy kry ons oratory as there are of postry; that although a tragin, and a lyric poet may be all equally perfect in the
that no man can justly be called a fpsker in the highest degree the powers of infrud moving every audience on every fubject?'
REV. June, 1779.
⚫ that a character fo various, and a genius fo comprehenfive, mufe neceffarily be the object, if ever it should exift, of general admiration; but why it is not fufficient to call fuch a man the greateft, without infifting that he is the only, orator, or why an advocate, who never applied his talents to the fenatorial species of eloquence, may not attain perfection in the forenfic, and fo converfely, I am at a lofs to comprehend. Menander, you fay, would not have defired to be like Homer; certainly not in his comedies; but every speaker wishes to resemble Demosthenes; as certainly not, when he is addreffing the jury on the obstruction of ancient lights or the diversion of a watercourfe. The kinds of speaking are different; and, though one of them be more exalted than another, yet orators, as well as poets, may in those different kinds feverally reach the fummit; and this analogy may be extended to all the fine arts: Myro was not a lefs perfect sculptor in marble, because he was unable probably to finish gems with the delicacy of Trypho; nor, to speak of modern artists, will Rafaelle ever be degraded from his high rank among painters, because he might not have been able to draw Cupids and Nymphs with the minute elegance of Albani; in the fame manner as Demofthenes will always be allowed to have hurled the thunder of Grecian eloquence, although he could not perhaps (whatever Tully may fuggeft to the contrary) have fpoken with the fimple graces of Lyfias. Philofophers may refine, and logicians may diftinguish, as learnedly and fubtilely as they pleafe; it will, after all, be true, that the eloquence of a fenator is of a species wholly different from the eloquence of an advocate; that the two kinds ought never to be confounded; and that a complete fpeaker before a jury or a fingle judge may ftrain his throat without effect in a popular affembly. If Cicero, indeed, meaned no more than that the title of orator should be given only to one, who, like himself, excels all men in every way, the argument is reduced to a mere difpute about words, which every writer may apply as he thinks proper, provided he apprize his reader of the new fenfe in which he means to use them; but, furely, he might have afferted, with equal propriety, that he alone, who furpaffes the rest of mankind in every fort of poetry, deferves the appellation of a poet; for nothing can be more exact than the analogy between the two arts, and their near alliance is often acknowledged by the great man himself, with whofe opinions I am taking so much liberty: had he faid that by the word orator he meaned a speaker, who had cultivated every branch of his art, the Romans might have thought this an innovation in their language, but they would, perhaps, have adopted the definition on his authority. We are not however contending about the proper application of terms, or the abstract idea of univerfal genius: the fingle question is, Whether there are not diftinct species of oratory as there are of poetry, and whether a man may not be perfect in any one or more of them, without have ing directed his talents to the cultivation of the reft; for the decifion of which point, I appeal to fuch of my readers as have heard ten speeches at our English bar, and as many in either house of parlia ment. They will forgive me for having applied, and for ftill applying, the word orator to ISUS, although his eloquence was wholly forenfic; and I confer this title on him with more confidence, because
there is reafon to believe, that he fometimes delivered his own Speeches, without confining himself entirely to the difficult, but lefs noble, task of compofing for others; for I must confefs, that I can form no idea of an orator without elocution and action, nor can the praife of eloquence be juftly, or even without a folecifm, bestowed on mere invention and compofition, which conftitute indeed the body of oratory, but speech and gefture alone can give it a foul. Whether the remaining works of my author will justify the criticism of Dionyfius and Hermogenes, or whether my interpretation of them may not have weakened their original force, must be left to the impartial judgment of the reader; but this advantage will naturally refult from my prefent publication: if the following fpeeches fhould be thought manly, nervous, acute, pertinent, and better in most respects than the generality of addreffes to an English jury on fimilar fubjects, we shall have a kind of model, by which the ftudent may form himfelf, allowing for the difference of Athenian laws and manners; and, if they fhould appear inferior in all thofe qualities to the fpeeches ufually delivered by our leading advocates, we fhall have reafon to congratulate our age and country, and to triumph in the fuperiority of our talents; for our leaders often make the ableft and moft fpirited replies without à poffibility of premeditation; and wonderful, indeed, must be the parts and eloquence of thofe, whofe unprepared effufions equal or furpass the studied compofitions of the an
ART. IX. Poetical Trifles. By
I s. 6d. Bath printed; fold by Dodfley, &c. in London. 1778.
To trifle agreeably is not fo eafy as may commonly be imagined. It requires a degree of parts and accomplishments that falls not to the fhare of every one. The vivacity and elegance which are difplayed in the little volume before us, prove its Author to have an indifputable claim to both. In the eafe and pleasantry of his verfification he bears no fmall resemblance to Prior, whom, in more inftances than one, he seems to have taken for his model, and it is but juftice to fay, they are fuch as would no way difgrace that exquifite original. Among other fprightly fallies of his Mufe, take the following ballad :
O George, I've been, I'll tell you where,
But first prepare yourself for raptures;
To paint this charming, heavenly fair,
And paint her well, would ask whole chapters.
Fine creatures I've view'd many a one,
With lovely shapes, and angel faces,
Lords, Commoners, alike the rules,
Her foot-it was fo wonderous small,
And feem'd to fink it with the weight.
Where many an eye did often glance, Sweetly retiring from the view,
And seen by stealth, and feen by chance;
Two flender ankles peeping out,
Stood like Love's heralds, to declare
That all within the petticoat
Was firm, and full, "and round, and fair."
And then the dances-better far
Than heart can think, or tongue can tell,
Not Heinel, Banti, or Guimar,
E'er mov'd fo graceful *, and fo well.
She feems, as through the dance fhe fkims,
And there is lightning in her eye,
One glance alone might well inspire
The clay cold breast of Apathy,
Or bid the frozen heart catch fire.
And Zephyr on her lovely lips
Has fpread his choiceft, fweetest roses,
And there in breathing fweets repofes.
Had I the treasures of the world,
All the fun views, or the feas borrow,
(Elfe may I to the devil be hurl'd)
I'd lay them at her feet to-morrow.
But as we Bards reap only Bays,
Nor much of that, though nought grows on it, I'll beat my brains to found her praise,
And hammer them into a Sonnet.
And if fhe deign one charming fmile,
But pity the dull 'Squires, my neighbours.
This piece is followed by one of inferior merit. Gray's celebrated Elegy has given birth to more parodies than perhaps any other poem in the English language. Of these, the Elegy written in a College Library, which makes a part of the prefent collection, is not the most happy. The following little piece of eight lines is worth the whole of it:
If in that breast, fo good, so pure,
Pity the forrows I endure,
The caufe-I must not-dare not tell.
The grief that on my quiet preys
That rends my heart-that checks my tongue
I fear will last me all my days,
But feel it will not last me long.
All the pieces of this collection are not of the fame caft with thofe already taken notice of: there are others in various ftyles, and of different merit. The fober elegiac Mufe has been cultivated, and not unsuccessfully, particularly in
Children of affluence, hear a poor man's pray'r!
Sink my grey hairs with forrow to the tomb!
With clamorous din wake Charity's dull ear,
Such is the lot of human blifs below;
Fond hope a-while the trembling flow'ret rears;
In evil hour, to fpecious wiles a prey,
Was all the space 'twixt wealth and poverty.