to ornaments, but it admits only those that are fimple, and throws off every thing that favours of affectation. It is not a bright, but a modest beauty, attended fometimes with a fort of carelefnefs, which fets off its worth. Natural thoughts, the purity of the language, and a fort of elegance, which is rather felt than perceived, make all its ornament. It avoids ftudied figures, which discover the art of the Orator, and feem to proclaim that his defign is to please.

There is another way of writing, quite different from the first, noble, copious, magnificent, which is called the Sublime. It admits whatever is moft lofty, ftrong and proper to affect the mind, noble thoughts, rich expreffions, bold figures, lively paffions. This is that fort of Eloquence, which formerly prevailed at Athens and Rome, and had an abfolute power over the public debates. It produces admiration and applaufe. It thunders, and like a fwift and impetuous river, it overthrows and carries away whatever it meets.

Laftly, there is a third ftyle, which keeps a medium between the two others. It neither has the fimplicity of the firft, nor the ftrength of the fecond. It is ftronger and more copious than the fimple ftyle, but not fo lofty as the other. It takes in all the ornaments of art, beautiful figures, bright metaphors, pleafant digreffions, and the harmony of number and cadence, Nevertheless it runs gently, like a fine clear River, overshadowed by green woods on both fides.

The fimple way of writing is not the most eafy, though it feems to be fo. The style that

is used in it, being very natural, and not much unlike the common way of fpeaking, one is apt to think that it requires no great skill or genius, and that it may eafily be imitated which is a mistake. Thofe who have a tafte for true E-loquence, acknowledge that there is nothing more difficult than to fpeak with juftness and folidity, and yet in fuch a fimple and natural manner, that every one fancies he may do the fame. The fimple ftyle ought to be used in fpeaking of fimple and common things, and it is particularly proper for narrations, and thofe parts of a difcourfe wherein the Orator thinks only of inftructing his hearers, or infinuating himself into their minds.

Too much care cannot be taken to make young people obferve the character of fimplicity, which prevails in the Antients. They must be used to study nature in every thing they must be frequently told that the best Eloquence is the most natural, the most free from affectation. The Eloquence meant here, confists in a certain ingenuity and elegance, which pleafes wonderfully for this very reason, that it does not affect to please.

Mr. Rollin gives two inftances of this fort of Eloquence. The first is the account of Canius's adventure, in the third Book of Tully's Offices and the other, a fhort ftory of a Slave, mentioned by Pliny, H. N. XVIII. 6.

The Sublime, the Wonderful, is what makes a great and true Eloquence. The admirable Treatife of Longinus upon this matter is fuffi cient alone to form the taste of young people. Mr. Rollin has extracted fome reflexions out of it, and gives some instances of fublime thoughts,

Between

Between the fimple ftyle, and the fublime, there is a third, which may be called the florid ftyle, because Eloquence difplays in it the greatest ornaments, which contribute to make the difcourfe more agreeable, and infinuating, and even more perfuafive. An Orator does not speak only to be understood his chief design is to convince and move, wherein he cannot fucceed without pleasing. Before he gets into the Mind, he must go through the Imagination, and confequently speak its language, which is that of Figures and Images, fince the Imagination is only affected by fenfible things. 'Tis not therefore fufficient that a difcourfe fhould be clear and intelligible, and abound with folid arguments. Eloquence adds to that clearness and folidity a certain gracefulness and brightnefs, which is called ornament: by which means the Mind and the Imagination are both fatiffied.

Some are against all forts of ornaments in the difcourfe, and think that Truth is difhonoured by them. If all men were Philofophers, or free from paffions and prejudices, this opinion might perhaps appear reafonable. But 'tis far from being fo; and if an Orator knew not how to prevail upon his hearers by pleafure, and, as it were, by a gentle violence, juftice and truth. would frequently fink under the attempts of wicked men.

Mr. Rollin makes very good obfervations against false ornaments, and then fome general reflexions upon the three forts of Eloquence. It were needlefs (fays he) to examine which of them is the most proper for an Orator, fince he ought to use them all, according to the different

mat

matters he handles. But (purfues our Author) that florid and bright Eloquence, full of wit, and fo much admired in our Age, though almoft unknown to the good writers of Antiquity, is of very little ufe, and confined within very narrow bounds. That fort of Eloquence is neither proper for the Pulpit, nor for the Bar, nor for religious, moral, or controverfial Books, learned Differtations, confutations, apologies, or many other works of Literature. Hiftory, which ought to be written naturally, will not admit of fuch an affected ftyle; and it would appear still more infupportable in Letters, whose principal character confifts in fimplicity.

However, all thofe works are capable of ornaments. Cicero is a great proof of it, and fufficient alone to teach us all forts of Eloquence. His Letters may give us a right notion of the epiftolary ftyle. Some are Letters of compliments, recommendation, thanks and praifes. Some are merry and witty; others grave and ferious, wherein he examines important queftions. In others, he treats of public affairs; and thefe are not the moft inconfiderable. Thofe (for inftance) wherein he gives an account, first to the Senate and the Roman People, and then in particular to Cato, of his conduct in the government of his Province, are a perfect model of the neatnefs, order and precifion, which ought to be obferved in Memoirs and Relations; and one ought efpecially to take notice. of his dexterous and infinuating way to obtain the benevolence of Cato in fuing for the honour of the triumph. His famous Letter to Lucceius, (Ep. 12. 1. 5. ad Famil.) wherein he defires him to write the Hiftory of his Confulate, will always be looked upon as a noble monu

ment

ment of his eloquence, as well as of his vanity. His Rhetorical and Philofophical Treatifes are mafter-pieces in their kind; and the latter fhow how the most difficult and intricate matters may be treated of with elegance and delicacy. As for his Orations, they contain every fort of Eloquence, all the different forts of ftyles, the fimple, the florid, the fublime.

What fhall we fay of the Greek Authors? Is it not the peculiar character of Homer to excel alike in great and fmall things, and to add to a wonderful fublimity a fimplicity which is no lefs admirable? Is there a ftyle more delicate, elegant, harmonious and lofty than that of Plato? Is it without reafon that among fo many Orators, who appeared at the fame time in the City of Athens, Demofthenes has had the first rank, and has been looked upon almost as the rule of Eloquence? Laftly, not to mention all the antient Hiftorians, can any man of fenfe be weary of reading Plutarch? Now among all those Authors fo generally efteemed, is there any one that was fond of turns, bright thoughts, far fetched figures, and beauties heaped up one upon another? Muft not fuch a ftyle, generally banished from ferious difcourfes, appear a poor and childish thing, if compared with that noble fimplicity, or that wife grandeur, which are the character of all good works, and proper for all matters, and at all times?

But in order to think fo, we need only confult Nature. It cannot be denied that thofe gardens, fo neat and fo well trimmed, inriched with the brightest contrivances of Art, thofe parterres of fuch a fine tafte, thofe water-fpouts, cafcades and groves, are very pleafant. But can all thofe things be compared to the magnificént

pro