gularum partium fine; non aliter quàm facientibus iter, multum detrahunt fatigationis notata spatia inscriptis lapidibus: nam et exhausti laboris nosse mensuram voluptati est ; et hortatur ad reliqua fortius exequenda, scire quantum supersit."* With regard to breaking the unity of a discourse, I cannot be of opinion that there arises, from that quarter, any argument against the method I am defending. If the unity be broken, it is to the nature of the heads, or topics of which the speaker treats, that this is to be imputed; not to his laying them down in form. On the contrary, if his heads be well chosen, his marking them out, and distinguishing them, in place of impairing the unity of the whole, renders it more conspicuous and complete; by showing how all the parts of a discourse hang upon one another, and tend to one point.

In a sermon, or in a pleading, or any discourse, where division is proper to be used, the most material rules are,

First, That the several parts into which the subject is divided be really distinct from one another; that is, that no one include another. It were a very absurd division, for instance, if one should propose to treat, first, of the advantages of virtue, and next, of those of justice or temperance; because, the first head evidently comprehends the second, as a genus does the species; which method of proceeding involves the subject in indistinctness and disorder. Secondly, In division, we must take care to follow the order of nature; beginning with the simplest points, such as are easiest apprehended, and necessary to be first discussed; and proceeding thence to those which are built upon the former, and which suppose them to be known. We must divide the subject into those parts, into which most easily and naturally it is resolved; that it may seem to split itself, and not to be violently torn asunder: 'Dividere,' as is commonly said, 'non frangere.'

Thirdly, The several members of a division ought to exhaust the subject; otherwise we do not make a complete division; we exhibit the subject by pieces and corners only, without giving any such plan as displays the whole.

Fourthly, The terms in which our partitions are expressed, should be as concise as possible. Avoid all circumlocution here. Admit not a single word but what is necessary. Precision is to be studied, above all things, in laying down a method. It is this which chiefly makes a division appear neat and elegant; when the several heads are propounded in the clearest, most expressive, and, at the same time, the fewest words possible. This never fails to strike the hearers agreeably; and is, at the same time, of great consequence towards making the divisions be more easily remembered. Fifthly, Avoid an unnecessary multiplication of heads. To split a subject into a great many minute parts, by divisions and subdivi

* The conclusion of each head is a relief to the hearers; just as, upon a journey, the mile-stones which are set up on the road, serve to diminish the traveller's fatigue For we are always pleased with seeing our labour begin to lessen; and, by calculating how much remains, are stirred up to Gnish our task more cheerfully.'

sions without end, has always a bad effect in speaking. It may be proper in a logical treatise; but it makes an oration appear hard and dry, and unnecessarily fatigues the memory. In a sermon, there may be from three to five or six heads, including subdivisions; seldom should there be more.

In a sermon, or in pleading at the bar, few things are of greater consequence, than a proper or happy division. It should be studied with much accuracy and care; for if one take a wrong method at first setting out, it will lead him astray in all that follows. It will render the whole discourse either perplexed or languid; and though the hearers may not be able to tell where the fault or disorder lies, they will be sensible there is a disorder somewhere, and find themselves little affected by what is spoken. The French writers of sermons study neatness and elegance in laying down their heads, much more than the English do; whose distributions, though sensible and just, yet are often inartificial and verbose. Among the French, however, too much quaintness appears in their divisions, with an affectation of always setting out either with two, or with three, general heads of discourse. A division of Massillon's on this text, 'It is finished,' has been much extolled by the French critics:"This imports,' says the preacher, 'the consummation, first, of justice on the part of God; secondly, of wickedness on the part of men; thirdly, of love on the part of Christ.' This also of Bourdaloue's has been much praised, from these words: 'My peace I give unto you.' 'Peace,' says he, 'first to the understanding, by submission to faith; secondly, to the heart, by submission to the law.'

The next constituent part of a discourse, which I mentioned, was narration or explication. I put these two together, both because they fall nearly under the same rules, and because they commonly answer the same purpose; serving to illustrate the cause or the subject of which the orator treats, before he proceeds to argue either on one side or other; or to make any attempt for interesting the passions of the hearers.

In pleadings at the bar, narration is often a very important part of the discourse, and requires to be particularly attended to. Besides its being in any case no easy matter to relate with grace and propriety; there is in narrations at the bar, a peculiar difficulty. The pleader must say nothing but what is true; and, at the same time, he must avoid saying any thing that will hurt his cause. The facts which he relates are to be the ground-work of all his future reasoning. To recount them so as to keep strictly within the bounds of truth, and yet to present them under the colours most favourable to his cause; to place, in the most striking light, every circumstance which is to his advantage, and to soften and weaken such as make against him, demand no small exertion of skill and dexterity. He must always remember, that if he discovers too much art, he defeats his own purpose, and creates a distrust of his sincerity. Quintilian very properly directs, 'Effugienda in hac præcipuè parte, omnis calliditatis suspicio; neque enim se usquam magis custodit judex,

quàm cùm narrat orator: nihil tum videatur fictum; nihil sollicitum; omnia potius à causa, quam ab oratore, profecta videantur."*

To be clear and distinct, to be probable, and to be concise, are the qualities which critics chiefly require in narration; each of which carries sufficiently the evidence of its importance. Distinctness belongs to the whole train of the discourse, but is especially requisite in narration, which ought to throw light on all that follows. A fact, or a single circumstance left in obscurity, and misapprehended by the judge, may destroy the effect of all the argument and reasoning which the speaker employs. If his narration be improbable, the judge will not regard it; and if it be tedious and diffuse, he will be tired of it, and forget it. In order to produce distinctness, besides the study of the general rules of perspicuity which were formerly given, narration requires a particular attention to ascertain clearly the names, the dates, the places, and every other material circumstance of the facts recounted. In order to be probable in narration, it is material to enter into the characters of the persons of whom we speak, and to show, that their actions proceeded from such motives as are natural, and likely to gain belief. In order to be as concise as the subject will admit, it is necessary to throw out all superfluous circumstances; the rejection of which will likewise tend to make our narration more forcible, and more clear.

Cicero is very remarkable for his talent of narration; and from the examples in his orations much may be learned. The narration, for instance, in the celebrated oration pro Milone, has been often and justly admired. His scope is to show, that though in fact Clodius was killed by Milo or his servants, yet that it was only in selfdefence; and that the design had been laid, not by Milo against Clodius, but by Clodius against Milo's life. All the circumstances for rendering this probable are painted with wonderful art. In relating the manner of Milo's setting out from Rome, he gives the most natural description of a family excursion to the country, under which it was impossible that any bloody design could be concealed. 'He remained,' says he,' in the senate house that day, till all the business was over. He came home, changed his clothes deliberately, and waited for some time, till his wife had got all her things ready for going with him in his carriage to the country. He did not set out, till such time as Clodius might easily have been in Rome, if he had not been lying in wait for Milo by the way. By and by, Clodius met him on the road, on horse-back, like a man prepared for action; no carriage, not his wife, as was usual, nor any family equipage along with him: whilst Milo, who is supposed to be meditating slaughter and assassination, is travelling in a carriage with his wife, wrapped up in his cloak, embarrassed with baggage, and attended

In this part of discourse, the speaker must be very careful to shun every appearance of art and cunning. For there is no time at which the judge is more upon his guard, than when the pleader is relating facts. Let nothing then seem feigned: noth ing anxiously concealed. Let all that is said, appear to arise from the cause itself, ang not to be the work of the orator.'

by a great train of women-servants, and boys.' He goes on describing the rencounter that followed; Clodius's servants attacking those of Milo, and killing the driver of his carriage; Milo jumping out, throwing off his cloak, and making the best defence he could, while Clodius's servants endeavoured to surround him; and then concludes his narration with a very delicate and happy stroke. He does not say in plain words, that Milo's servants killed Clodius, but that 'in the midst of the tumult, Milo's servants, without the orders, without the knowledge, without the presence of their master, did what every master would have wished his servants, in like conjuncture, to have done."*

In sermons, where there is seldom any occasion for narration, explication of the subject to be discoursed on, comes in the place of narration at the bar, and is to be taken up much on the same tone; that is, it must be concise, clear, and distinct: and in a style correct and elegant, rather than highly adorned. To explain the doctrine of the text with propriety; to give a full and perspicuous account of the nature of that virtue or duty which forms the subject of the dis course, is properly the didactic part of preaching; on the right execution of which much depends for all that comes afterwards in the way of persuasion. The great art of succeeding in it, is to meditate profoundly on the subject, so as to be able to place it in a clear and strong point of view. Consider what light other passages of scripture throw upon it; consider whether it be a subject nearly related to some other from which it is proper to distinguish it; consider whether it can be illustrated to advantage by comparing it with, or opposing it to some other thing; by inquiring into causes, or tracing effects; by pointing out examples, or appealing to the feelings of the hearers; that thus, a definite, precise, circumstantial view may be afforded of the doctrine to be inculcated. Let the preacher be persuaded, that by such distinct and apt illustrations of the known truths of religion, he may both display great merit in the way of composition, and, what he ought to consider as far more valuable, render his discourses weighty, instructive, and useful.

* Milo, cùm in senatu fuisset eo die, quoad senatus dimissus est, domum venit. Calceos et vestimenta mutavit; paulisper, dum se uxor (ut fit) comparat, commoratus est; deinde profectus est, id temporis cùm jam Clodius, si quidem eo die Romam venturus erat, redire potuisset. Obviam fit ei Clodius expeditus, in equo, nulla rheda, nullis impedimentis, nullis Græcis comitibus, ut solebat; sine uxore, quod nunquam fere. Cum hic insidiator, qui iter illud ad cædem faciendam apparâsset, cum uxore veheretur in rheda, penulatus, vulgi magno impedimento, ac muliebri et delicato ancillarum puerorumque comitatu. Fit obviam Clodio ante fundum ejus, hora fere undecima, aut non multo secus. Statim complures cum telis in hunc faciunt de loco superiore impetum : adversi rhedarium occidunt; cum autem hic de rheda, rejecta penula desiluisset, seque acri animo defenderet, illi qui erant cum Clodio, gladiis eductis, partim recurrere ad rhedam, ut a tergo Milonem adorirentur; partim, quod hunc jam interfectum putarent, cædere incipiunt ejus servos qui post erant; ex quibus qui animo fideli in dominum et præsenti fuerunt, partim occisi sunt ; partim cum ad rhedam pugnare viderent, et domino succurrere prohiberentur, Milonemque occisum etiam ex ipso Clodio audi rent, et ita esse putarent, fecerunt id servi Milonis, (dicam enim non derivandi criminis causâ, sed ut factum est) neque imperante, neque sciente, neque præsente domino, quod suos quisque servos in tali re facere voluisset.'

QUESTIONS.

In the four preceding lectures, what | trary course? What remark is made has been considered; and of what is our by Cicero? In the second place, in an author now to treat? For what was the introduction, what should be carefully previous view given, necessary; and in studied? What is then the situation of proceeding, what shall be pointed out? the hearers? Why, at the same time, On whatever subject any one intends must too much art be avoided? What to discourse, what order will he pursue? is the proper character of an introducThis being the natural train of speak- tion? In the third place, why is moing, what six parts compose a regular desty requisite in an introduction? How formal oration? What is here not should his modesty discover itself; and meant; and why not? There may be why? What should the modesty of an many excellent discourses before the introduction never betray; and what is public, without what? Why then is it of great use to an orator? What does necessary that each of them should be the modesty of an introduction require ? treated of distinctly? With what does What says Horace? What is the geneour author begin; and of this, what is ral rule? What exception is there to observed? How is this remark illustra- this rule? What might too modest a ted? Of this, what is remarked? To beginning, then, be like? By the boldconciliate the good will of the hearers, ness and strength of his exordium, and to render them benevolent, whence what must he endeavour to do? Where, may topics in causes at the bar be also, has a magnificent introduction, drawn? What is the second end of an sometimes a good effect? What examintroduction; and how may this be ef-ple is given from a sermon of Bishop fected? What is the third end, and for Atterbury's? How do the celebrated this purpose, with what must we begin? French writers often begin their disWhen may formal introductions be courses? Of these, what is the effect; omitted; and what remark follows? but against what, must every speaker Of Demosthenes' and Cicero's introduc- be much on his guard? In the fourth tions, what is observed? What two place, in what manner should an inKinds of introductions did the ancient troduction usually be carried on? Why critics distinguish; and what is said of is this direction given? What are the them? Of this latter sort of introduc-exceptions to this rule? What will tion, in what oration have we an admi- either of these justify? What instances rable instance? Who was Rullus, and are given? Why should such introducwhat did he propose? Of such laws, tions be hazarded by very few? Of the what is observed? What is here said of introduction, what is further noticed? Cicero; and in what manner does he In the beginning, what should the oraintroduce this difficult subject? What tor do? How is this remark illustrated? evidence does he give that he is not an How is much of the orator's art shown? enemy to Agrarian laws? In all this, What, in the fifth place, is a rule in there is what; and what was the con- introductions? How is this rule fully ilsequence? Having given this general lustrated? In the last place, to what view of the nature and end of an in-ought the introduction be proportioned; troduction, to what does our author and of this direction, what illustration proceed? Why are these the more ne- is given? What does common sense dicessary? What is always of import-rect? To what are these rules adapted? ance; and what remark is added? In pleadings at the bar, or speeches in What is the first rule given? What public assemblies, about what must must always suggest it; and what says Cicero? In introductions, what is too common a fault? What introductions are of this kind? What is said of them; and what follows? What is related of Cicero's introductions; and of his manner of preparing them? Of this strange method, what was once a consequence? Of introductions to sermons, what is In order to render an introduction inte- observed? Of the French preachers, resting, what is a good rule? What what was before remarked? When are will be the consequence of taking a con-introductions always tedious? What

particular care be taken? To this inconvenience, what introductions are exposed; what never fails to give an adversary considerable triumph? In the case of replies, what observation does Quintilian make? What reason does he assign for this?