rhetoricians, but reprobated by the moderns. Indeed these commonplace ideas were much better calculated to answer the particular purpose of their inventors, the Greciau sophists, to speak plausibly on any subject, than the general purpose of a wise orator, to impress on his hearers important truths, and to prompt them to beneficial conduct. With many excellent arguments, resulting from a close consideration of the subject, Cicero often mixes those that are suggested by the rhetorical precepts in vogue. Burke's reasoning is derived never from common-place topics, but always from the most minute and extensive view of the subject, in all its relations, and scientific knowledge of the general principles applicable to the questions in discussion, with the modifications arising from the particular circumstances of the case. Mixed with very great intellectual force, there is, in Cicero's argumentative materials, much of that rhetorical art, the knowledge and application of which requires no extraordinary power of understanding: Burke's argumentative materials derive little aid from rhetorical art. Both shew an understanding capable of investigating hidden truths:-Burke had actually investigated more than Cicero.

Another species of materials that tends to illustrate truth, and embellish eloquence, is imagery. In imagery, Burke is much more copious and variegated than Cicero. Superior copiousness, however, of imagery does not necessarily imply superior fertility of imagination: the power for combination being equal, he will most easily combine who has the most copious materials. If there be two men of equal powers of imagination, and the one knows history and ethics, the other history and ethics equally well, and physics besides, the latter may have with ease more abundant imagery than the former. The sources of imagery are more numerous to the moderns, because knowledge is greater. But when we particularly examine the imagery of Cicero and of Burke, we find Burke's to be much more abundant, not only from the stores of modern discovery and practice, but from those of external and moral nature, known in the time of Cicero, and at all times. Hence we may fairly infer that the imagination of Burke was naturally more fertile than that of Cicero. In the imagery, as well as the arguments of Cicero, an attentive reader will find more of rhetorical art than in Burke's. Cicero deals more in antithesis, climax, interrogation, the productions of study: Burke, in metaphor, personification, apostrophe,-the effusions of genius. Burke not only abounds in serious imagery, but in those combinations which constitute wit: in wit, Cicero seldom succeeds,

but freqnently descends to puns. Wit, indeed, in general bears a greater proportion to the intellectual exertions of our countrymen than to those of the Romans. In humour, both the orators are very happy, though both are sometimes very coarse. In the pathetic, Cicero's orations abound more frequently than Burke's. Cicero's perrorations are highly wrought up, especially in his harangues to the people. Indeed it is to such audiences that pathos is properly used: to informed British gentlemen it would be absurd to speak to their feelings, but through their understandings. When Burke is pathetic, his pathos equals that of Cicero, or any orator.

Both Cicero and Burke abound in the purest morality, though the former frequently, and the latter sometimes, defended men by no means moral in their conduct. Cicero's speeches were filled with egotism, a defect from which Burke's are exempt: Burke's with ebullitions of rage, which are seldom found in Cicero's.

In the disposition of their materials, both shew great judgment and skill, though Cicero displays more art, and a more regular attention to rbetorical rules for the conduct of a discourse. In their exordiums, both have a great degree of insinuation; both tend to prepossess their hearers: but Cicero's introductions are generally more laboured than Burke's. The narrative part of Cicero's orations is no doubt very excellent, clear, concise, yet full; omitting nothing important, and seldom introducing any thing extraneous: they are the well told statements of an able lawyer. Burke's narratives are also extremely clear on the whole, and distinct in their several parts. His subjects generally require a greater compass of narration than Cicero's: they comprehend larger portions of time, more variety of events, and greater intricacy of relations. He excels in detailing particulars, in marking the principal epochs, in classing his subjects according to their respective relations, and in shewing causes and effects. His narratives are the abridged histories of a philosophical historian.

In the management of arguments, Burke may perhaps be esteemed less regular than Cicero: his narrative and argumentative parts are often blended. Cicero is more methodical, and arranges his arguments in a more connected series, so that the one may support the other. From Cicero's arrangement, a reader may sooner comprehend the whole of his reasoning, than from Burke's the whole of his reasoning and in that particular Cicero is, no doubt, superior to Burke. It may be said, that the hearers of Cicero not being so well informed and enlightened men as those of Burke, the most exact

and luminous order was absolutely necessary to convey the arguments with effect to their minds: whereas, Burke's hearers, if the arguments were intrinsically good, could perceive their force, though not arranged with the greatest art, and in the closest connection. It may also be alledged, that Cicero himself is less scrupulously attentive to lucid order, in his speeches against Catiline, and other orations to the senate, than in that for Manilius's bill, and other harangues to the people. But as even the ablest and most learned men, though they can comprehend arguments, independently of their disposition, yet can more quickly comprehend them if connected than detached, Cicero's arrangement is better than Burke's. In some of his principal speeches, Burke's disposition is as regular as that of Cicero.

Language also appears to have occupied a greater proportion of Cicero's attention than of Burke's; his words and phrases are nicely chosen, his sentences are dexterously turned, his style is harmonious, elegant, and splendid: Burke's language is chiefly eminent for clearness, propriety, copiousness, and force: he does not particularly study musical cadence in the structure of his periods: his style is highly adorned, but his ornaments are the ornaments of genius, not of rhetoric; not of the body, but of the soul of his discourse. On the whole, the mechanism of composition was evidently more studied by Cicero than by Burke. Cicero aims so much at beauty and magnificence, as sometimes to impair his strength: for smoothness and harmony he is not unfrequently indebted to enervation. Very great attention to rhetoric is seldom united with masculine strength and profound philosophy. In the flowing numbers of Isocrates we rarely meet the force of Demosthenes. Perhaps in none of his writing does Cicero shew more the uncommon vigour of his understanding; his complete knowledge of human nature; his intimate acquaintance with the laws and constitution of his country, with its politics during that momentous æra; his comprehension of the general characters and particular views of the celebrated actors during the last scene of the republic, than in his letters: compositions containing the most valuable information, most acute and energetic reasoning, without any of his oratorical pomp of language. They are the plain strong sense of a most able man, writing upon important business. Cicero was certainly a man not only of the greatest penetration and vigour, but also of very profound philosophy and expanded wisdom. His treaties on the most important subjects of philosophy, on the religious, civil, social, and political relations and duties of man, have little ornament of style: the language is

merely perspicuous, precise, and strong. The expression of Cicero's letters and philosophical disquisitions is more the expression of wisdom than that of his orations.

In their speeches, Burke's obvious end is to impress on you his views of the subject: Cicero's not only to impress on you his views of the subject, but strike you with an admiration of the orator. Burke tries to inform, convince, please, and persuade the hearer: Cicero, to inform, convince, please, affect, and persuade him; and at the same time to shew how well the speaker can speak.In many of his speeches, the display of his powers seems to have been his principal object: in his defence of Milo it must have been his sole purpose, because, in fact, it was never spoken. ·

From the diversity of circumstances, much similarity in materials neither did, nor indeed could, exist between these or any British and Roman orators. In the conduct of their speeches there might have been likeness; but in fact we do not find very much. In his performances of unadorned information and instruction, Cicero resembles the narratives and ratiocination of Burke, more than in his ornamented eloquence: even in these the likeness is not special. Where conviction is the sole object, they agree in using plain language, as the best adapted for that purpose. Being both men of extraordinary wisdom, they, upon practical subjects, argue as ALL MEN OF TRUE WISDOM ARGUE,—from experience, and not from metaphysical distinction. They were both first-rate speakers, according to the circumstances of their respective situations and countries: but their compositions were no more particularly like than those of Hume and Fergusson to those of Tacitus; of Robertson or of Gibbon to Livy's: because the four Britons resembled the two Romans in the general circumstance of being the first historians of their nation. Men of such genius as Cicero and Burke rarely descend to imitation. Johnson being asked if Edmund Burke resembled Tullius Cicero No, Sir, he resembles Edmund Burke.'

[26]

MISCELLANY.

THE ADVENTURES OF TIMOTHY NEWLIGHT,

A

VOTARY OF GODWIN'S PHILOSOPHY.

ADDRESSED IN A LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

SIR,

I AM afraid, from your Prospectus and your name, that you are not one of us. You do not speak with reverence of Jones and Thelwall; you attack Holcroft and Godwin ; and are far from venerating the name even of Paine himself. But as ruth must ultimately prevail over prejudice, however deeply rooted, I am not without a hope of converting even an admirer of Burke's principles and conduct.

As you must have already conjectured that I am one of the Newlight-men, I shall, for the information, and, I hope, conviction of yourself and readers, give you a history of the rise, progress, and effects of my illumination.

My father was a gentleman of fortune, and dying when I was very young, left me under the sole management of my mother. She being a Dissenter, was a great admirer of Doctors Price and Priestley. Often did she tell me that no constitution was good but a republic; and that Dr. Priestley had a train ready for blowing up the church, so that every thing was likely to go to her mind. A crossgrained Uncle used to say to her she would make a rank Cromwellian of me." Cromwellian," says she, "God forbid! I am not for the government of one, but the equality of all."

When I was old enough to be sent to school, my mother was at pains to find a master of the right sort. One advantage of the New Light, as you must have observed in the writings of many of its professors, is, that you may get at it without any learning or ability. These were, therefore, not necessary in the choice of a preceptor; and to find a schoolmaster, without powers or knowledge, is a very easy matter, especially in Dissenting Academies. I was accordingly committed to the care of Mr. Thickhead, preacher and teacher, about six miles from London, near the northern road, who recommended himself to my mother by some excellent jokes about the divinity of Christ. My Uncle, who was a stickler for old-fashioned religion, would have it, that the jokes were all old, and had been repeated a