arife out of the fubject, that every hearer is inclined to think, he could not have either thought or fpoken otherwise himself, when every thing, in fhort, is exhibited in fuch a manner, As all might hope to imitate with eafe ; Yet while they ftrive the fame fuccefs to gain, Should find their labour and their hopes arevail. ‡. FRANCIS. As to the harmony of numbers, it ought no further to be the fpeaker's care, than that he may avoid an offenfive diffonance or halting in his periods, which, by hurting the ear, abstracts the attention from the fubject, and muft by confequence ferve to obftruct the effect. Yet, even this, it may be fafely averred, will not tend half fo much to counteract the end, as an elaborate harmony, or a flowing elocution, which carries along with it the evident marks of address and ftudy *. OUR author proceeds all along on the fuppofition that there are two diftinct effects produced -Ut fibi quivis Speret idem; fudet multum, fruftraque laboret, HOR. De Arte Poet. ⚫ Commoveaturne quifquam ejus fortuna, quem tumidum ac fai jactantem, et ambitiofum inftitorem éloquentiæ in ancipiti forte videat? Non : imo oderit reum verba aucupantem, et anxium de fama ingenii, et cui effe diferto vacet. QUINT. 1. xi. cap. 1. by by the eloquence on the hearers; one the fentiment of beauty, or (as he explains it more parficularly) of the harmony of oratorial numbers, of the exercise of these noble talents, genius, art, and judgment; the other, the paffion which the fpeaker purposeth to raise in their minds. He maintains, that when the firft predominates, the mixture of the two effects becomes exceedingly pleafant, and the reverfe when the fecond is fuperior. At least, if this is not what he means to affert and vindicate, I defpair of being able to affign a meaning to the following expreffions: "The genius required to paint, the art em"ployed in collecting, the judgment difplay"ed in difpofing-diffufe the highest fatisfaction હું on the audience, and excite the moft delight"ful movements. By this means the uneafinefs "of the melancholy paffions is not only over"powered and effaced by fomething stronger of an oppofite kind, but the whole movement "of thofe paffions is converted into pleasure, and "fwells the delight which the eloquence raifes in us." Again," The impulfe or vehemence "arifing from forrow-receives a new direction * from the fentiments of beauty. The latter be"ing the predominant emotion, feize the whole "mind, and convert the former." Again, "The "The foul being at the fame time roused with "paffion, and charmed by eloquence, feels on "the whole." And in the paragraph immediately fucceeding, "It is thus the fiction of "tragedy foftens the paffion, by an infufion of "a new feeling, not merely by weakening or "diminishing the forrow."Now to me it is manifeft, that this notion of two diftinguishable, and even oppofite effects, as he terms them, produced in the hearer by the eloquence, is perfectly imaginary; that, on the contrary, whatever charm or fascination, if you please to call it so, there is in the pity excited by the orator, it arifeth not from any extrinfic fentiment of beauty blended with it, but intimately from its own nature, from thofe paffions which pity neceffarily affociates, or, I should rather fay, includes. BUT do we not often hear people speak of eloquence as moving them greatly, and pleafing them highly at the fame time? Nothing more common. But these are never understood by them, as two original, feparate, and independent effects, but as effentially connected. Push your inquiries but ever fo little, and you will find all agree in affirming, that it is by being moved, and by that folely, that they are pleased: in philofophical' ftrictness, ftrictness, therefore, the pleasure is the immediate effect of the paffion, and the paffion the immediate effect of the eloquence. BUT is there then no pleasure in contemplating the beauty of compofition, the richness of fancy, the power of numbers, and the energy of expreffion? There is undoubtedly. But fo far is this pleasure from commixing with the pathos, and giving a direction to it, that, on the contrary, they seem to be in a great measure incompatible. Such indeed is the pleasure which the artist or the critic enjoys,. who can coolly and deliberately furvey the whole; upon whose paffions the art of the speaker hath little or no influence, and that purely for this reafon, because he discovers that art. The bulk of hearers know no further than to approve the man who affects them, who fpeaks to their heart, as they very properly and emphatically term it, and to commend the performance by which this is accomplished. But how it is accomplished, they neither give themselves the trouble to confider, nor attempt to explain *. PART The inquiry contained in this chapter was written long before I had an opportunity of perufing a very ingenious English Commentary and Notes on Horace's Epiftles to the Pifos and to Auguftus, 1 PART IV. The fourth hypothefis. LASTLY, to mention only one other hypothefis; there are who maintain that compaffion is" an example of unmixed felfishness and malignity," and may be "refolved into that ' power of imagination, by which we apply the "misfortunes of others to ourfelves;" that we are faid to pity no longer than we fancy our"felves to fuffer, and to be pleafed only by re"flecting that our fufferings are not real; thus indulging a dream of diftrefs, from which we Auguftus, in which Mr. Hume's fentiments on this fubject are Occasionally criticifed. The opinions of that commentator, in regard to Mr. Hume's theory, coincide in every thing material with mine. This author confiders the question no farther than it relates to the reprefentations of tragedy, and hath, by confining his view to this fingle point, been led to lay greater ftrefs on Fontenelle's hypothefis, than, for the folution of the general phenomenon, it is entitled to. It is very true that our theatrical entertainments commonly exhibit a degree of diftrefs which we could not bear to witnefs in the objects reprefented. Confequently the confideration that it is but a picture, and not the original, a fictitious exhibition, and not the reality, which we contemplate, is effential for rendering the whole, I may fay, fupportable as well as pleasant. But even, in this cafe, when it is neceflary to our repofe, to confider the scenical misery before us as mere illufion, we are generally better pleased to confider the things reprefented as genuine fact. It requires, in deed, but a further degree of affliction to make us even pleased to think that the copy never had any archetype in nature. But when this is the cafe we may truly fay, that the poet hath exceeded and wrought up pity to a kind of horror, J |