The same cautions and suggestions are needful here as were presented in the corresponding chapter on Excitation. Part III. chap. v.

$ 240. Only the Persuasive Peroration with the Recapitulation is admissible in this kind of discourse.

Persuasive Discourse should ever leave the mind addressed ready for the action proposed and urged in it. Where the body of the discourse has consisted of the exhibition of the motives, and, for any reason, the particular action has been suppressed, it will of course be necessary to state the action at the close. This, for a single example, was done by Demosthenes in his oration generally denominated the Third Philippic. In the main discussion, he unfolds the considerations which should influence the Athenians-the existing state of affairs; and at the close briefly suggests what he thinks ought to be done.

If the action has constituted the body of the discussion, the peroration will generally consist of a strong and vivid exhibition of the motives.

If the action has been stated, but the motives that urge it have filled up the body of the discourse, the peroration Lay be by direct appeal or address, or more close application‹ of the motives.

Recapitulation is admissible in either case.

SECOND GENERAL DIVISION.

STYLE.

GENERAL VIEW.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE NATURE OF STYLE.

§ 241. Style is that part of Rhetoric which treats of the expression of thought in language.

No process of art is complete until its product appear in a sensible form, § 8; and language is the form in which the art of discourse embodies itself, as sound furnishes the body of music and color that of the art of painting. Style is, therefore, a necessary part of the art of rhetoric. “Inventio sine elocutione non est oratio." It is not, however, all of the art, just as the laws of sound do not cover the entire province of music, or the principles of coloring exhaust the art of the painter.

While it presupposes Invention as a distinct branch of

the art, it is yet involved even in that; as the exercises of invention cannot proceed without the use of language. The two branches of the art of Rhetoric, accordingly, while they may easily be conceived of as distinct, and in practice predominant attention may be given to either at will, are nevertheless bound together by an essential bond of life.

sense.

This second division of Rhetoric has been variously denominated; and the terms employed to designate it have been used, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted The term "elocution" was formerly more commonly used by English writers. It was suggested by the use of the Roman rhetoricians, and was sanctioned and supported by its etymology. It has, however, in later times become more commonly appropriated to denote orul delivery. The term "style," although not strictly a technical word, was used by Latin writers as synonymous with "elocution," and has been, both among English and continental writers, more generally of late applied to this use. It has been employed, however, with more or less latitude of meaning. But the prevailing use of the best writers authorises the appropriation of the term to denote the entire art of verbal expression.

Cicero and others of the ancient rhetoricians made here, also, two divisions; the one of elocution or style proper, or the choice of words in the expression of thought; the other of the arrangement of words, or composition. As in invention, however, so perhaps still more obviously in style, there appears to be no good reason for making this division. See § 43.

§ 242. The analysis of style, for the purpose of systematic study, must respect the various classes of properties which by necessity or possibility belong to it.

We cannot consider style, as we have considered inven

tion, in reference to the different processes concerned in its production. For some of the properties of style, or modes of expression are common and necessary in all kinds of discourse and every expression of thought, while others are determined by the nature of the thought itself. If we except the application of some of the rules of mere grammar, the only proper method of pursuing the culture of style, must be by the study of the varieties of forms which thought may assume when expressed in language, in order that whatever may secure beauty and force to the expression may be intelligently communicated to it, and whatever may mar or weaken the expression may be avoided.

Practice, therefore, in this branch of the art, is to be conducted only in reference to the known properties of style generally, and not by exercises on the specific properties. It would be ridiculous to undertake a course of exercises with the single view of acquiring command of a class of figures; or of avoiding a barbarism or a solecism.

At the same time, it may be a very useful exercise to detect the faults in ill-constructed sentences or compositions designedly prepared or selected for this purpose. Such exercises in grammar are common and beneficial. In regard to some properties of style, however, as especially those of naturalness, dignity, and the like, while the fault may easily be detected, the correction will be difficult. For in good style the thoughts of the individual appear in the discourse, tinctured by all his peculiarities and habits; and the critic who would correct or improve must throw himself into the speaker's train of thoughts and associations and feelings.

the art, it is yet involved even in that; as the exercises of invention cannot proceed without the use of language. The two branches of the art of Rhetoric, accordingly, while they may easily be conceived of as distinct, and in practice predominant attention may be given to either at will, are nevertheless bound together by an essential bond of life.

sense.

This second division of Rhetoric has been variously denominated; and the terms employed to designate it have been used, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted The term "elocution" was formerly more commonly used by English writers. It was suggested by the use of the Roman rhetoricians, and was sanctioned and supported by its etymology. It has, however, in later times become more commonly appropriated to denote oral delivery. The term "style," although not strictly a technical word, was used by Latin writers as synonymous with "elocution,” and has been, both among English and continental writers, more generally of late applied to this use. It has been employed, however, with more or less latitude of meaning. But the prevailing use of the best writers authorises the appropriation of the term to denote the entire art of verbal expression.

Cicero and others of the ancient rhetoricians made here, also, two divisions; the one of elocution or style proper, or the choice of words in the expression of thought; the other of the arrangement of words, or composition. As in invention, however, so perhaps still more obviously in style, there appears to be no good reason for making this division. See § 43.

§ 242. The analysis of style, for the purpose of systematic study, must respect the various classes of pro perties which by necessity or possibility belong to it.

We cannot consider style, as we have considered inven