312 On the Nature and Utility of Eloquence. 



neded with the daily pra6lice of public fpeak- 

 ing. But this mifconception is far from being 

 peculiar to thofe who have not attended to the 

 fubjeft; for perhaps it is hardly poffible to pro- 

 duce any definitions of rhetoric from the anci- 

 ent, and there are but few to be found in the 

 modern writings that treat of it, which do not 

 either lay it open to juft objedions, or degrade 

 its importance, by confining its powers and its 

 application. 



It cannot but have been matter of fome fur- 

 prize to fuch as are converfant with the works 

 of the moft celebrated Rhetoricians, that they 

 fliould difi^er fo generally and fo widely refped- 

 ing the nature of the art which they profefs to 

 teach. In the fifteenth chapter of his fecond 

 book, Quintilian ftates and refutes a great va- 

 riety of differing definitions, which, even in his 

 time, had been given of rhetoric, and he cen- 

 fures among others, thofe that relied on the 

 formidable authority of names nc lefs eminent 

 than Ifocrates, Plato, Ariftotle, and Cicero. 

 He then proceeds to exprefs and fupport 

 his own opinion ; but with lefs fkill, and lefs 

 fuccefs than he had attacked the fentiments 

 of his predeceffors. The fame irreconcileable 

 variety of opinion prevails among later writers, 

 on this fubjed, which, to fay the truth, has 

 been confidered by fo many able authors, and 

 by fome of fuch exalted reputation, that I 



phufe 



