DIALOGUE, 
Yet fome, as bey “De lial false are 
onverfatio 
Rome, with freedom, good breeding, and dignity. 
author of the elegant dialogue “ De caufis corrupte Elo- 
quentiz,””? which ts fometimes annexed to the works of Quin- 
tilian, and fometimes to thofe of Tacitus, has happily 
imitated, or perhaps excelled Cicero, in this manner of 
writing, 
cian has given us a model of the light and ar gee 
dialogue, which he has carried to great per fection. c 
racer of levi fame time wit and penetra 
rhe hich prevailed in his age; an ould not 
taken any more fuccefsful method for this parol tis a 
which he has eanloved in his dialogues, efpecially in thofe 
of the gods and of the dead, which abound with pleafantry 
and fatir n this invention of dialogues of the dead, he 
has been followed by feveral modern authors. 
mong the moderns, the principal a are M. 
Fenelon, archbifhop of Cambray ; chal, in his Pron 
vincial Lette - F. Bouhours, in his paces d’ Arifte, 
& d’Eugen ontenelle, in his Dialogues of the 
Dead, and Purity of Worlds; Addifon, Hurd, lord 
Lyttelton, 
eatenalle 8 s Auloeues are {prightly and agreeable; but 
his charaéters are all French, whoever are his perfonages: 
fo difficule is it te exhibit chara&ters properly diftinguifhed. 
Hence few authors are eminent for characteriftical dialogue 
on fae fubjects. One of the molt remarkable in the Englifh 
Ba hee is 
Henry More, in his Divine oe oe to 
the foundation of natural religion. ugh his ftyle 
be no ome meafure obfolete, and his ae be marked 
with. in Sacadonie ftiffnefs of the times in which he lived, 
yet the dialogue ig animated by a variety of character, and 
a ae age of converfation, eA what are commonly 
gs of this kin 
met with in writin 
Bifhop Berkeley? 8 dialogues, concerning the exiftence 
of a nae any difplay of characters ; 
but they anc abftraG fubjeQ, ren- 
dered ee ei Wetaligible by means of converfation properly 
managed. 
Dialogue writing may be executed, either as direCt con- 
verfation, bh ide none but the {peakers ay which is the 
od Plato; or as the recital of a converfation, 
where the te himfelf appears, and gives an account of 
what paffed in difcourfe, which is the method generally fol- 
) by Cicero. Inthefe two methods the f 
the . in both, and fubje@ to the fame laws, 
logue, in one or other of thefe forms, on fome philofop! hical, 
moral, or vr eritical le ia when it is well conftructed, ranks 
orks of tafte ; but it is more diff cult of 
which diftinguifhes him 
conduéted, affords the reader a very agreeable entertainment; 
as by means of the progrefs of the debate among feveral 
perfonages, ie receives a fair and full view of both fides of the 
— ent; and is, at the fame time, amufed with polite 
nefation and with a difplay of confiftent and well- 
fupported characters. An author, pofleffing genius for fuch 
“are introduced i in perfon; Cicero’s ye ° 
a kind of compofition, has it in his power both to inflru& 
aul to pleafe, But a compolition of this fort is very ey 
from that of many modern writers of dialogues; in which 
if we except the outward forms of converfation, and that one 
uch a 
it is the iii. with 
h 
the author {poke in perfon ewan 
mode of writing is frigid and infioid $ 
out the {pirit of converiation. 
e confifts of two parts, an introduGion and the 
body of the dileou rle. The ee ala acquaints us with 
t! i of the converfation. 
ae too long and te- 
dious cae though, 
ashe fays, tome of the finest treat ifes of the molt polite 
Latin and Greck writers a ! ogue, as many ver 
time taken up in ceremony, that before they enter on their - 
fubject, the dialogue is half over. (Dial. IL. of Med. ap. 
init.) As to the body of the difcourfe care fhould be 
ee to keep up a juftnefs of charaGter in the perfons that 
are introduced through the whole of the dialogue: and the 
charaéters fhou!d be fo eee Ae that it may iad = 
rom the words seen who is the {peaker. rine 
on dee fhould appear pba a perfon of great lente and 
and intimate aan “with the fubjeQ ; and 
he fhould be capable of fairly anfwering every queition that 
may be afked, and every objeétion that may be itarted. Ia 
the whole difcourfe, all wrangling. peevifhne{s, and obiti- 
thing appear but good hus 
~~ 
vine a of kin 
difon fvems to have taken his Philander and ve 10, 
urfe, as Cefar by Cicero, and Cynthi 
“With 1 regard to the fubjeé of a dialogue, all 
the arguments fhould at leaft appear probable, and nothing 
be advanced, which may feem weak or trivial, Short and 
pleafant digreffions dre allowed, but they fhould not inter 
rupt the thread of the difcourfe, and break the vaion of the 
arts and conftant reference to the main end, which are 
The time allowed or a di 
wo days fo 
thre 
logues concerning an o Addifon ers his 
to three days, allowing a ay for eh “The method of com- 
pofing dialogues has likewife been various: fometimes a 
caer relates a difcourfe by way of narrative, which paffed 
between other perfons; fuch are the dialogues of Cicero and 
of Mr. Addifon laft mentioned : at ‘other times the {peakers 
arts of 
See 
Diarocus, in Mufic, is a sip ara ne at leaft two 
‘voices, or two inftruments, which anfwe other; and 
which at teb.” uniting at the clofe,, aes a trio with the 
thorough-bafs. 
Su ie are many of the feznes in the Italian and French. 
operas, 
DIALTELZA, 
