D'alogue, who have been willing to bring persons to discourse together, who lived in different ages, without such inconsistency, have wrote dialogues of the dead. Lucian has made himself most remarkable in this way. As to the number of persons in a dialogue, they may be more or less; so many as can conveniently carry on a conversation without disorder or confusion may be admitted. Some of Cicero's dialogues have only two, others three or more, and those concerning an orator seven. And it is convenient they should all, in some respects, be persons of different characters and abilities; which contributes both to the variety and beauty of the discourse, like the different attitudes of figures in a picture. Thus, in Cicero's dialogues last-mentioned, Crassus excelled in art, Antony principally for the force of his genius, Catullus for the purity of his stile, Scevola for his skill in the law, Cæsar for wit and humour; and through Sulpitius and Cotta, who were young men, were both excellent orators, yet they differed in their manner. But there should be always one chief person, who is to have the main part of the conversation; like the hero in an epic poem or a tragedy, who excels the rest in action; or the principal figure in a picture, which is most conspicuous. In Plato's dialogues, this is Socrates; and Crassus in those of Cicero abovementioned. It is usual likewise, in the introductions, to acquaint us with the occasion of the discourse. Indeed this is not always mentioned; as in Cicero's dialogue of the parts of oratory, where the son begins immediately with desiring his father to instruct him in the art. But it is generally taken notice of, and most commonly represented as accidental. The reason of which may be, that such discourses appear most natural; and may likewise afford some kind of apology for the writer in managing his different characters, since the greatest men may be supposed not always to speak with the utmost exactness in an accidental conversation. Thus Cicero, in his dialogues concerning an orator, makes Crassus occasionally fall upon the subject of oratory, to divert the company from the melancholy thoughts of what they had been discoursing of before, with relation to the public disorders, and the dangers which threatened their country. But the introduction ought not to be too long and tedious. Mr Addison complains of this fault in some authors of this kind. "For though (as he says) some of the finest treatises of the most polite Latin and Greek writers are in dialogue, as many very valuable pieces of French, Italian, and English, appear in the same dress; yet in some of them there is so much time taken up in ceremony, that, before they enter on their subject, the dialogue is half over." 2. We come now to the body of the discourse, in which some things relating to the persons, and others to the subject, are proper to be remarked. And as to the persons, the principal thing to be attended to is to keep up a justness of character through the whole. And the distinct characters ought to be so perfectly observed, that from the very words themselves, it may be always known who is the speaker. This makes dialogue more difficult than single description, by reason of the number and variety of characters which are to be drawn at the same time, and each of them managed with the greatest propriety. The prin cipal speaker should appear to be a person of great Dialogue. sense and wisdom, and best acquainted with the subject. No question ought to be asked him, or objection started to what he says, but what he should fairly answer. And what is said by the rest should principally tend to promote his discourse, and carry it through in the most artful and agreeable manner. When the argument is attended with difficulties, one other person or more may be introduced, of equal reputation or near it, but of different sentiments, to oppose him, and maintain the contrary side of the question. This gives opportunity for a thorough examination of the point on both sides and answering all objections. But if the combatants are not pretty equally matched, and masters of the subject, they will treat it but superficially. And through the whole debate there ought not to be the least wrangling, peevishness, or obstinacy; nothing but the appearance of good humour and good breeding, the gentleman and the friend, with a readiness to submit to conviction and the force of truth, as the evidence shall appear on one side or the other. In Cicero, these two characters are Crassus and Antony. And from them Mr Addision seems to have taken his Philander and Cynthio in his Dialogues upon the usefulness of ancient medals, which are formed pretty much on Cicero's plan. When younger persons are present, or such who are not equally acquainted with the subject, they should be rather upon the inquiry than dispute: And the questions they ask should be neither too long nor too frequent, that they may not too much interrupt the debate, or appear over talkative before wiser and more experienced persons. Sulpitius and Cotta sustain this character in Cicero, and Eugenius in Mr Addison. And it is very convenient there should be one person of a witty and jocose humour, to enliven the discourse at proper seasons, and make it the more entertaining, especially when the dialogue is drawn out to any considerable length. Cæsar has this part in Cicero. And in Mr Addison, Cynthio is a person of this turn, and opposes Philander in a merry way. Mr Addison's subject admitted of this: but the seriousness and gravity of Cicero's argument required a different speaker for the jocose part. Many persons ought not to speak immediately after one another. Horace's rule for plays is: To crowd the stage is odious and absurd. Let no fourth actor strive to speak a word. Though Scaliger and others think a fourth person may sometimes be permitted to speak in the same scene without confusion. However, if this is not commonly to be allowed upon the stage, where the actors are present, and may be distinguished by their voice and habit; much less in a dialogue, where you have only their names to distinguish them. With regard to the subject, all the arguments should appear probable at least, and nothing be advanced which may seem weak or trivial. There ought also to be an union in dialogue, that the discourse may not ramble, but keep up to the main design. Indeed, short and pleasant digressions are sometimes allowable for the ease and entertainment of the reader. But every thing thould be so managed, that he may still be able to carry on the thread of the discourse in his mind, and keep the main argument in view, till the whole is finished. The writers of dialogue have not confined |