Accordingly Cicero tells us, that, in his Dialogues of the complete Orator, he had endeavoured to shadow out, that is, give the outline, as it were, of the kind of eloquence, by which his chief speakers, Crassus and Antonius, were severally distinguished[10]. This attention has certainly no ill effect when the manners of speaking, as here, are sufficiently distinct, and generally known. It was, besides, essentially necessary in this Dialogue, where the subject is, of eloquence itself; and where the principal persons appeared, and were accordingly to be represented, in the light and character of speakers; that is, where their different kinds or manners of speaking were, of course, to be expressed.
In Dialogues on other subjects, Cicero himself either neglects this rule, or observes it with less care[11]; and this difference of conduct is plainly justified, from the reason of the thing.
But now when the question is, of the smaller features and more peculiar qualities of style or expression, it will be found that the writer of Dialogue is under no obligation, either from the reason of the thing, or the best authorities, to affect a resemblance of that kind.
Authorities, I think, there are none, or none at least that deserve to be much regarded; though I remember what has been observed of an instance or two of this sort, in some of Plato’s Dialogues, where his purpose is, to expose a character, not to debate a philosophic question: and for the impropriety of the thing itself, it may appear from the following considerations.
In general, the reason, why character is preserved in this Dialogue, is, because such speakers, as are introduced in it, cannot be supposed to converse for any time on a subject of importance without discovering somethings of their own peculiar manners; though the occasion may not be warming enough to throw them out with that distinctness and vivacity, which we expect in the progress of a dramatic plot. But as to the language of conversation, it is so much the same between persons of education and politeness, that, whether the subject be interesting, or otherwise, all that you can expect is that the general cast of expression will be somewhat tinctured by the manners, which shine through it; but by no means that the smaller differences, the nicer peculiarities of style, will be shewn.
Or, we may take the matter thus:
The reason, why the general cast or kind of expression is different in two speakers, is, because their characters are different, too. But character has no manner of influence, in the ease and freedom of conversation, on the idiomatic differences of expression; which flow not from the manners, but from some degree of study and affectation, and only characterize their written and artificial works.
Thus, for instance, if Sallust and Cicero had come together in conversation, the former would certainly have dropped his new words and pointed sentences: and the latter his numerous oratorial periods. All that might be expected to appear, is, that Sallust’s expression would be shorter and more compact; Cicero’s more gracious and flowing, agreeably to the characters of the two men.
But there is a further reason why these characteristic peculiarities of style must not be exhibited, or must be infinitely restrained at least, in the sort of composition we are now considering. It is, that the studied imitation of such peculiarities would be what we call mimickry; and would therefore border upon ridicule, the thing of all others which the genius of this Dialogue most abhors. In Comedy itself, the most exact writers do not condescend to this minute imitation. Terence’s characters all express themselves, I think, with equal elegance: even his slaves are made to speak as good Latin, as their masters. In the serious Dialogue, then, which, from its nature, is, in a much lower degree, mimetic, that minute attention can by no means be required. It will be sufficient that the speakers express themselves in the same manner, that is, (provided the general cast of expression be suited to their respective characters) in the writer’s own.
If there be any exception from this rule, it must be, when the peculiarities of expression are so great, and so notorious, that the reader could hardly acknowledge the speaker in any other dress, than that of his own style. Hence it is possible, though Cicero has left us no example of this sort, that if, in the next age, any one had thought fit to introduce Mæcenas into Dialogue, he might perhaps have been allowed to colour his language with some of those spruce turns and negligent affectations, by which, as a writer, he was so well known. It is, at least, on this principle that the Author of the following Dialogues must rest his apology for having taken such liberty, in one or two instances, only: in which, however, he has confined his imitation to the single purpose of exhibiting some degree of likeness to their acknowledged manner of expression, without attempting to expose it in any strong or invidious light. And, after all, if even this liberty, so cautiously taken, be thought too much, he will not complain of his critics; since the fault, if it be one, was committed rather in compliance with what he supposed might be the public judgment, than with his own.