for writing eminently, are very rarely found united in the same individual; and the rarity of the occurrence has led to an opinion, that those talents depend on constitutions of mind so widely different, as to render their union almost wholly unattainable. This was not the opinion, however, it is believed, at Athens and at Rome: it cannot I apprehend, be the opinion, either, in the united kingdom of Great Britain. There have been, indeed, in these countries distinguished orators, who have not left behind them any proofs of their emmence in composition; but neither have they left behind them any proofs of their failure in this respect; so that the conclusion of their incompetency is rather assumed than established. On the other hand, there have been, in all those countries, too many illustrious examples of the union of those talents, to justify the belief of their incongruity by any general law of nature.
That there have been many eminent writers who, from physical defects, could never have become orators, is very certain: but is the converse of the proposition equally true? Was there ever an eminent orator who might not, by proper discipline, have become, also, a very eminent writer? What are the essential qualities of the orator? Are they not judgment, invention, imagination, sensibility, taste and expression, or the command of strong and appropriate language? If these be the qualities of the orator, it is very easy to understand how they may be improved by the discipline of the closet;[1] but not so easy to comprehend how they can possibly be injured by it. Is there any danger that this discipline
