| PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 |
| PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 |
| PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11 | PART 12 |
It has been remarked, my HERMIPPUS, that though the ancient philosophersconveyed most of their instruction in the form of dialogue, this methodof composition has been little practised in later ages, and has seldomsucceeded in the hands of those who have attempted it. Accurate andregular argument, indeed, such as is now expected of philosophicalinquirers, naturally throws a man into the methodical and didacticmanner; where he can immediately, without preparation, explain the pointat which he aims; and thence proceed, without interruption, to deducethe proofs on which it is established. To deliver a SYSTEM inconversation, scarcely appears natural; and while the dialogue-writerdesires, by departing from the direct style of composition, to give afreer air to his performance, and avoid the appearance of Author andReader, he is apt to run into a worse inconvenience, and convey theimage of Pedagogue and Pupil. Or, if he carries on the dispute in thenatural spirit of good company, by throwing in a variety of topics, andpreserving a proper balance among the speakers, he often loses so muchtime in preparations and transitions, that the reader will scarcelythink himself compensated, by all the graces of dialogue, for the order,brevity, and precision, which are sacrificed to them.
There are some subjects, however, to which dialogue-writing is peculiarlyadapted, and where it is still preferable to the direct and simple methodof composition.
Any point of doctrine, which is so obvious that it scarcely admits ofdispute, but at the same time so important that it cannot be too ofteninculcated, seems to require some such method of handling it; where thenovelty of the manner may compensate the triteness of the subject; wherethe vivacity of conversation may enforce the precept; and where thevariety of lights, presente