DIALOGUE, in literature and in common life, a conversation between two or more persons, and either written or oral.

As the end of speech is conversation, no kind of writing can be more natural than dialogue, which represents this. Accordingly we find it was introduced at a very early period; for there are several instances of it in the Mosaic history. The ancient Greek writers, especially the philosophers, also fell very much into dialogue, as the most convenient and agreeable method of communicating their sentiments and instructions to mankind. And indeed it seems to be attended with very considerable advantages, if well and judiciously managed; for it is capable of rendering the driest subjects entertaining and pleasant, by its variety, and by the different characters of the speakers. Besides, things may be canvassed more minutely, and many lesser matters, which serve to clear up a subject, may be introduced with better grace, by means of questions and answers, objections and replies, than can be con-venientlydone in a continued discourse. There is likewise a further advantage in this way of writing, that the author is at liberty to choose his speakers; and therefore, as Cicero has well observed, that when we imagine that we have persons of an established reputation for wisdom and knowledge talking together, this circumstance necessarily addsaweight and authority to the discourse, and more closely engages the attention. The subject-matter of dialogue is very extensive; for whatever is a proper argument of discourse, public or private, serious or jocose—whatever is fit for wise and ingenious men to talk upon, either for improvement or diversion—is suitable for a dialogue.

From this general account of the nature of dialogue, it is easy to perceive what kind of style best suits it. Its affinity with epistles shows there ought to be no great difference between them in this respect. Indeed, some have been of opinion that it ought rather to sink below the style of an epistle, because dialogues should in all respects represent the freedom of conversation, whereas epistles ought sometimes to be composed with care and accuracy, especially when written to superiors. But there seems to be little weight in this argument, since the design of an epistle is to say the same things, and in the same manner, as the writer judges would be most fit and proper for him to speak if present; and in a dialogue the design is similar with respect to the several persons concerned in it. Upon the whole, therefore, a plain, easy, and simple style, suited to the nature of the subject, and the particular characters of the persons concerned, seems to be alike suitable to both.

But as greater skill is required in writing dialogues than letters, we shall give a more particular account of the priqcipal things necessary to be regarded in their composition, and illustrate them chiefly from Cicero’s excellent dialogues concerning an orator. A dialogue then consists of two parts; an introduction, and the body of the discourse.

The introduction acquaints us with the place, time, persons, and occasion of the conversation. Thus Cicero places the scene of his dialogues at the country seat of Crassus; a very proper retreat, both for such a debate and the parties engaged in it. And as they were persons of the first rank, employed in the greatest affairs of the state, and as the discourse occupied them for two days, he represents it to have happened at the time of a festival, when no business was done at Rome, and an opportunity was thus afforded them of being absent.

And because the greatest regard should be had in the choice of the persons, who ought to be such as are well acquainted with the subject upon which they discourse, in these dialogues of Cicero the two principal disputants are Crassus and Antony, the greatest orators of that age, and therefore the most proper persons to dispute respecting the qualifications essential for their art. One would think it scarcely necessary to observe that the corfference should be held by persons who lived at the time, and thus were capable of conversing together. But yet some good writers have run into the impropriety of feigning dialogues between persons who had lived at distant times. Plato adopted this method, in which he has been followed by Macrobius. But others, who have been willing to bring persons to discourse together who lived in different ages, without such inconsistency, [7:8:2]have written 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 fewer; so many as can conveniently carry on a conversation without disorder or confusion, or they may be only two. Some of Cicero’s dialogues have but two, others three or more, and those concerning an orator seven. But it is convenient in some respects that they should all be persons of different characters and abilities; a circumstance 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 by the force of his genius, Catullus by the purity of his style, Scevola by his skill in the law, Caesar by wit and humour; and Sulpitius and Cotta, though young men, were both excellent orators, yet they differed in their manner. But there should be always one principal person, having 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 always made the most conspicuous. In Plato’s dialogues this is Socrates, and Crassus in those of Cicero above mentioned.

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 concerning 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, in order 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 common country. But the introduction ought not to be too long and tedious. Mr Addison complains of this fault in some authors who employ dialogue. “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.”

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 and consistency of character throughout the whole. And the distinct characters ought to be so perfectly observed, that even from the very words it may be always known who is the speaker. This renders 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 principal speaker should appear to be a person of great sense and wisdom, and best acquainted with the subject. No question ought to be asked him, nor objection started, but what he should fairly answer; and all that 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, of equal reputation, or nearly so, but of different sentiments, should be introduced to oppose him, and maintain the contrary side of the question. This affords an opportunity for a thorough examination of the point on both sides, and for answering all objections. But if the combatants are not pretty equally matched, and masters of the subject, they will treat it but superficially. Through the whole debate, however, there ought not to be the least wrangling, peevishness, or obstinacy; nothing indeed but the appearance of good humour and good breeding, together with a readiness to submit to conviction and the force of truth, according as the evidence shall appear to be on one side or the other. In Cicero, these two characters are Crassus and Antony; and from them Mr Addison seemă to have taken his Philander and Cynthio in his Dialogues upon the Usefulness of Ancient Medals, which are formed pretty much upon Cicero’s plan. When younger persons are introduced, or such as are not equally acquainted with the subject, they should rather be inquisitive than disputative; and the questions they ask should be neither too long nor too frequent, in order that they may not too much interrupt the debate, nor appear over talkative before wiser and more experienced persons. Sulpitius and Cotta sustain this character in Cicero, and Eugenius in Mr Addison. It is very convenient, however, that there should be one person of a witty and jocose humour, to enliven the discourse at proper seasons, and render it the more entertaining, especially when the dialogue is drawn out to any considerable length. Caesar performs this part in Cicero; and in Mr Addison, Cynthio, a person of a similar turn, opposes Philander in a humorous 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 persans ought not to speak immediately after one another; 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 allowed upon the stage, where the actors are present, and maybe distinguished by their voice and habit; much less should it be so in a dialogue, where we have only their names to distinguish them.

With regard to the subject, all the arguments should appear probable at least, and nothing should be advanced which may seem weak or trivial. There ought also to be an union in dialogue, in order 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 should 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 be finished. The writers of dialogue have not confined their discourses to any certain space of time, but either concluded them with the day, or broken off' when their speakers have been tired, and resumed them again the next day. Thus Cicero allows two days for his three dialogues concerning an orator; but Mr Addison extends his to three days, allowing a day for each. But the same method has not always been observed in composing dialogues; for sometimes the writer, by way of narrative, relates a discourse which passed between other persons. Such are the dialogues of Cicero and Mr Addison last mentioned, and many others both of the ancients and moderns. But at other times the speakers are introduced in person as talking to each other. This, as Cicero observes, prevents the frequent repetition of those words, “he said,” and “he replied ;” and by placing the hearer, as it were, in the conversation, gives him a more lively representation of the discourse, and thus makes it the more affecting. In this manner, therefore, Cicero wrote his Dialogue of Old Age, in which Cato, who was then advanced in years, recounts the satisfaction of life which may be enjoyed in old age; and, in fact, he tells his friend [7:8:3]Atticus he was himself so affected with that discourse, that when he reviewed it, he sometimes fancied they were not his own words, but Cato’s. There are some other dialogues of Cicero written in the same way; and both Plato and Lucian generally chose this method.