victorious Tartars, until I acquire that glorious appellation, THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD!"

Different

Different Ufes of Reading and Converfation.

IN barbarous times, when converfation had no other topic than what immediate occafion or neceffary employment produced (which was once the cafe) it is evident, that no knowledge could be obtained but from books.

As civilization advanced, and commerce produced focial intercourfe, converfation grew more enlarged, and knowledge was gained from the mouth as well as from the pen. This undoubtedly was an improvement in every fenfe.

In

France both fexes firft affembled on an eafy footing, and it was in that country where knowledge from books was firft neglected.

This principle spread with the language and manners, and it foon became fashionable to call the learning acquired from reading, pedantry. As I confider this to be the present state of things in our own country, I have a few words to fay in defence of the inftruction obtained from books, and to give fome reasons why it ought, for all substantial purposes, to be preferred to that which arises from conversation.

The object of converfation is entertainment-the object of reading is inftruction. No doubt, converfation may instruct, and reading may entertain; but this occafional affumption of each other's characteristic, only varies the principle, without destroying it.

When perfons converfe, deep difquifition is out of place—the subjects should be general and light, in which all may be fuppofed capable of joining. Every

thing profeffional is avoided, which, whether from the divine, the lawyer, the phyfician, the merchant, or foldier, is equally pedantic as from the scholar. All debate is shunned, left warmth might become heat. If fire be produced by the collifion of fentiments, it should just shine for a moment, like the harmless corufcations of a fummer evening, but not pierce like lightning.

Converfation, to be agreeable, fhould be divided equally-no one should engrofs it, or neglect to furnish his quota— but as it requires fome practice, and perhaps, talents, to engage in fmall-talk, without ascending into an upper region, or finking into vacuity; those who find a difficulty in steering this middle course, and think it neceffary to keep up the shuttle-cock of converfation; occafionally hazard an expreffion, which will not bear ftrict examination, but it may appear fufficiently like truth for the present

purpose,

perpofe, and to be adopted as fuch hereafter. Truth is fometimes overcome by wit-a lively repartee will at any time put it to flight. Strength may crush and kill, but smartness makes the ftroke to be felt.

In conversation it is not easy to avoid falfities. A ftory is begun, of which the relator has only a general knowledgeas he proceeds, he is obliged to fill up the deficiencies of memory by invention; the next relator does the fame, and probably, in different places. After a few of these oral editions, truth is entirely fupplanted by falfehood. If this happen when there is no intention to deceive, what must be the effect when the variation is not accidental?

To discover truth is feldom the intention of conversation. Should a dispute

arife, its object is not but to obtain victory.

to establish facts, If the maxims of

our