Page images
PDF
EPUB

The chief ground of criticism on this sentence, is the disjointed situation of the relative which. Grammatically, it refers to the rising and setting of the sun. But the Author meant, that it should refer to the show which appears in the heavens at that time. It is too common among authors, when they are writing without much care, to make such particles as this, and which, refer not to any particular antecedent word, but to the tenour of some phrase, or perhaps the scope of some whole sentence, which has gone before. This practice saves them trouble in marshalling their words, and arranging a period : but, though it may leave their meaning intelligible, yet it renders that meaning much less perspicuous, determined, and precise, than it might otherwise have been. The error I have pointed out, might have been avoided by a small alteration in the construction of the sentence, after some such manner as this: We no where meet with a more glorious and pleasing show in nature, than what is formed in the heavens at the rising and setting of the sun, by the different stains of light which show themselves in clouds of different situations. Our author writes, in clouds of a different situation, by which he means, clouds that differ in situation from each other. But, as this is neither the obvious nor grammatical meaning of his words, it was necessary to change the expression, as I have done, into the plural number.

"For this reason, we find the poets, who are always address❝ing themselves to the imagination, borrowing more of their "epithets from colours than from any other topic."

On this sentence nothing occurs, except a remark similar to what was made before, of loose connexion with the sentence which precedes. For, though he begins with saying, For this reason, the foregoing sentence, which was employed about the clouds and the sun, gives no reason for the general proposition he now lays down. The reason to which he refers, was given two sentences before, when he observed, that the eye takes more delight in colours than in any other beauty; and it was with that sentence that the present one should have stood immediately connected.

[ocr errors]

"As the fancy delights in every thing that is great, strange, or beautiful, and is still more pleased, the more it finds of

Rr

"these perfections in the same object, so it is capable of re"ceiving a new satisfaction by the assistance of another sense."

Another sense here, means grammatically, another sense than fancy. For there is no other thing in the period to which this expression, another sense, can at all be opposed. He had not for some time made mention of any sense whatever. He forgot to add, what was undoubtedly in his thoughts, another sense than that of sight.

"Thus any continued sound, as the music of birds, or a fall "of water, awakens every moment the mind of the beholder, ❝and makes him more attentive to the several beauties of the

place which lie before him. Thus, if there arises a fragran"cy of smells or perfumes, they heighten the pleasures of the су "imagination, and make even the colours and verdure of the

landscape appear more agreeable; for the ideas of both senses "recommend each other, and are pleasanter together, than "when they enter the mind separately; as the different co"lours of a picture, when they are well disposed, set off one "another, and receive an additional beauty from the advantage "of their situation."

Whether Mr. Addison's theory here be just or not, may be questioned. A continued sound, such as that of a fall of water, is so far from awakening every moment the mind of the beholder, that nothing is more likely to lull him asleep. It may, indeed, please the imagination, and heighten the beauties of the scene; but it produces this effect, by a soothing, not by an awakening influence. With regard to the Style, nothing appears exceptionable. The flow, both of language and of ideas, is very agreeable. The author continues, to the end, the same pleasing train of thought, which had run through the rest of the paper; and leaves us agreeably employed in comparing together different degrees of beauty.

315

LECTURE XXII.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE STYLE IN

No. 413 OF THE SPECTATOR.

« THOUGH in yesterday's paper we considered "how every thing that is great, new, or beautiful, is apt to af"fect the imagination with pleasure, we must own, that it is "impossible for us to assign the necessary cause of this pleas66 ure, because we know neither the nature of an idea, nor the "substance of a human soul, which might help us to discover "the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other; "and, therefore, for want of such a light, all that we can do "in speculations of this kind, is, to reflect on those operations "of the soul that are most agreeable, and to range, under their proper heads, what is pleasing or displeasing to the mind, "without being able to trace out the several necessary and ef"ficient causes from whence the pleasure or displeasure arises."

66

This sentence, considered as an introductory one, must be acknowledged to be very faulty. An introductory sentence should never contain any thing that can in any degree fatigue or puzzle the reader. When an author is entering on a new branch of his subject, informing us of what he has done, and what he proposes further to do, we naturally expect, that he should express himself in the simplest and most perspicuous manner possible. But the sentence now before us is crowded and indistinct; containing three separate propositions, which, as I shall afterwards show, required separate sentences to have unfolded them. Mr. Addison's chief excellency, as a writer, lay in describing and painting. There he is great; but in methodising and reasoning, he is not so eminent. As, besides the general fault of prolixity and indistinctness, this sentence contains several inaccuracies, I shall be obliged to enter into a

minute discussion of its structure and parts; a discussion, which to many readers will appear tedious, and which therefore they will naturally pass over; but which, to those who are studying composition, I hope may prove of some benefit.

Though in yesterday's paper we considered. The import of though, is, notwithstanding that. When it appears in the beginning of a sentence, its relative generally is yet: and it is employed to warn us, after we have been informed of some truth, that we are not to infer from it some other thing which we might perhaps have expected to follow: as, "Though virtue be the only road "to happiness, yet it does not permit the unlimited gratification " of our desires." Now it is plain, that there was no such opposition between the subject of yesterday's paper, and what the Author is now going to say, between his asserting a fact, and his not being able to assign the cause of that fact, as rendered the use of this adversative particle,though,either necessary or proper in the introduction. We considered how every thing that is great, new, or beautiful, is apt to affect the imagination with pleasure. The adverb how signifies, either the means by which, or the manner in which, something is done. But in truth, neither one nor other of these had been considered by our Author. He had illustrated the fact alone, that they do affect the imagination with pleasure; and, with respect to the quomodo or the how, he is so far from having considered it, that he is just now going to show that it cannot be explained, and that we must rest contented with the knowledge of the fact alone, and of its purpose or final cause. We must own, that it is impossible for us to assign the necessary cause (the means, what is more commonly called the efficient cause) of this pleasure, because we know neither the nature of an idea, nor the substance of a human soul. The substance of a human soul is certainly a very uncouth expression, and there appears no reason why he should have varied from the word nature, which would have equally applied to idea and to soul.

Which might help us, our Author proceeds, to discover the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other. The which, at the beginning of this member of the period, is surely ungrammatical, as it is a relative, without any antecedent in all the sentence. It refers, by the construction, to the nature of an idea, or the substance of a human scul; but this is by no means the ref

erence which the Author intended. His meaning is, that our knowing the nature of an idea, and the substance of a human soul, might help us to discover the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other: and therefore the syntax absolutely required the word knowledge to have been inserted as the antecedent to which. I have before remarked, and the remark deserves to be repeated, that nothing is a more certain sign of careless composition than to make such relatives as which, not refer to any precise expression, but carry a loose and vague relation to the general strain of what had gone before. When our sentences run into this form, we may be assured there is something in the construction of them that requires alteration. The phrase of discovering the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other is likewise exceptionable; for disagreeableness neither forms a proper contrast to the other word, conformity, nor expresses what the Author meant here, (as far as any meaning can be gathered from his words) that is, a certain unsuitableness or want of conformity to the nature of the soul. To say the truth, this member of the sentence had much better have been omitted altogether. The conformity or disagreeableness of an idea to the substance of a human soul, is a phrase which conveys to the mind no distinct nor intelligent conception whatever. The Author had before given a sufficient reason for his not assigning the efficient cause of those pleasures of the imagination, because we neither know the nature of our own ideas nor of the soul and this farther discussion about the conformity or disagreeableness of the nature of the one, to the substance of the other, affords no clear nor useful illustration.

And therefore, the sentence goes on, for want of such a light, all that we can do in speculations of this kind, is, to reflect on those operations of the soul that are most agreeable, and to range under their proper heads what is pleasing or displeasing to the mind. The two expressions in the beginning of this member, therefore, and for want of such a light, evidently refer to the same thing, and are quite synonimous. One or other of them, therefore, had better have been omitted. Instead of to range under their proper heads, the language would have been smoother, if their had been left out. Without being able to trace out the several necessary and efficient causes from whence the pleasure or displeasure

« PreviousContinue »