"and colours which are different from any thing that exists " in the objects."

"We are every where entertained with pleasing shows, and << apparitions. We discover imaginary glories in the heavens, “and in the earth, and see some of this visionary beauty poured "out upon the whole creation; but what a rough unsightly "sketch of nature should we be entertained with, did all her "colouring disappear, and the several distinctions of light and "shade vanish? In short, our souls are delightfully lost and be"wildered in a pleasing delusion; and we walk about like the ❝enchanted hero of a romance, who sees beautiful castles, "woods, and meadows; and, at the same time, hears the warb❝ling of birds, and the purling of streams; but, upon the "finishing of some secret spell, the fantastic scene breaks up, " and the disconsolate knight finds himself on a barren heath, ❝or in a solitary desert."

After having been obliged to point out several inaccuracies, I return with much more pleasure to the display of beauties, for which we have now full scope; for these two sentences are such as do the highest honour to Mr. Addison's talents as a wriWarmed with the idea he had laid hold of, his delicate sensibility to the beauty of nature, is finely displayed in the illustration of it. The style is flowing and full, without being too diffuse. It is flowery, but not gaudy; elevated, but not ostentatious.

ter.

Amidst this blaze of beauties, it is necessary for us to remark one or two inaccuracies. When it is said, towards the close of the first of those sentences, what a rough unsightly sketch of nature should we be entertained with, the proposition with should' have been placed at the beginning, rather than at the end of this member; and the word entertained, is both improperly applied here, and carelessly repeated from the former part of the sentence. It was there employed according to its more common use, as relating to agreeable objects. We are every where entertained with pleasing shows. Here, it would have been more proper to have changed the phrase, and said, with what a rough unsightly sketch of nature should we be presented. At the close of the second sentence, where it is said, the fantastic scene

breaks up, the expression is lively, but not altogether justifiable. An assembly breaks up; a scene closes or disappears.

Expecting these two slight inaccuracies, the Style, here, is not only correct, but perfectly elegant. The most striking beauty of the passage arises from the happy simile which the Author employs, and the fine illustration which it gives to the thought. The enchanted hero, the beautiful castles, the fantastic scene, the secret spell, the disconsolate knight, are terms chosen with the utmost felicity, and strongly recal all those romantic ideas with which he intended to amuse our imagination. Few Authors are more successful in their imagery than Mr. Addison; and few passages in his works, or in those of any author, are more beautiful and picturesque, than that on which we have been commenting.

"It is not improbable, that something like this may be the "state of the soul after its first separation, in respect of the "images it will receive from matter; though, indeed, the "ideas of colours are so pleasing and beautiful in the imagina“tion, that it is possible the soul will not be deprived of “them, but, perhaps, find them excited by some other occa“sional cause, as they are, at present, by the different impres-“sions of the subtile matter on the organ of the sight.”

As all human things, after having attained the summit, begin to decline, we must acknowledge, that, in this sentence, there is a sensible falling off from the beauty of what went before. It is broken, and deficient in unity. Its parts are not sufficiently compacted. It contains, besides, some faulty expressions. When it is said, something like this may be the state of the soul, to the pronoun this, there is no determined antecedent; it refers to the general import of the preceding description, which, as I have several times remarked, always rendered Style clumsy and inelegant, if not obscure-the state of the soul after its first separation, appears to be an incomplete phrase, and first, seems an useless, and even an improper word. More distinct if he had said, state of the soul immediately on its separation from the body. The adverb perhaps, is redundant after having just before said, it is possible.

"I have here supposed, that my reader is acquainted with "that great modern discovery, which is, at present, universal"ly acknowledged by all the inquirers into natural philosophy; "namely, that light and colours, as apprehended by the imag"ination, are only ideas in the mind, and not qualities that "have any existence in matter. As this is a truth which has "been proved incontestibly by many modern philosophers, and "is, indeed, one of the finest speculations in that science, if "the English reader would see the notion explained at large, "he may find it in the eighth chapter of the second book of "Mr. Locke's Essay on the Human Understanding."

In these two concluding sentences, the Author, hastening to finish, appears to write rather carelessly. In the first of them, a manifest tautology occurs, when he speaks of what is universally acknowledged by all inquirers. In the second, when he calls a truth which has been incontestibly proved; first, a speculation, and afterwards a notion, the language surely is not very accurate. When he adds, one of the finest speculations in that science, it does not, at first, appear what science he means. One would imagine, he meant to refer to modern philosophers; for natural philosophy (to which, doubtless, he refers) stands at much too great a distance to be the proper or obvious antecedent to the pronoun that. The circumstance towards the close, if the Eng-; lish reader would see the notion explained at large, he may find it, is properly taken notice of by the Author of the Elements of Criticism, as wrong arranged; and is rectified thus; the English reader, if he would see the notion explained at large, may find it,'&c.

In concluding the Examination of this Paper, we may observe, that, though not a very long one, it exhibits a striking view both of the beauties, and the defects, of Mr. Addison's Style. It contains some of the best, and some of the worst sentences, that are to be found in his works. But upon the whole, it is an agreeable and elegant Essay.

326

LECTURE XXIII.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE STYLE IN

No. 414 OF THE SPECTATOR.

"IF we consider the works of nature and art, as "they are qualified to entertain the imagination, we shall find "the last very defective in comparison of the former; for "though they may sometimes appear as beautiful or strange, "they can have nothing in them of that vastness and immensity "which afford so great an entertainment to the mind of the "beholder."

I had occasion formerly to observe, that an introductory sentence should always be short and simple, and contain no more matter than is necessary for opening the subject. This sentence leads to a repetition of this observation, as it contains both an assertion and the proof of that assertion; two things which for the most part, but especially at first setting out, are with more advantage kept separate. It would certainly have been better, if this sentence had contained only the assertion, ending with the word former: and if a new one had then begun, entering on the proofs of nature's superiority over art, which is the subject continued to the end of the paragraph. The proper division of the period I shall point out, after having first made a few observations which occur on different parts of it.

If we consider the works. Perhaps it might have been preferable, if our Author had begun, with saying, When we consider the works. Discourse ought always to begin, when it is possible, with a clear proposition. The if, which is here employed, converts the sentence into a supposition, which is always in some degree entangling, and proper to be used only when the course of reasoning renders it necessary. As this observation however may, perhaps, be considered as over-refined, and

as the sense would have remained the same in either form of expression, I do not mean to charge our Author with

any error

on this account. We cannot absolve him from inaccuracy in what immediately follows-the works of nature and art. It is the scope of the Author throughout this whole paper, to compare nature and art together, and to oppose them in several views to each other. Certainly, therefore, in the beginning, he ought to have kept them as distinct as possible, by interposing the preposition, and saying, The works of Nature and of Art. As the words stand at present, they would lead us to think that he is going to treat of these works, not as contrasted, but as connected; as united in forming one whole. When I speak of body and soul as united in the human nature, I would interpose neither article nor preposition between them; " Man "is compounded of Soul and Body." But the case is altered, if, I mean to distinguish them from each other; then I represent them as separate ; and say, "I am to treat of the interests "of the Soul, and of the Body."

Though they may sometimes appear as beautiful or strange. I cannot help considering this as a loose member of the period. It does not clearly appear at first what the antecedent is to they. In reading onwards, we see the works of art to be meant ; but from the structure of the sentence, they might be understood to refer to the former, as well as to the last. In what follows, there is a greater ambiguity-may sometimes appear as beautiful or strange. It is very doubtful in what sense we are to understand as, in this passage. For, according as it is accented in reading, it may signify, that they appear equally beautiful or strange, to wit, with the works of nature; and then it has the force of the Latin tam : or it may signify no more than that they appear in the light of beautiful and strange; and then it has the force of the Latin tanquam, without importing any comparison. An expression so ambiguous, is always faulty; and it is doubly so here; because, if the Author intended the former sense, and meant (as seems most probable) to employ as for a mark of comparison, it was necessary to have mentioned both the compared objects: whereas only one member of the comparison is here mentioned, viz. the works of art; and if he intended the latter sense, as was in that case superfluous and encumbering, and he had better have said simply, appear beautiful or strange.