Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 addressing themselves to the imagination, borrowing more of thei epithets from colours than from any other topic."

On this sentence nothing occurs, except a remark similar to what was made before, of loose connection 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 immediatdly connected.

"As the fancy delights in every thing that is great, strange, or beautiful, and is still more pleased, the more it finds of these perfections in the same object, so it is capable of receiving 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.'

[ocr errors]

"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 fragrancy of smells or perfumes, they heighten the pleasures of the 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 colours 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

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 affect the imagination with pleasure, we must own, that it is impossible for us to assign the necessary cause of this pleasure, 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 efficient causes from whence the pleasure or displeasure arises."

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 purposes 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 unfold them. Mr. Addison's chief excellence, as a writer, lay in describing and painting. There he is great; but in methodizing 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 the 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" (he 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 been equally applicable 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 soul;" but this is by no means the reference 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 disa greeableness 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 intelligible 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 further discussion about the conformity or disagreeableness of the nature of the one, to the substance of the other, affords no clear or 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 synonymous. 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 arises." The expression, "from whence," though seemingly justified by very frequent usage, is taxed by Dr. Johnson as a vicious mode of speech; seeing "whence" alone has all the power of "from whence," which therefore appears an unnecessary redu

plication. I am inclined to think, that the whole of this last member of the sentence had better have been dropped. The period might have closed with full propriety, at the words "pleasing or displeasing to the mind." All that follows, suggests no idea that had not been fully conveyed in the preceding part of the sentence. It is a mere expletive adjection, which might be omitted, not only without injury to the meaning, but to the great relief of a sentence already labouring under the multitude of words.

Having now finished the analysis of this long sentence, I am inclined to be of opinion, that if, on any occasion, we can adventure to alter Mr. Addison's style, it may be done to advantage here, by breaking down this period in the following manner: "In yesterday's paper, we have shown that every thing which is great, new, or beautiful, is apt to affect the imagination with pleasure. We must own, that it is impossible for us to assign the efficient cause of this pleasure, because we know not the nature either of an idea, or of the human soul. All that we can do, therefore, in speculations of this kind, is to reflect on the operations of the soul which are most agreeable, and to range, under proper heads, what is pleasing or displeasing to the mind."We proceed now to the examination of the following

sentences.

"Final causes lie more bare and open to our observation, as there are often a great variety that belong to the same effect; and these, though they are not altogether so satisfactory, are generally more useful than the other, as they give us greater occasion of admiring the goodness and wisdom of the first contriver."

66

Though some difference might be traced between the sense of "bare" and " open," yet as they are here employed, they are so nearly synonymous, that one of them was sufficient. It would have been enough to have said, 'Final causes lie more open to observation.'-One can scarcely help observing here, that the obviousness of final causes does not proceed, as Mr. Addison supposes, from a variety of them concurring in the same effect, which is often not the case; but from our being able to ascertain more clearly, from our own experience, the congruity of a final cause with the circumstances of our condition; whereas the constituent parts of subjects, whence efficient causes proceed, lie for the most part beyond the reach of our faculties. But as this remark respects the thought more than the style, it is sufficient

« PreviousContinue »