present by the different impressions 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 renders 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 a 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 universally acknowledged by all the inquirers into natural philosophy, namely, that light and colours, as apprehended by the imagination, are only ideas in the mind, and not qualities that have any existence in matter. As this is a truth which has been proved incontestably 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 Uunderstanding.".

a

66

In these two concluding sentences, the author, hastening to finish, appears to write rather carelessly. In the first of them, à 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 incontestably proved," first, 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 English reader would

U

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

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 the 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 possi ble, 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, how

ever, 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.'

“

66

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 antece dent 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. The epithet "strange," which Mr. Addison applies to the works of art, cannot be praised Strange works" appears not by any means a happy

expression to signify what he here intends, which is new or

uncommon.

The sentence concludes with much harmony and dignity."they can have nothing in them of that vastness and immensity which afford so great an entertainment to the mind of the beholder." There is here a fulness and grandeur of expression well suited to the subject; though perhaps, "entertainment" is not quite the proper word for expressing the effect which vastness and immensity have upon the mind. Reviewing the observations that have been made on this period, it might, I think, with advantage, be resolved into two sentences, somewhat after this manner: When we consider the works of nature and of art, as they are qualified to entertain the imagination, we shall find the latter very defective in comparison of the former. The works of art may sometimes appear no less beautiful or uncommon than those of nature; but they can have nothing of that vastness and immensity which so highly transport the mind of the beholder.'

"The one," proceeds our author in the next sentence, “may be as polite and delicate as the other; but can never show herself so august and magnificent in the design."

The "one," and the "other," in the first part of this sentence, must unquestionably refer to the "works of nature and of art." For of these he had been speaking immediately before; and with reference to the plural word, "works," had employed the plural pronoun "they." But in the course of the sentence, he drops this construction; and passes very incongruously to the personification of art-" can never show herself."-To render his style consistent," art," and not "the works of art," should have been made the nominative in this sentence.-" Art may be as polite and delicate as nature, but can never show herself."Polite" is a term oftener applied to persons and to manners, than to things; and is employed to signify their being highly civilized. Polished, or refined, was the idea which the author had in view. Though the general turn of this sentence be elegant, yet in order to render it perfect, I must observe, that the concluding words, " in the design" should either have been altogether omitted, or something should have been properly opposed to them in the preceding member of the period, thus: 'Art may, in the execution, be as polished and delicate as nature: but, in the design, can never show herself so august and magnificent.'

There is something more bold and masterly in the rough, careless strokes of nature, than in the nice touches and embellishments of art.”

This sentence is perfectly happy and elegant; and carries in all the expressions that curiosa felicitas, for which Mr. Addison is so often remarkable. "Bold and masterly" are words applied with the utmost propriety. The "strokes of nature" are finely opposed to the "touches of art :" and the "rough strokes" to the "nice touches;" the former painting the freedom and ease of nature, and the other, the diminutive exactness of art; while both are introduced before us as different performers, and their respective merits in execution very justly contrasted with each other.

"The beauties of the most stately garden or palace lie in a narrow compass, the imagination immediately runs them over, and requires something else to gratify her; but in the wide fields of nature, the sight wanders up and down without confinement, and is fed with an infinite variety of images, without any certain stint or number."

This sentence is not altogether so correct and elegant as the former. It carries, however, in the main, the character of our author's style; not strictly accurate, but agreeable, easy, and unaffected: enlivened too with a slight personification of the imagination, which gives a gaiety to the period. Perhaps it had been better, if this personification of the imagination, with which the sentence is introduced, had been continued throughout, and not changed unnecessarily, and even improperly, into "sight," ," in the second member, which is contrary both to unity and elegance. It might have stood thus: "the imagination immediately runs them over, and requires something else to gratify her; but in the wide fields of nature, she wanders up and down without confinement." The epithet "stately," which the author uses in the beginning of the sentence, is applicable, with more propriety, to "palaces" than to "gardens." The close o the sentence," without any certain stint or number," may be objected to, as both superfluous and ungraceful. It might, perhaps, have terminated better in this manner: she is fed with an infinite variety of images, and wanders up and down without confinement.'

"For this reason, we always find the poet in love with a country life, where nature appears in the greatest perfection,