pears to write rather carelessly. In the first of them, a manifest tautology occurs, when he speaks of what is aniversally acknowledged by all inguirers. In the second when he calls a truth which has been incontestably proved; first, a speculation, and afterward 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 toward the close, if the English 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.

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

Ee

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 interest 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. 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.

may

be as

"The one," proceeds our author in the next sentence, 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 his 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 gayety 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 of 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, and furnishes out all those scenes that are most apt to delight the imagination."

There is nothing in this sentence to attract particular attention. One would think it was rather the country, than a country life, on which the remark here made should rest. A country life may be productive of simplicity of manners, and of other virtues: but it is to the country itself, that the properties here mentioned belong, of displaying the beauties of nature, and furnishing those scenes which delight the imagination.

"But though there are several of these wild scenes that are more.. delightful than any artificial shows, yet we find the works of nature still more pleasant, the more they resemble those of art; for in this case our pleasure rises from a double principle; from the agreeableness of the objects to the eye, and from their similitude to other objects; we are pleased, as well with comparing their beauties, as with surveying them, and can represent them to our minds either as copies or as originals. Hence it is, that we take delight in a prospect which is well laid out, and diversified with fields and meadows, woods and rivers; in those accidental landscapes of trees, clouds, and cities, that are sometimes found in the veins of marble, in the curious fretwork of rocks and grottos; and, in a word, in any thing that hath such a degree of variety and regularity as may seem the effect of design, in what we call the works of chance."

The style in the two sentences which compose this paragraph, is smooth and perspicuous. It lies open in some places to criticism; but lest the reader should be tired of what he may consider as petty remarks, I shall pass over any which these sentences suggest; the rather, too, as the idea which they present to us of nature's resembling art, of art's being considered as an original, and nature as a copy, seems not very distinct nor well brought out, nor indeed very material to our author's purpose.

"If the products of nature rise in value, according as they more or less resemble those of art, we may be sure that artificial works receive a greater advantage from the resemblance of such as are natural; because here the similitude is not only pleasant, but the pattern more perfect."

It is necessary to our present design, to point out two considerable inaccuracies which occur in this sentence. If the products (he had better have said the productions) of nature rise in value according as they more or less resemble those of art. Does he mean, that these productions rise in value both according as they more resemble, and as they less resemble, those of art? His meaning undoubtedly is, that they rise in value only, according as they more resemble them: and, therefore, either these words, or less, must be struck out, or the sentence must run thus-productions of nature rise or sink in value, according as they more or less resemble. The present construction of the sentence, has plainly been owing to hasty and careless writing.

The other inaccuracy is towards the end of the sentence, and serves to illustrate a rule which I formerly gave concerning the position of adverbs. The author says, because here the similitude is not only pleasant, but the pattern more perfect. Here, by the position of the adverb only, we are led to imagine that he is going to give some other property of the similitude, that is not only pleasant, as he says, but more than pleasant.

it is useful, or, on some account or other, valuable. Whereas, he is going to oppose another thing to the similitude itself, and not to this property of its being pleasant; and, therefore, the right collocation, beyond doubt, was, because here not only the similitude is pleasant, but the pattern more perfect; the contrast lying, not between pleasant and more perfect, but between similitude and pattern. Much of the clearness and neatness of style depends on such attentions as these.

"The prettiest landscape I ever saw, was one drawn on the walls of a dark room, which stood opposite on one side to a navigable river, and on the other, to a park. The experiment is very common in optics."

In the description of the landscape which follows, Mr. Addison is abundantly happy; but in this introduction to it, he is obscure and indistinct. One who had not seen the experiment of the camera obscura, could comprehend nothing of what he meant. And even, after we understand what he points at, we are at some loss, whether to understand his description as of one continued landscape, or of two different ones, produced by the projection of two camera obscuras on opposite walls. The scene, which I am inclined to think Mr. Addison here refers to, is Greenwich park; with the prospect of the Thames, as seen by a camera obscura, which is placed in a small room in the upper story of the observatory; where I remember to have seen, many years ago, the whole scene here described, corresponding so much to Mr. Addison's account of it in this passage, that, at the time, it recalled it to my memory.

As the observatory stands in the middle of the park, it overlooks, from one side, both the river and the park; and the objects afterward mentioned, the ships, the trees, and the deer, are presented in one view, without needing any assistance from opposite walls. Put into plainer language, the sentence might run thus: "The prettiest landscape I ever saw, was one formed by a camera obscura, a common optical instrument, on the wall of a dark room, which overlooked a navigable river and a park."

"Here you might discover the waves and fluctuations of the water in strong and proper colours, with the picture of a ship entering at one end, and sailing by degrees through the whole piece. On another, there appeared the green shadows of trees, waving to and fro with the wind, and herds of deer among them in miniature, leaping about upon the wall."

Bating one or two small inaccuracies, this is beautiful and lively painting. The principal inaccuracy lies in the connexion of the two sentences, here, and on another. I suppose the author meant, on one side, and on another side. As it stands, another is ungrammatical, having nothing to which it refers. But the fluctuations of the water, the ship entering and sailing on by degrees, the trees waving in the wind, and the herds of deer among them leaping about, is all very elegant, and gives a beautiful conception of the scene meant to be described.

"I must confess the novelty of such a sight may be one occasion of its pleasantness to the imagination; but certainly the chief reason is, its near resemblance to nature; as it does not only, like other pictures, give the colour and figure, but the motion of the things it represents."

In this sentence, there is nothing remarkable, either to be praised or blamed. In the conclusion, instead of the things it represents, the regularity of correct style requires the things which it represents,

In the