miration to a work which is now justly the boast of the nation; and although his successors in critical labours have been able not only to improve them, but to point out their defects, it ought to be remembered that he wrote without those helps from combined taste and skill which they now enjoy. "It is not uncommon for those who have grown wise by the labour of others, to add a little of their own, and overlook their masters. Addison is now despised by some who, perhaps, would never have seen his defects, but by the lights which he afforded them*"

Of Addison's style, the commendation of all judges has been uniform, and since the publication of Dr. Johnson's "Lives of the Poets," it has become almost proverbial to repeat, that "whoever wishes to attain an English style, familiar but not coarse, and elegant but not ostentatious, must give his days and nights to the volumes of Addison." That few, however, are willing to bestow this labour, or anxious to obtain the reward, is sufficiently attested by the present state of literary composition. Yet perhaps it would be wrong to blame writers who, as candidates for public favour, aim at excellences more in demand than familiarity or simple elegance, and who seem to be goaded sometimes by criticism, and sometimes by popular opinion, to produce" ambitious ornaments," and to try hazardous innovations." Since writers of commanding reputation have been

Johnson. Addison's merit as a critic is ably and impartially considered in the notes to his Life in the Biog. Britannica, 2d edit.

multiplied, and the structure of the language better understood, style has been regulated by a fashion to which we know not how to place limits. Of late the demand has been considerable for lofty periods and splendid imagery, verging sometimes on the excellence of poetry, and sometimes on the ostentation of bombast. The writers of Queen Anne's reign are oftener, therefore, approved than imitated; we are unwilling to avail ourselves of the services they have rendered to our language; we force luminous periods and splendid passages by the heat of imagination, and are consequently more ambitious to be admired than understood, to be quoted for manner rather than to be useful for

matter.

It would be unjust, however, to aver that such a taste is universal, although it be gaining more ground than it ought to occupy: we are not without authors who rest their fame on the elegancies of simplicity, "on a style always agreeable, always easy; and perhaps we should acknowledge the number of those who have formed themselves on the model of Addison to be greater, if, unfortunately, when we look for his style, we did not at the same time look for his wit; and where is that to be found? If his

* Moliere has been frequently named in the same rank with Addison. Lord Chesterfield thinks "no man ever had so much humour as Moliere, of which his Miser, his Jealous Man, and his Bourgeois Gentilhomme are convincing proofs: and French comedy," he adds, "furnishes a multiplicity of instances besides these." Letter 98. Miscellaneous Works, Vol. II. 4to. p. 284. But there appears an essential difference between the humour of a dramatic writer and that of an essayist. The former enjoys ad

style be separated from his wit, he is not perhaps without equals among his contemporaries, and among his successors; but his humour in all its qualities, is the distinctive characteristic of his genius. A few facetic may occasionally be found among his successors, but such a perpetual flow, such a command of temper in ridicule, have never been given to any man in this country, and to any other it would be in vain to look; for in no foreign language can we find a word to express the talent of which we are now speaking.

As the Spectator, very soon after its being collected into volumes, became one of the "first books by which both sexes are initiated in the elegancies of knowledge," its increasing influence on the taste as well as the manners of the age, rendered it a proper object for the calm examination of criticism, and there are accordingly few critics of eminence placed in the schools of public instruction, who have not judged it requisite to point out its beauties and detect its blemishes.

Of these critics, Dr. Blair appears to have been most anxious that, while Addison is presented as a model to young writers, they should be guarded against an implicit deference to his authority. He has therefore investigated the merits of his style with great minuteness, and a most scrupulous regard to purity and precision, in four very long lectures on Nos. 411, 412, 413, and 414, of the Spectator. For this he offers vantages from the construction of dramatic composition, and the latitude it permits, of which the essayist cannot avail himself.

a modest apology, which his high opinion of Addison, as well as the duties of his office, rendered quite unnecessary; the fair and impartial labours of criticism are direct testimonies in favour of the object. And how well Addison has stood the test of this fastidious scrutiny may appear on this simple calculation, that out of eighty-seven remarks, of which these lectures consist, thirty-seven are in strong recommendation of his style, and of the remainder, some are so evidently of a trifling nature, that we may adopt as a conclusion what this eminent critic has given as a prefatory apology: “The beauties of Addison are so many, and the general character of his style is so elegant and estimable, that the minute imperfections pointed out, are but like those spots in the sun, which may be discovered by the assistance of art, but which have no effect in obscuring its lustre*."

However useful verbal and grammatical criticism may be, there seems to be this fatality attending all composition, that its errors are more easily discoverable by the critic than by the author. After all the light thrown upon the beauties and defects of style by the most eminent critics of the last century, by Lowth and Priestley, by Kaimes and Campbell, by Beattie and Blair, few if any writers have attained an unex

* From inattention to the marks which distinguish the different productions of the Essayists, some critics have censured Addison for that of which he was not guilty. Dr. Blair, for example, enters into the defence of Tasso's Sylvia, against Addison, in the Guardian, No. 38. Here are two mistakes in all the editions I have seen of Dr. Blair's Lectures. The passage in question oc eurs in No. 28; and No. 28 was not written by Addison.

ceptionable style, or have even been able to follow their own canons. Of this Dr. Blair himself affords a remarkable instance. Notwithstanding the long labour he had bestowed on his "Lectures on Rhetoric," the perpetual revision to which they were subjected, and all the changes and improvements which could be derived from the author's sagacity, or the assistance of contemporary writers, they were, on publication to the world at large, convicted of numerous errors, ranged on his own plan, and proved by his own rules. These consisted principally of terms and phrases bordering on vulgar or colloquial language; awkward phrases; redundancies; superlatives for comparatives; double comparatives; adjectives for adverbs; any for either; either for each; &c. &c. the relative not agreeing with its antecedent; verbs in the plural number instead of the singular; the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative; verbs which ought to be in the active or passive voice employed as neuters; had instead of would; will for shall; the past time for the present; of instead of from; on for in; among for in; never for ever; that for as; inverted sentences; and mixed metaphors.*

Yet with all these blemishes, the general merit of Dr. Blair's Lectures is incontestable, and it will probably be long before they can be laid aside for a work of more indispensable neces

See the whole list with proofs, in the Critical Review for October, 1783. The article was the production of the late Rev. Joseph Robertson, of Horncastle, Lincolnshire.