may now appear trite, because frequent repetition and fucceffive illuftration have rendered them familiar; but in estimating the value and utility of fuch inftructions, we muft take into the account the wants and neceffities of the public at the time they were given. Literature did not then pass through fo many channels as in our days, nor were the facilities of communication fo many: the number of readers was not great, and the books calculated by allurement to increase that number were very few. The demand for inftruction, however, increased with the opportunities of fupply, and they whom the ESSAYISTS taught to know a little, were foon incited by curiofity to know more. The duties of life had never been difcuffed in a popular manner, nor in portions adapted to the idle or the cafual reader. Above all, the niceties of literature were not generally understood, and it is not the smallest merit of ADDISON, that "he fuperadded criticism," prescribed the rules of tafte, and introduced a relifh for genius that had been depreffed, or overlooked. His criticifms on PARADISE LOST directed the public admiration to a work which is now justly the boast of the nation; and although his fucceffors 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 wife by the labour of others, to add a little of their own, and overlook their mafters. ADDISON is now despised by some who, perhaps, would never have feen his defects, but by the lights which he afforded them *."

* JOHNSON. ADDISON's merit as a critic is ably and impartially confidered in the notes to his Life in the Biog. Britannica, 2d. edit.

Of ADDISON's ftyle, the commendation of all judges has been uniform, and fince the publication of Dr. JOHNSON'S "Lives of the Poets," it has become almoft proverbial to repeat, that "whoever wishes to attain an English style, familiar but not coarse, and elegant but not oftentatious, must give his days and nights. to the volumes of ADDI

SON."

That few, however, are willing to bestow this labour, or anxious to obtain the reward, is fufficiently attefted by the prefent ftate of literary compofition. Yet perhaps it would be wrong to blame writers who, as candidates for public favour, aim at excellencies more in demand than familiarity or fimple elegance, and who feem to be goaded fometimes by criticism, and fometimes by popular opinion, to produce "ambitious ornaments," and to try "hazardous innovations." Since writers of commanding reputation have been multiplied, and the ftructure of the language better understood, ftyle has been regulated by a fashion to which we know not how to place limits. Of late the demand has been confiderable for lofty periods and fplendid imagery, verging fometimes on the excellence of poetry, and fometimes on the oftentation of bombaft. 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 fplendid paffages by the heat of imagination, and are confequently more ambitious to be admired than understood, to be quoted for manner rather than to be useful for

matter.

It would be unjuft, however, to aver that fuch a tafte is universal, although it be gaining more ground than it ought to occupy: we are not without authors who reft their fame on the elegancies of fimplicity, "on a ftyle always agreeable, always

eafy;" and perhaps we fhould acknowledge the number of thofe who have formed themselves on the model of ADDISON to be greater, if unfortunately, when we look for his ftyle, we did not at the fame time look for his wit; and where is that to be found? If his ftyle be separated from his wit, he is not perhaps without equals among his contemporaries, and among his fucceffors; but his humour, in all its qualities, is the diftinctive characteristic of his genius. A few facetie may occafionally be found among his fucceffors, but fuch 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 exprefs the talent of which we are now fpeaking.

As the SPECTATOR, very foon after its being collected into volumes, became one of the "first books by which both fexes are initiated in the elegancies. of knowledge," its increafing influence on the tafte 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 inftruction, who, have not judged it requifite to point out its beauties and detect its blemishes.

Of thefe critics Dr. BLAIR appears to have been

* MOLIERE has been frequently named in the fame rank. with ADDISON. Lord CHESTERFIELD thinks " no man ever had fo much humour as MOLIERE, of which his Mifer, his Jealous Man, and his Bourgeois Gentilhomme are convincing proofs: and French comedy," he adds, " furnishes a multiplicity of inftances befides thefe." Letter 98. Mifcellaneous Works, Vol. II. 4to. p. 284. But there appears an effential difference between the humour of a dramatic writer and that of an effayift. The former enjoys advantages from the conftruction of dramatic compofition, and the latitude it permits, of which the effayift cannot avail himself.

moft anxious, that while ADDISON is prefented 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 ftyle with great minutenefs, and a moft fcrupulous regard to purity and precifion, in four very long lectures on No. 411, 412, 413, and 414 of the SPECTATOR. For this he offers a modeft apology, which his high opinion of ADDISON, as well as the duties of office, rendered quite unneceffary; the fair and impartial labours of criticism are direct teftimonies in favour of the object. And how well ADDISON has stood the teft of this faftidious fcrutiny may appear on this fimple calculation, that out of eighty-feven remarks, of which these lectures confift, thirty-feven are in ftrong recommendation of his ftyle, and of the remainder, fome are fo evidently of a trifling nature, that we may adopt as a conclufion what this eminent critic has given as a prefatory apology: "The beauties of ADDISON are fo many, and the general character of his ftyle is fo elegant and estimable, that the minute imperfections pointed out, are but like thofe fpots in the fun, which may be discovered by the affiftance of art, but which have no effect in obfcuring its luftre*."

However useful verbal and grammatical criticism may be, there seems to be this fatality attending all compofition, that its errors are more eafily difcoverable by the critic than by the author. After all the light thrown upon the beauties and defects of style

* From inattention to the marks which distinguish the different productions of the ESSAYISTS, fome critics have cenfured 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 paffage in queftion occurs in No. 28: and No. 28 was not written by ADDISON,

by the most eminent critics of the laft century, by LOWTH and PRIESTLEY, by KAIMES and CAMPBELL, by BEATTIE and BLAIR, few, if any writers, have attained an unexceptionable ftyle, or have even been able to follow their own canons. Of this Dr. BLAIR himself affords a remarkable inftance. Notwithstanding the long labour he had bestowed on his "Lectures on Rhetoric," the perpetual revifion to which they were fubjected, and all the changes and improvements which could be derived from the author's fagacity, or the affiftance 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 confifted principally of terms and phrafes bordering on vulgar or colloquial language; awkward phrafes; redundancies; fuperlatives 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 fingular; the fubjunctive mood inftead of the indicative; verbs which ought to be in the active or paffive voice employed as neuters; had inftead of would; will for fhall; the paft time for the prefent; of inftead of from; on for in; among for in; never for ever; that for as; inverted fentences; and mixed metaphors*.

Yet with all thefe blemishes the general merit of Dr. BLAIR's lectures is inconteftible, and it will probably be long before they can be laid afide for a work of more indifpenfible neceffity to the ftudent, or more unquestionable authority in matters of tafte.

* See the whole lift, with proofs, in the Critical Review for October, 1783. The article was the production of the late Rev. JOSEPH RORERTSON, of Horncastle, Lincolnshire,