Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: Lecture XXIV — Critical Examination of the Style in a Passage of Dean Swift's Writings
My design in the four preceding lectures, was not merely to appreciate the merit of Mr. Addison’s style, by pointing out the faults and the beauties that are mingled in the writings of that great author. They were not composed with any view to gain the reputation of a critic: but intended for the assistance of such as are desirous of studying the most proper and elegant construction of sentences in the English language. To such, it is hoped, that they may be of advantage; as the proper application of rules respecting style, will always be best learned by means of the illustration which examples afford. I conceive that examples, taken from the writings of an author so justly esteemed, would on that account, not only be more attended to, but would also produce this good effect, of familiarizing those who study composition with the style of a writer, from whom they may, upon the whole, derive great benefit. With the same view, I shall, in this lecture, give one critical exercise more of the same kind, upon the style of an author, of a different character, Dean Swift; repeating the intimation I gave formerly, that such as stand in need of no assistance of this kind, and who, therefore, will naturally consider such minute discussions concerning the propriety of words, and structure of sentences, as beneath their attention, had best pass over what will seem to them a tedious part of the work.
I formerly gave the general character of Dean Swift’s style. He is esteemed one of our most correct writers. His style is of the plain and simple kind; free from all affectation, and all superfluity; perspicuous, manly, and pure. These are its advantages. But we are not to look for much ornament and grace in it.* On the contrary, Dean Swift seems to have slighted and despised the ornaments of language, rather than to have studied them. His arrangement is often loose and negligent. In elegant, musical, and figurative language, he is much inferior to Mr. Addison. His manner of writing carries in it the character of one who rests altogether upon his sense, and aims at no more than giving his meaning in a clear and concise manner.
That part of his writings which I shall now examine, is the beginning of his treatise, entitled, ‘A Proposal for correcting, improving, and ascertaining the English Tongue,’ in a letter addressed to the Earl
* I am glad to find that, in my judgment concerning this author’s composition, I have coincided with the opinion of a very able critic. ‘This easy and safe conveyance of meaning, it was Swift’s desire to attain, and for having attained, he certainly deserves praise, though perhaps, not the highest praise. For purposes merely didactic, when something is to be told that was not known before, it is in the highest degree proper; but against that inattention by which known truths are suffered to be neglected, it makes no provision; it instructs, but does not persuade.’ Johnson’s Lives of the Poets; in Swift.
of Oxford, then Lord High Treasurer. I was led, by the nature of the subject, to choose this treatise; but, in justice to the Dean, I must observe, that, after having examined it, I do not esteem it one of his most correct productions; but am apt to think it has been more hastily composed than some other of them. It bears the title and form of a letter; but it is, however, in truth, a treatise designed for the public; and therefore, in examining it, we cannot proceed upon the indulgence due to an epistolary correspondence. When a man addresses himself to a friend only, it is sufficient if he makes himself fully understood by him; but when an author writes for the public, whether he employ the form of an epistle or no, we are always entitled to expect, that he shall express himself with accuracy and care. Our author begins thus:
‘What I had the honour of mentioning to your Lordship, some time ago, in conversation, was not a new thought, just then started by accident or occasion, but the result of long reflection: and I have been confirmed in my sentiments by the opinion of some very judicious persons with whom I consulted.’
The disposition of circumstances in a sentence, such as serve to limit or to qualify some assertion, or to denote time and place, I formerly showed to be a matter of nicety; and I observed, that it ought to be always held a rule, not to crowd such circumstances together, but rather to intermix them with more capital words, in such different parts of the sentence as can admit them naturally. Here are two circumstances of this kind placed together, which had better have been separated; Sometime ago in conversation—— better thus: What I had the honour, sometime ago, of mentioning to your lordship in conversation— ions not a new thought, proceeds our author, started by accident or occasion: the different meaning of these two words may not at first occur. They have, however, a distinct meaning, and are properly used: for it is one very laudable property of our author’s style, that it is seldom encumbered with superfluous, synonymous words. Started by accident, is, fortuitously, or at random; started by occasion, is by some incident, which at that time gave birth to it. His meaning is, that it was not a new thought which either casually sprung up in his mind, or was suggested to him for the first time, by the train of the discourse: but, as he adds, was the result of long reflection. He proceeds:
‘They all agreed, that nothing would be of greater use towards the improvement of knowledge and politeness, than some effectual method for correcting, enlarging, and ascertaining our language; and they think it a work very possible to be compassed under the protection of a prince, the countenance and encouragement of a ministry, and the care of proper persons chosen for such an undertaking.’
This is an excellent, sentence; clear, and elegant. The words are all simple, well chosen, and expressive; and are arranged in the most proper order. 'It is a harmonious period too, which is a beauty not frequent in our author. The last part of it consists of three members, which gradually rise and swell one above another, without any affected or unsuitable pomp; under the protection of a prince, the countenance and encouragement of a ministry, and the care of proper persons chosen for such an undertaking. We may remark, in the beginning of the sentence, the proper use of the preposition towards —greater use towards the improvement of knowledge and politeness—importing the pointing or tendency of any thing to a certain end; which could not have been so well expressed by the preposition for, commonly employed in place of towards, by authors who are less attentive, than Dean Swift was, to the force of words.
One fault might, perhaps, be found, both with this and the former sentence, considered as introductory ones. We expect, that an introduction is to unfold, clearly and directly, the subject that is to be treated of. In the first sentence, our author has told us, of a thought he mentioned to his Lordship in conversation, which had been the result of long reflection, and concerning which he had consulted judicious persons. But what that thought was, we are never told directly. We gather it indeed from the second sentence, wherein he informs us, in what these judicious persons agreed; namely, that some method for improving the language was both useful and practicable. But this indirect method of opening the subject, would have been very faulty in a regular treatise; though the ease of the epistolary form, which our author here assumes in addressing his patron, may excuse it in the present case.
‘ I was glad to find your Lordship’s answer in so different a style from what hath commonly been made use of, on the like occasions, for some years past; that all such thoughts must be deferred to a time of peace; a topic which some have carried so far, that they would not have us, by any means, think of preserving our civil and religious constitution, because we are engaged in a war abroad.’
This sentence also is clear and elegant; only there is one inaccuracy, when he speaks of his Lordship’s answer being in so different a style from what had formerly been used. His answer to what? or to whom? For from any thing going before, it does not appear that any application or address had been made to his Lordship by those persons, whose opinion was mentioned in the preceding sentence; and to whom the answer, here spoken of, naturally refers. There is a little indistinctness, as I before observed, in our author’s manner of introducing his subject here. We may observe too that the phrase, glad to find your answer in so different a style, though abundantly suited to the language of conversation, or of a familiar letter, yet, in regular composition, requires an additional word — glad to find your answer run in so different a style.
‘It will be among the distinguishing marks of your ministry, my Lord, that you have a genius above all such regards, and that no reasonable proposals, for the honour, the advantage, or ornament of your country, however foreign to your immediate office, was ever neglected by you.’
The phrase, a genius above all such regards, both seems somewhat harsh, and does not clearly express what the author means, namely, the confined views of those who neglected every thing that belonged to the arts of peace in the time of war. Except this expression, there is nothing that can be subject to the least reprehension in this sentence, nor in all that follows, to the end of the paragraph.
‘I confess, the merit of this candour and condescension is very much lessened, because your Lordship hardly leaves us room to offer our good wishes; removing all our difficulties, and supplying our wants, faster than the most visionary projector can adjust his schemes. And therefore, my Lord, the design of this paper is not so much to offer you ways and means, as to complain of a grievance, the redressing of which is to be your own work, as much as that of paying the nation’s debts, or opening a trade into the South sea; and, though not of such immediate benefit as either of these, or any other of your glorious actions, yet, perhaps, in future ages, not less to your honour.’
The compliments which the Dean here pays to his patron, are very high and strained; and show that, with all his surliness, he was as capable, on some occasions, of making his court to a great man by flattery, as other writers. However, with respect to the style, which is the sole object of our present consideration, every thing here, as far as appears to me, is faultless. In these sentences, and, indeed, throughout this paragraph, in general, which we have now ended, our author’s style appears to great advantage. We see that ease and simplicity, that correctness and distinctness, which particularly characterize it. It is very remarkable, how few Latinised words Dean Swift employs. No writer, in our language, is so purely English as he is, or borrows so little assistance from words of foreign derivation. From none can we take a better model of the choice and proper significancy of words. It is remarkable, in the sentences we have now before us, how plain all the expressions are, and yet, at the same time, how significant; and, in the midst of that high strain of compliment into which he rises, how little there is of pomp, or glare of expression. How very few writers can preserve this manly temperance of style; or would think a compliment of this nature supported with sufficient dignity, unless they had embellished it with some of those high-sounding words, whose chief effect is no other than to give their language a stiff and forced appearance?
‘My Lord, I do here, in the name of all the learned and polite persons of the nation, complain to your Lordship, as first minister, that our language is extremely imperfect; that its daily improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily corruptions; that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied abuses and absurdities; and that, in many instances, it offends against every part of grammar.’
The turn of this sentence is extremely elegant. He had spoken before of a grievance for which he sought redress, and he carries on the allusion, by entering here directly on his subject, in the style of a public representation presented to the minister of state. One imperfection, however, there is in this sentence, which luckily for our purpose, serves to illustrate a rule before given concerning the position of adverbs, so as to avoid ambiguity. It is in the middle of the sentence: that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied abuses and absurdities. Now, concerning the import of this adverb, chiefly, I ask, whether it signifies that these pretenders to polish the language, have been the chief persons who have multiplied its abuses, in distinction from others, or, that the chief thing which these pretenders have done, is to multiply the abuses of our language in opposition to their doing any thing to refine it? These two meanings are really different; and yet, by the position which the word chiefly has in the sentence, we are left at a loss in which to understand it. The construction would lead us rather to the latter sense: that the chief thing which these pretenders have done, is to multiply the abuses of our language. But it is more than probable, that the former sense was what the Dean intended, as it carries more of his usual satirical edge; that the pretended refiners of our language were, in fact, its chief corrupters; on which supposition, his words ought to have run thus: that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have been the chief persons to multiply its abuses and absurdities: which would have rendered the sense perfectly clear.
Perhaps, too, there might be ground for observing farther upon this sentence, that as language is the object with which it sets out: that our language is extremely imperfect: and as there follows an enumeration concerning language, in three particulars, it had been better if language had been kept the ruling word, or the nominative to every verb, without changing the construction: by making improvements the ruling word, as is done in the second member of the enumeration, and then, in the third, returning again to the former word, language.
me pretenders to polish — an h
fends — I am persuade
been more neat and happy, and its unity more complete, if the members of it had been arranged thus: ‘ That our language is extremely imperfect: that its daily improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily corruptions: that, in many instances, it offends against every part of grammar: and that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have been the chief persons to multiply its abuses and absurdities.’ This degree of attention seemed proper to be bestowed on such a sentence as this, in order to show how it might have been conducted after the most perfect manner. Our author, after having said,
‘Lest your Lordship should think my censure too severe, I shall take leave to be more particular,’ proceeds in the following paragraph:
• I believe your Lordship will azree with me. in uoe reason — ; v our language is less refined than those of Italy. Spain, or France. ‘
I am sorry to say, that now we shall have less to commend in our author. For the whole of this paragraph, which we are entering, is in truth, perplexed and inaccurate. Even in the first sentence, we may discern an inaccuracy — • ay o: r lanzri see a lest rej ' those of Itc - nr Fr:
those, in the plural, when the antecedent to which it refers is in the singular, our language. Instances of this kind may sometimes be found in English authors; but they sound harsh to the ear, and are certainly contrary to the purity of grammar. By a very little attention, this inaccuracy might have been remedied; and the sentence have been made to run much better in this way; ‘why our language is less refined than the Italian, Spanish, or French.’
‘It is plain, that the Latin tongue, in its purity, was never in this island; towards the conquest of which, few or no attempts were made till the time of Claudius; neither was that language ever so vulgar in Britain, as it is known to have been in Gaul and Spain.’
To say that the Latin tongue, in its purity, was never in this island, is very careless style; it ought to have been, was never spoken in this island. In the progress of the sentence, he means to give a reason why the Latin was never spoken in its purity amongst us, because our island was not conquered by the Romans till after the purity of their tongue began to decline. But this reason ought to have come out more clearly. This might easily have been done, and the relation of the several parts of the sentence to each other much better pointed out by means of a small variation; thus: ‘It is plain that the Latin tongue in its purity was never spoken in this island, as few or no attempts towards the conquest of it were made till the time of Claudius.’ He adds, neither was that language ever so vulgar in Britain. Vulgar was one of the worst words he could have chosen for expressing what he means here: namely, that the Latin tongue was at no time so general, or so much in common use, in Britain, as it is known to have been in Gaul and Spain. Vulgar, when applied to language, commonly signifies impure, or debased language, such as is spoken by the low people, which is quite opposite to the author’s sense here; for, instead of meaning to say, that the Latin spoken in Britain was not so debased, as what was spoken in Gaul and Spain; he means just the contrary, and had been telling us, that we never were acquainted with the Latin at all, till its purity began to be corrupted.
‘Further, we find that the Roman legions here, were at length all recalled to help their country against the Goths and other barbarous invaders.’
The chief scope of this sentence is, to give a reason why the Latin tongue did not strike any deep root in this island, on account of the short continuance of the Romans in it. He goes on:
‘Meantime the Britons, left to shift for themselves, and daily harassed with inroads from the Picts, were forced to call in the Saxons for their defence; who, consequently, reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power, driving the Britons into the most remote and mountainous parts, and the rest of the country, in customs, religion, and language, became wholly Saxon.’
This is a very exceptionable sentence. First, the phrase left to shift for themselves, is rather a low phrase, and too much in the familiar style to be proper in a grave treatise. Next as the sentence advances — forced to call in the Saxons for their defence, who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power. What is the meaning of consequently here? If it means ‘afterwards,’
or, in progress of time,’ this, certainly is not a sense in which consequently is often taken; and therefore the expression is chargeable with obscurity. The adverb, consequently, in its most common acceptation, denotes one thing following from another, as an effect from a cause. If he uses it in this sense, and means that the Britons being subdued by the Saxons, was a necessary consequence of their having called in these Saxons to their assistance, this consequence is drawn too abruptly, and needed more explanation. For though it has often happened, that nations have been subdued by their own auxiliaries, yet this is not a consequence of such a nature that it can be assumed, as it seems here to be done, for a first and self-evident principle. But further, what shall we say to this phrase, reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power? we say, reduce to rule, reduce to practice; we can say, that one nation reduces another to subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as far as I know, say, reduce under their power. Reduce to their power is so harsh and uncommon an expression, that, though Dean Swift’s authority in language be very great, yet in the use of this phrase, I am of opinion that it would not be safe to follow his example.
Besides these particular inaccuracies, this sentence is chargeable with want of unity in the composition of the whole. The persons and the scene are too often changed upon us. First, the Britons are mentioned, who are harassed by inroads from the Picts; next, the Saxons appear, who subdue the greatest part of the island, and drive the Britons into the mountains; and, lastly, the rest of the country is introduced, and a description given of the change made upon it. All this forms a group of various objects, presented in such quick succession, that the mind finds it difficult to comprehend them under one view. Accordingly, it is quoted in the Elements of Criticism, as an instance of a sentence rendered faulty by the breach of unity.
‘This I take to be the reason why there are more Latin words remaining in the British than the old Saxon; which, excepting some few variations in the orthography, is the same in most original words with our present English, as well as with the German and other northern dialects.’
This sentence is faulty, somewhat in the same manner with the last. It is loose in the connexion of its parts; and besides this, it is also too loosely connected with the preceding sentence. What he had there said, concerning the Saxons expelling the Britons, and changing the customs, the religion, and the language of the country, is a clear and good reason for our present language being Saxon rather than British. This is the inference which we would naturally expect him to draw from the premises just before laid down: but when he tells us, that this is the reason why there are more Latin words remaining in the British tongue than in the old Saxon, we are presently at a stand. No reason for this inference appears. If it can be gathered at all from the foregoing deduction, it is gathered only imperfectly. For, as he had told us, that the Britons had some connexion with the Romans, he should have also told us, in order to make out his inference, that the Saxons never had any. The truth is, the whole of this paragraph concerning the influence of the Latin tongue upon ours, is careless, perplexed, and obscure. His argument required to have been more fully unfolded, in order to make it be distinctly apprehended, and to give it its due force. In the next paragraph, he proceeds to discourse concerning the influence of the French tongue upon our language. The style becomes more clear, though not remarkable for great beauty or elegance.
‘Edward the Confessor having lived long in France, appears to be the first who introduced any mixture of the French tongue with the Saxon; the court affecting what the Prince was fond of, and others taking it up for a fashion, as it is now with us. William the Conqueror proceeded much further, bringing over with him vast numbers of that nation, scattering them in every monastery, giving them great quantities of land, directing all pleadings to be in that language, and endeavouring to make it universal in the kingdom.’
On these two sentences, I have nothing of moment to observe. The sense is brought out clearly, and in simple, unaffected language.
‘This, at least, is the opinion generally received; but your Lordship hath fully convinced me, that the French tongue made yet a greater progress here under Harry the Second, who had large territories on that continent both from his father and his wife; made frequent journeys and expeditions thither; and was always attended with a number of his countrymen, retainers at court.’
In the beginning of this sentence, our author states an opposition between an opinion generally received, and that of his Lordship; and in compliment to his patron, he tells us, that his Lordship had convinced him of somewhat that differed from the general opinion. Thus one must naturally understand his words: This, at least, is the opinion generally received; but your Lordship hath fully convinced me. — Now here there must be an inaccuracy of expression. For on examining what went before, there appears no sort of opposition betwixt the generally received opinion, and that of the author’s patron. The general opinion was, that William the Conqueror had proceeded much farther than Edward the Confessor, in propagating the French language, and had endeavoured to make it universal. Lord Oxford’s opinion was, that the French tongue had gone on to make a yet greater progress under Harry the Second, than it had done under his predecessor William: which two opinions are as entirely consistent with each other, as any can be; and therefore the opposition here affected to be stated between them, by the adversative particle but, was improper and groundless.
‘For some centuries after, there was a constant intercourse between France and England by the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made; so that our language, between two and three hundred years ago, seems to have had a greater mixture with French than at present; many words having been afterwards rejected, and some since the days of Spenser; although we have still retained not a few, which have been long antiquated in France.’
This is a sentence too long and intricate, and liable to the same objection that was made to a former one, of the want of unity. It consists of four members, each divided from the subsequent by a semicolon. In going along, we naturally expect the sentence is to end at the second of these, or at farthest, at the third: when, to our surprise, a new member of the period makes its appearance, and fatigues our attention in joining all the parts together. Such a structure of a sentence is always the mark of careless writing. In the first member of the sentence, a constant intercourse between France and England, by the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made, the construction is not sufficiently filled up. In place of intercourse by the dominions we possessed, it should have been — by reason of the dominions we possessed — or — occasioned by the dominions we possessed— and in place of— the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made, the regular style is —the dominions which we possessed there and the conquests which we made. The relative pronoun which, is, indeed, in phrases of this kind, sometimes omitted. But, when it is omitted the style becomes elliptic; and though in conversation, or in the very light and easy kinds of writing, such elliptic style may not be improper, yet in grave and regular writing, it is better to fill up the construction, and insert the relative pronoun. After having said, I could produce several instances of both kinds, if it were of any use or entertainment, our author begins the next paragraph thus:
‘To examine into the several circumstances by which the language of a country may be altered, would force me to enter into a wide field.’
There is nothing remarkable in this sentence, unless that here occurs the first instance of a metaphor since the beginning of this treatise; entering into a wide field, being put for beginning an extensive subject. Few writers deal less in figurative language than Swift. I before observed, that he appears to despise ornaments of this kind; and though this renders his style somewhat dry on serious subjects, yet his plainness and simplicity, I must not forbear to remind my readers, is far preferable to an ostentatious and affected parade of ornament.
‘I shall only observe, that the Latin, the French, and the English, seem to have undergone the same fortune. The first from the days of Romulus to those of Julius Caesar, suffered perpetual changes; we meet in those authors who occasionally speak on that subject, as well as from certain fragments of old laws, it is manifest that the Latin, three hundred years before Tully, was as unintelligible in his time, as the French and English of the same period are now; and these two have changed as much since William the Conqueror (which is but little less than 700 years) as the Latin appears to have done in the like term.’
The Dean plainly appears to be writing negligently here. This sentence is one of that involved and intricate kind, of which some instances have occurred before; but none worse than this. It requires a very distinct head to comprehend the whole meaning of the period at first reading. In one part of it we find extreme carelessness of expression. He says, It is manifest that the Latin, 300 years before Tully, was as unintelligible in his time, as the English and French of the same period are now. By the English and French of the same period must naturally be understood, the English and French that were spoken three hundred years before Tully. This is the only grammatical meaning his words will bear; and yet assuredly what he means, and what it would have been easy for him to have expressed with more precision, is, the English and French that were spoken 300 years ago; or at a period equally distant from our age as the old Latin, which he had mentioned, was from the age of Tully. But when an author writes hastily, and does not review with proper care what he has written, many such inaccuracies will be apt to creep into his style.
‘Whether our language or the French will decline as fast as the Roman did, is a question that would perhaps admit more debate than it is worth. There were many reasons for the corruptions of the last; as the change of their government to a tyranny, which ruined the study of eloquence, there being no further use or encouragement for popular orators: their giving not only the freedom of the city, but capacity for employments, to several towns in Gaul, Spain, and Germany, and other distant parts, as far as Asia, which brought a great number of foreign pretenders to Rome; the slavish disposition of the senate and people, by which the wit and eloquence of the age were wholly turned into panegyric, the most barren of all subjects; the great corruption of manners, and introduction of foreign luxury, with foreign terms to express it, with several others that might be assigned; not to mention the invasions from the Goths and Vandals, which are too obvious to insist on.’
In the enumeration here made of the causes contributing towards the corruption of the Roman language, there are many inaccuracies — the change of their government to a tyranny: Of whose government? He had indeed been speaking of the Roman language, and therefore we guess at his meaning; but his style is ungrammatical; for he had not mentioned the Romans themselves; and therefore, when he says their government, there is no antecedent in the sentence to which the pronoun their can refer with any propriety. Giving the capacity for employments to several towns in Gaul, is a questionable expression. For though towns are sometimes put for the people who inhabit them, yet to give a town the capacity for employments, sounds harsh and uncouth. The wit and eloquence of the age wholly turned into panegyric, is a phrase which does not well express the meaning. Neither wit nor eloquence can be turned into panegyric; but they may be turned towards panegyric, or, employed in panegyric, which was the sense the author had in view.
The conclusion of the enumeration is visibly incorrect- — The great corruption of manners, and introduction of foreign luxury with foreign terms to express it, with several others that might be assigned— He means, with several other reasons. The word reasons, had indeed been mentioned before; but as it stands, at the distance of thirteen lines backward, the repetition of it here became indispensable in order to avoid ambiguity. Not to mention, he adds, the invasions from the Goths and Vandals, which are, too obvious to insist on. One would imagine him to mean, that the invasions from the Goths and Vandals, are historical facts too well known and obvious to be insisted on. But he means quite a different thing, though he has not taken the proper method of expressing it, through his haste, probably, to finish the paragraph; namely, that these invasions from the Goths and Vandals, were causes of the corruption of the Roman language too obvious to be insisted on.
I shall not pursue this criticism any farther. I have been obliged to point out many inaccuracies in the passage which we have considered. But, in order that my observations may not be construed as meant to depreciate the style or the writings of Dean Swift below their just value, there are two remarks which I judge it necessary to make before concluding this lecture. One is, that it were unfair to estimate an author’s style on the whole, by some passage in his writings, which chances to be composed in a careless manner. This is the case with respect to this treatise, which has much the appearance of a hasty production: though, as I before observed, it was by no means on that account that I pitched upon it for the subject of this exercise. But after having examined it, I am sensible that in many other of his writings, the Dean is more accurate.
My other observation, which is equally applicable to Dean Swift and Mr. Addison, is, that there may be writers much freer from such inaccuracies, as I have had occasion to point out in these two, whose style, however, upon the whole, may not have half their merit. Refinement in language has, of late years, begun to be much attended to. In several modern productions of very small value, I should find it difficult to point out many errors in language. The words might, probably, be all proper words, correctly and clearly arranged; and the turn of the sentence sonorous and musical; whilst yet the style, upon the whole, might deserve no praise. The fault often lies in what may be called the general cast, or complexion of the style; which a person of a good taste discerns to be vicious; to be feeble, for instance, and diffuse; flimsy or affected; petulant or ostentatious; though the faults cannot be so easily pointed out and particularized, as when they lie in some erroneous or negligent construction of a sentence. Whereas such writers as Addison and Swift, carry always those general characters of good style, which in the midst of their occasional negligences, every person of good taste must discern and approve. We see their faults overbalanced by higher beauties. We see a writer of sense and reflection expressing his sentiments without affectation, attentive to thoughts as well as to words; and, in the main current of his language, elegant and beautiful; and, therefore, the only proper use to be made of the blemishes which occur in the writings of such authors, is to point out to those who apply themselves to the study of composition, some of the rules which they ought to observe for avoiding such errors; and to render them sensible of the necessity of strict attention to language and to style. Let them imitate the ease and simplicity of those great authors; let them study to be always natural, and, as far as they can, always correct in their expression.