Page images
PDF
EPUB

429

LECTURE XXII.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE STYLE IN NNo413 OF THE SPECTATOR.

THOUGH in yesterday's Paper we considered how every thing that is great, new, or beautiful is apt to affect the imagination with pleasure, we must own, that it is impossible for us to assign the necessary cause of this pleasure, because we know neither the nature of an idea nor the substance of a human soul, which might help us to discover the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other; and therefore, for want of such a light, all that we can do in speculations of this kind is to reflect on those operations of the soul that are most agreeable, and to range under their proper heads what is pleasing or displeasing to the mind, without being able to trace out the several necessary and efficient causes from whence the pleasure or displeasure arises.

This sentence, considered as an introductory one, must be acknowledged to be very faulty. An introductory sentence should never contain any thing that can in any degree fatigue or puzzle the reader. When an author is entering on a new branch of his subject, informing us of what he has done, and what he purposes farther to do, we naturally expect that he should express himself in the simplest and most

perspicuous manner possible. But the sentence now before us is crowded and indistinct; containing three separate propositions, which, as I shall afterwards shew, required separate sentences to unfold them. Mr. Addison's chief excellency as a writer lay in describing and painting. There he is great; but in methodizing and reasoning he is not so eminent. As, besides the general fault of prolixity and indistinctness, this sentence contains several inaccuracies, I shall be obliged to enter into a minute discussion of its structure and parts; a discussion which to many readers will appear tedious, and which therefore they will naturally pass over; but which, to those who are studying composition, I hope may prove of some benefit.

Though in yesterday's Paper we considered. The import of though is notwithstanding that. When it appears in the beginning of a sentence, its relative generally is yet: and it is employed to warn us, after we have been informed of some truth, that we are not to infer from it some other thing which we might perhaps have expected to follow: as, " Though " virtue be the only road to happiness, yet it does not " permit the unlimited gratification of our desires." Now it is plain, that there was no such opposition between the subject of yesterday's Paper, and what the Author is now going to say, between his asserting a fact, and his not being able to assign the cause of that fact, has rendered the use of this adversative particle though either necessary or proper in the introduction. - We considered how every thing that is great, new, or beautiful, is apt to affect the imagination with pleasure. The adverb how signifies, either the means by which, or the manner in which, something is done. But, in truth, neither one nor the other of these had been considered by our author. He had illustrated the fact alone, that they do affect the imagination with pleasure; and with respect to the quomodo, or the how, he is so far from having con sidered it, that he is just now going to shew that it cannot be explained, and that we must rest contented with the knowledge of the fact alone, and of its purpose or final cause. - We must own that it is impossible for us to assign the necessary cause (he means, what is more commonly called the efficient cause) of this pleasure, because we know neither the nature of an idea, nor the substance of a human soul. - The substance of a human soul is certainly a very uncouth expression, and there appears no reason why he should have varied from the word nature, which would have been equally applicable to idea and to soul.

Which might help us, our Author proceeds, to discover the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other. -The which, at the beginning of this member of the period, is surely ungrammatical, as it is a relative, without any antecedent in all the sentence. It refers, by the construction, to the nature of an idea, or the substance of a human soul; but this is by no means the reference which the author intended. His meaning is, that our knowing the nature of an idea, and the substance of a human soul, might help us to discover the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other: and therefore the syntax absolutely required the word knowledge to have been inserted as the antecedent to which. I have before remarked, and the remark deserves to be repeated, that nothing is a more certain sign of careless composition than to make such relatives as which not refer to any precise expression, but carry a loose and vague relation to the general strain of what had gone before. When our sentences run into this form, we may be assured there is something in the construction of them that requires alteration. The phrase of discovering the conformity or disagreeableness of the one to the other is likewise exceptionable; for disagreeableness neither forms a proper contrast to the other word conformity, nor expresses what the Author meant here (as far as any meaning can be gathered from his words), that is, a certain unsuitableness or want of conformity to the nature of the soul. To say the truth, this member of the sentence had much better have been omitted altogether. The conformity or disagreeableness of an idea to the substance of a human soul, is a phrase which conveys to the mind no distinct nor intelligible conception whatever. The Author had before given a sufficient reason for his not assigning the efficient cause of those pleasures of the imagination, because we neither know the nature of our own ideas nor of the soul: and this farther discussion about the conformity or disagreeableness of the nature of the one, to the substance of the other, affords no clear nor useful illustration.

And therefore, the sentence goes on, for want of such a light, all that we can do in speculations of this kind, is to reflect on those operations of the soul that are most agreeable, and to range under their proper heads what is pleasing or displeasing to the mind. The two expressions in the beginning of this member, therefore, and for want of such a light, evidently refer to the same thing, and are quite synonymous. One or other of them, therefore, had better

have been omitted. Instead of to range under their proper heads, the language would have been smoother, if their had been left out. Without being able to trace out the several necessary and efficient causes from whence the pleasure or displeasure arises. The expression, from whence, though seemingly justified by very frequent usage, is taxed by Dr. Johnson as a vicious mode of speech; seeing whence alone has all the power of from whence, which therefore appears an unnecessary reduplication. I am inclined to think, that the whole of this last member of the sentence had better have been dropped. The period might have closed with full propriety, at the words, pleasing or displeasing to the mind. All that follows, suggests no idea that had not been fully conveyed in the preceding part of the sentence. It is a mere expletive adjection which might be omitted, not only without injury to the meaning, but to the great relief of a sentence already labouring under the multitude of words.

Having now finished the analysis of this long sentence, I am inclined to be of opinion, that if, on any occasion, we can adventure to alter Mr. Addison's Style, it may be done to advantage here, by breaking down this period in the following manner: "In "yesterday's Paper, we have shewn that every thing " which is great, new, or beautiful, is apt to affect "the imagination with pleasure. We must own that "it is impossible for us to assign the efficient cause " of this pleasure, because we know not the nature " either of an idea, or of the human soul. All that " we can do, therefore, in speculations of this kind, " is to reflect on the operations of the soul which are

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »