Simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more ornament and beauty. This Simplicity, which is what we are now to confider, ftands oppofed, not to ornament, but to affectation of ornament, or appearance of labour about our Style; and it is a difinguishing excellency in writing. Blair. 22. SIMPLICITY appears eafy. A writer of Simplicty expreffes himself in fuch a manner that every one thinks he could have written in the fame way; Horace describes it, it ut fibi quivis Speret idem, fudet multum, fruftraque laboret Aufus idem There are no marks of art in his expreffion; it feems the very language of nature, you fee, in the Style, not the writer and his labour, but the man, in his own natural character. He may be rich in his expreflion; he may be full of figures, and of fancy; but thefe Bow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has ftudied it, but because it is the manner of expreffion moft natural to him. A certain egree of negligence, alfo, is not inconfiftent with this character of ftyle, and even not ungraceful to it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: "Habeat ille," fays Cielo, (Orat. No. 77.) " molle quiddam, et quod indicet, non ingratam negligentiam hominis, de re magis quàm de verbo labo Lewyfam well known tales fuch fictions would As all might hope to imitate with ease;" FRANCIS. " rantis t." This is the great advantage of Simplicity of Style, that, like fimplicity of manners, it fhews us a man's fentiments and turn of mind laid open without dif guife. More ftudied and artificial manners of writing, however beautiful, have always this difadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the splendour of drefs, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal thofe peculiarities which diftinguish one man from another. But reading an author of Simplicity, is like converfing with a perfon of diftinction at home, and with cafe, where we find natural manners, and a marked character. Blair. 23. On Naïveté. The highest degree of this Simplicity as expreffed by a French term to which we have none that fully anfwers in our language, Naïveté. It is not eafy to give a precife idea of the import of this word. It always expreffes a difcovery of character. I believe the beft account of it is given by a French critic, M. Marmontel, who explains it thus: That fort of amiable ingenuity, or undifguifed opennefs, which feems to give us fome degree of fuperiority over the perfon who thews it; a certain infantine Simplicity, which we love in our hearts, but which dif plays fome features of the character that we think we could have art enough to hide; and which, therefore, always leads us to fmile at the perfon who difcovers this character. La Fontaine, in his Fables, is given as the great example of fuch Naïveté. $24 Ancients eminent for Simplicity. With respect to Simplicity in general, we may remark, that the ancient original writers are always the most eminent for it. This happens from a plain reason, that they wrote from the dictates of natural genius, and were § 25. Simplicity the Characteristic of TILLOTSON's Style. Simplicity is the great beauty of Arch not formed upon the labours and writings of bifop Tillotson's manner. Tillotson has others, which is always in hazard of pro-long been admired as an eloquent writer, and ducing affectation. Hence, among the Greek a model for preaching. But his eloquence, if writers, we have more models of a beauwe can call it fuch, has been often miftiful Simplicity than among the Romans. understood. For if we include in the idea of Homer, Hefiod, Anacreon, Theocritus, Heeloquence,vehemence and strength,picturefque rodotus, and Xenophon, are all diftinguished defeription, glowing figures, or correct arfor it. Among the Romans, alfo, we have rangement of fentences, in all these parts fome writers of this character; particularly of oratory the Archbishop is exceedingly deTerence, Lucretius, Phædrus, and Julius Cæ- ficient. His Style is always pure, indeed, far. The following paffage of Terence's An- and perfpicuous, but carclefs and remifs, too dria, is a beautiful inftance of Simplicity of often fecble and languid; little beauty in the manner in defcription: construction of his fentences, which are frequently fuffered to drag unharmoniously; feldom any attempt towards ftrength or fublimity. But, notwithstanding thefe defects. fuch a conftant vein of good fenfe and piety runs through his works, fuch an carneft and ferious manner, and fo much useful inftruc -Funus interim Procedit; fequimur, ad fepulchrum venimus; Benè diflimulatum amorem, & celatum indicat; Tum illa, ut confuetum facilè amorem cerneres, ACT. I. Sc. I. Meanwhile the funeral proceeds; we follow ; Come to the fepulchre: the body's plac'd "Upon the pile; lamented; whereupon This fifter I was fpeaking of, all wild, Ran to the flames with peril of her life. "His well-diffembled and long-hidden love; "Runs up, and takes her round the waift, << and cries, "Oh! my Glycerium! what is it you do? "Why, why endeavour to deftroy yourself? "Then the, in fuch a manner that you thence "Might easily perceive their long, long love, "Threw herfelf back into his arms, and wept. "O! how familiarly'!'! COLMAN. tion, conveyed in a Style fo pure, natural, and unaffected, as will justly recommend him to high regard, as long as the English language remains; not, indeed, as a model of the higheft eloquence, but as a fimple and amiable writer, whofe manneris ftrongly expreffive of great goodness and worth. I obferved before, that Simplicity of manner may be confiftent with fome degree of negligence in Style; and it is only the beauty of that Simplicity which makes the negligence of fuch writers feem graceful. But, as appears in the Archbihop, negligence may fometimes be carried fo far as to impair the beauty of Simplicity; and make it border on a flat and languid manner. Blair. § 27. Simplicity of Mr. ADDISON's Style. Of the latter of thefe, the higheft, moft correct, and ornamental degree of the fimple manner, Mr. Addifon is, beyond doubt, in the English language the moft perfect example: and therefore, though not without fome faults, he is, on the whole, the fafeft model for imitation, and the freeft from confiderable de fects, which the language affords. Perfpicuous and pure he is in the highest degree; his precifion, indeed, not very great; ye nearly as great as the fubjects which he treats of require the conftruction of the fentences eafy, agreeable, and commonly very mufical; carrying a character of fmoothnefs more than of ftrength. In figurative language he is rich, particularly in fimilies and metaphors § 26. Simplicity of Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE's which are fo employed as to render his Style Style. Sir William Temple is another remarkable writer in the Style of Simplicity. In point ef ornament and correctnefs, he rifes a degree above Tillotfon; though for correctnefs, he is not in the highest rank. All is eafy and flowing in him; he is exceedingly Harmonious; fmoothnefs, and what may be called amenity, are the diftinguishing charafters of his manner; relaxing fometimes, fuch a manner will naturally do, into a prolix and remifs Style. No writer whatever has ftamped upon his Style a more lively impreffion of his own character: in reading his works, we feemt engaged in converfation with him; we become thoroughly acquainted with him, not merely as an author, but as a man; and contract a friendship for him. He may be claffed as standing in the middle, becen a negligent Simplicity, and the higheft degree of Ornament which this character of Style achnits. Ibid. fplendid without being gaudy. There is not the leaft affectation in his manner; we fee no marks of labour; nothing forced or conftrained; but great elegance joined with great cafe and fimplicity. He is, in particular, diftinguished by a character of modefty and of politeness, which appears in all his writings.! No author has a more popular and infinuating manner; and the great regard which he every where fhews for virtue and religion, recommends him highly. If he fails in any thing, it is in want of ftrength and precifion, which renders his manner, though perfectly fuited to fuch effays as he writes in the Spectator, not altogether a proper model for any of the higher and more elaborate kinds of compofition. Though the public have ever done much juftice to his merit, yet the nature of his merit has not always been seen in its true light: for, though his poetry be elegant, he certainly bears a higher rank among the profe writers than he is entitled to among G 3 the poets; poets; and, in profe, his humour is of a much higher and more original ftrain than his philofophy. The character of Sir Roger de Coverley difcovers more genius than the critique on Milton. Blair. fiderable merit, doubtlefs, he has... His works might be read with profit for the moral philofophy which they contain, had he not filled them with fo many oblique and invidious in finuations against the Chriftian Religion thrown out, too, with so much spleen and § 28. Simplicity of Style never wearies. fatire, as to do no honour to his memory, either Such authors as thofe, whose characters I as an author or a man. His language has have been giving, one never tires of reading many beauties. It is firm, and fupported in There is nothing in their manner that strains an uncommon degree: it is rich and musical. or fatigues our thoughts: we are pleafed, No English author, as I formerly fhewed, has without being dazzled by their luftre. So attended fo much to the regular conftruction powerful is the charm of Simplicity in an auof his fentences, both with respect to pro thor of real genius, that it atones for many priety, and with respect to cadence. All this defects, and reconciles us to many a carclefs gives fo much elegance and pomp to his lan expreffion. Hence, in all the most excellent guage, that there is no wonder it should have authors, both in profe and verfe, the fimple been fometimes highly admired. It is greatly and natural manner may be always remark-hurt, however, by perpetual ftiffness and af ed; although other beauties being predominant, this form not their peculiar and diftinguishing character. Thus Milton is fimple in the midst of all his grandeur; and Demofthenes in the midst of all his vehemence. To grave and folemn writings, Simplicity of manner adds the more venerable air. Ac cordingly, this has often been remarked as the prevailing character throughout all the facred Scriptures: and indeed no other character of Style was fo much fuited to the dignity of inspiration. Ibid. 29. Lord SHAFTESBURY deficient in Simplicity of Style. Of authors who, notwithstanding many excellencies, have rendered their Style much lefs beautiful by want of Simplicity, I cannot give a more remarkable example than Lord Shaftesbury. This is an author on whom I have made obfervations feveral times before; and fhall now take leave of him, with giving his general character under this head. Con fectation. This is its capital fault. His lordship can exprefs nothing with Simplicity. He feems to have confidered it as vulgar, and beneath the dignity of a man of quality, to fpeak like other men. Hence he is ever in bufkins; full of circumlocutions and artificial elegance. In every sentence we fee the marks of labour and art; nothing of that cafe which expreffes a fentiment coming natural and warm from the heart. Of figures and ornament of every kind, he is exceed, ingly fond; fometimes happy in them; but his fondness for them is too visible; and having once laid hold of fome metaphor or allufion that pleafed him, he knows not how to part with it. What is moft wonderful, he was a professed admirer of Simplicity; is always extolling it in the ancients, and cen furing the moderns for want of it; though he departs from it himself as far as any ont modern whatever, Lord Shaftesbury poffeffed delicacy and refinement of tafte, to a degree that we may call exceffive and fickly; but he had He had little warmth of paffion; few strong or obferve, that it is very poffible for an author vigorous feelings; and the coldness of his to write fimply, and yet not beautifully. One character led him to that artificial and stately may be free from affectation, and not have manner which appears in his writings. He merit. The beautiful Simplicity fuppofes an was fonder of nothing than of wit and rail-author to poffefs real genius; to write with ary; but he is far from being happy in it. folidity, purity, and liveliness of imaginaattempts it often, but always aukwardly; tion. In this cafe, the fimplicity or unaf he is fiff, even in his pleafantry; and laughs fectedness of his manner is the crowning or in form, like an author, and not like a man".nament; it heightens every other beauty; it From the account which I have given of is the drefs of nature, without which all beau Lord Shaftesbury's manner, it may easily be ties are imperfect. But if mere unaffectedimagined, that he would mislead many who nefs were fufficient to conftiture the beauty of blindly admired him. Nothing is more dan- Style, weak, trifling, and dull writers might erous to the tribe of imitators, than an au- often lay claim to this beauty. And acthor who, with many impofing beauties, has cordingly we frequently meet with pretended alfo forme very confiderable blemishes. This critics, who extol the dulleft writers on acis fully exemplified in Mt. Black wall of Aber- count of what they call the "Chafte Simplideen, the author of the Life of Homer, the city of their manner;" which, in truth, is Letters on Mythology, aud the Court of Au- no other than the absence of every ornament, fingenuity alfo; but infected with an ex-nation. We must distinguish, therefore, bethat parade of language which diftinguishes genius, and which is perfectly compatible avagant love of an artificial Style, and of tween that Simplicity which accompanies true the Shaftesburean manner. Having now faid fo much to recommend that which is no other than a carelefs and flowith every proper ornament of Style; and Simplicity, or the cafy and natural manner of venly manner. Indeed the diftinction is ea writing, and having pointed out the defects of fily made from the effect produced. The one an oppofite manner; in order to prevent mil-never fails to intereft the reader; the other is mentioned, that the first edition of his Enquiry | It may, perhaps, be not unworthy of being Blair. § 30. On the Vehement STYLE. I proceed to mention one other manner or into Virtue was published furreptitiously, I be- character of Style, different from any that lieve, in a feparate form, in the year 1699; and have yet fpoken of; which may be diftinis fometimes to be met with; by comparing guifhed by the name of Vehement. This which with the corrected edition of the fame reatife, as it now ftands among his works, we fee always implies. ftrength; and is not, by any e of the most curious and useful examples, that means, inconfiftent with Simplicity: but, in Iknow, of what is called Lima Labor; the art of its predominant character, is diftinguishable polishing language, breaking long fentences, and from either the ftrong or the fimple manner. working up an imperfect draught into a highly-It has a peculiar ardour; it is a glowing faifhed performance. Style; the language of a man, whofe imagi nation |