but when carried too far, approaching to intricacy, and hurting us by the appearance of being far-sought. Illus. Thus, we would naturally say, that Parnell is a poet of far greater simplicity, in his turn of thought, than Cowley; Cicero's thoughts on moral subjects are natural; Seneca's too refined and laboured. In these two senses of simplicity, when it is opposed, either to variety of parts, or to refinement of thought, it has no proper relation to style. 454. There is a third sense of simplicity, in which it has respect to style; and stands opposed to too much ornament, or pomp of language. Illus. When we say Locke is a simple, and Harvey is a florid writer; it is in this sense, that the "simplex," the "tenue," or "subtile genus dicendi," as understood by Cicero and Quinctilian, are applicable. 2. The simple style, in this sense, coincides with the plain or the neat style, (Art. 446. and 447.) and, therefore, requires no farther illustration. 455. But there is a fourth sense of simplicity, also, respecting style; but not respecting the degree of ornament employed, so much as the easy and natural manner in which our language expresses our thoughts. This is quite different from the former sense of the word just now mentioned, in which simplicity was equivalent to plainness: whereas, in this sense, it is compatible with the highest ornament. Illus. Homer, for instance, possesses this simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more ornament and beauty. This simplicity, which is what we are now to consider, stands opposed, not to ornament, but to affectation of ornament, or appearance of labour, about our style; and it is a distinguishing excellency in writing. 456. A writer of simplicity expresses himself in such a manner, that every one thinks he could have written in the same way; Horace describes it, ut sibi quivis Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret Illus. 1. There are no marks of art in his expression; it seems the very language of nature; you see in the style, not the writer and his labour, but the man in his own natural character. (Art. 181. Illus.) He may be rich in his expression; he may be full of figures, and of fancy; but these flow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has studied it, but because it is the manner of expression most natural to him. 2. A certain degree of negligence, also, is not inconsistent with this character of style, and even not ungraceful in it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: let this style have a certain softness and ease, which shall characterize a negligence, not unpleasing in an "From well-known tales such fictions would I raise, As all might hope to imitate with ease; Yet, while they strive the same success to gain, Should find their labours and their hopes in vain." Francis author, who appears to be more solicitous about the thought than the expression.* 3. This is the great advantage of simplicity of style, that, like simplicity of manners, it shews us a man's sentiments and turn of mind laid open without disguise. More studied and artificial manners of writing, however beautiful, have always this disadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the splendour of dress, and the ceremoniousness of behaviour, conceal those peculiarities which distinguish one man from another. But reading an author of simplicity, is like conversing with a person of distinction at home, and with ease, where we find natural manners, and a marked character. 457. The highest degree of this simplicity is expressed by the French term naivete, to which we have none that fully answers in our language. It is not easy to give a precise idea of the import of this word. It always expresses a discovery of character. Illus. 1. Perhaps the best account of it, is that given by Marmontel, who explains it thus: that sort of amiable ingenuity, or undisguised openness, which seems to give us some degree or superiority over the person who shews it; a certain infantine simplicity, which we love in our hearts, but which displays some features of the character, that we think we could have art enough to hide; and which, therefore, always leads us to smile at the person who discovers this character. 2. La Fontaine, in his Fables, may be given as a great example of such naivete. This, however, is to be understood as descriptive of a particular species only of simplicity. 458. 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 not formed upon the labours and writings of others, which is always in hazard of producing affectation. Corol. Hence, among the Greek writers, we have more models of a beautiful simplicity, than among the Romans. Homer, Hesiod, Anacreon, Theocritus, Herodotus, and Xenophon, are all distinguished for their simplicity. Among the Romans also, we have some writers of this character, particularly Terence, Lucretius, Phædrus, and Julius Cæsar. 459. Simplicity is the great beauty of Archbishop Tillotson's manner. Tillotson has long been admired as an eloquent writer, and a model for preaching. But his eloquence, if we can call it such, has been often misunderstood. For, if we include, in the idea of eloquence, vehemence and strength, picturesque description, glowing figures, or correct arrangement of sentences, in all these parts of oratory the archbishop is exceedingly deficient. (Dr. Blair.) * "Habet ille, molle quiddam, et quod indice non ingratam negligentiam hominis, de re magis quàm de verbo laborantis." Cicero de Orat. Obs. His style is always pure, indeed, and perspicuous, but careless and remiss, too often feeble and languid; little beauty in the construction of his sentences, which are frequently suffered to drag unharmoniously; seldom any attempt towards strength or sublimity. But, notwithstanding these defects, such a constant vein of good sense and piety runs through his works, such an earnest and serious manner, and so much useful instruction conveyed in a style so pure, natural, and unaffected, as will justly recommend him to high regard, as long as the English language shall remain; not, indeed, as a model of the highest eloquence, but as a simple and amiable writer, whose manner is strongly expressive of great goodness and worth. (Illus. 8. Art. 222.) 460. Sir William Temple is another remarkable writer in the style of simplicity. In point of ornament and correctness, he rises a degree above Tillotson; though, for correctness, he is not in the highest rank. All is easy and flowing in him; he is exceedingly harmonious; smoothness, and what may be called amenity, are the distinguishing characters of his manner; relaxing sometimes, as such a manner will naturally do, into a prolix and remiss style. Obs. No writer whatever has stamped upon his style a more lively impression of his own character. In reading his works, we seem engaged in conversation 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 classed as standing in the middle, between a negligent simplicity, and the highest degree of ornament which this character of style admits. (See Ex. 2. and Analysis, Art. 217.) 461. Addison is, beyond doubt, in the English language, the most perfect example of the highest, most correct, and ornamental degree of the simple manner; and, therefore, though not without some faults, he is, on the whole, the safest model for imitation, and the freest from considerable defects, which the language affords. Obs. 1. Perspicuous and pure he is in the highest degree; his precision, indeed, not very great; yet nearly as great as the subjects, which he treats of, require; the construction of his sentences easy, agreeable, and commonly very musical; carrying a character of smoothness, more than of strength. 2. In figurative language, he is rich; particularly in similes and metaphors; which are so employed as to render his style splendid, without being gaudy. There is not the least affectation in his manner: we see no marks of labour; nothing forced or constrained; but great elegance, joined with great ease and simplicity. 3. He is, in particular, distinguished by a character of modesty, and of politeness, which appears in all his writings. No author has a more popular and insinuating manner; and the great regard which he every where shews for virtue and religion, recommends his Spectator very highly. 4. If he fails in any thing, it is in want of strength and precision, which renders his manner, though perfectly suited to such essays as he writes in the Spectator, not altogether a proper model for any of the higher and more elaborate kinds of composition. Though the public have ever done much justice 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 prose writers, than he is entitled to among the poets: and in prose, his humour is of a much higher and more original strain, than his philosophy. The character of Sir Roger de Coverly discovers more genius than the critique on Milton. See Illus. 8. Art. 222. and Art. 272. Crit. 4.) 462. Such authors as those, whose characters we have been giving, one is never tired of reading. There is nothing in their manner that strains or fatigues our thoughts; we are pleased, without being dazzled by their lustre. So powerful is the charm of simplicity in an author of real genius, that it atones for many defects, and reconciles us to many a careless expression. Corol. 1. Hence in all the most excellent authors, both in prose and verse, the simple and natural manner may be always remarked; although other beauties being predominant, this forms not their peculiar and distinguishing character. 2. Thus Milton is simple in the midst of all his grandeur; and Demosthenes, in the midst of all his vehemence. (Illus. 2. and Analysis. Art. 212.) Obs. To grave and solemn writings, simplicity of manner adds the more venerable air. Accordingly, this has often been remarked as the prevailing character throughout all the sacred Scriptures; and indeed no other character of style was so much suited to their dignity. 463. Of authors, who, notwithstanding many excellencies, have rendered their style much less beautiful by want of simplicity, Lord Shaftesbury furnishes the most remarkable example. His lordship is an author on whom we have made observations several times before, and we shall now take leave of him, with giving his general character under this head. Obs. 1. Considerable merit, doubtless, he has. His language has many beauties. It is firm, and supported in an uncommon degree; it is rich and musical. No English author has attended so much to the regular construction of his sentences, both with respect to propriety, and with respect to cadence. (Illus. 7. Art. 222.) All this gives so much elegance and pomp to his language, that there is no wonder it should have been highly admired by some. It is greatly hurt, howeyer, by perpetual stiffness and affectation. This is its capital fault. 2. Like Dr. Johnson, his lordship can express nothing with simplicity. He seems to have considered it as vulgar, and beneath the dignity of a man of quality, to speak like other men. Johnson could say nothing but as a lexicographer. Lord Shaftesbury is ever in buskins; and dressed out with magnificent elegance. Johnson is clad in the leaves of his dictionary; he lived upon it, as Boniface did upon his ale. In every sentence of Lord Shaftesbury, we see the marks of labour and art; nothing of that ease, which expresses a sentiment_coming natural and warm from the heart. Johnson is a perfect mechanist of style. Having once studied him, you will know his style among a thousand; so exactly do the counters he presents to you, correspond with the Roman die, whence they were turned out. Of figures and ornaments of every kind, Lord Shaftesbury is exceedingly fond; sometimes happy in them; but his fondness for them is too visible; and, having once laid hold of some metaphor or allusion that pleases him, he knows not how to part with it. The coldness of Johnson's heart, did not allow him to indulge at pleasure in figures and ornament. His figures are always correct, but artificial and stately; and his allegories in the Rambler, are awkwardly classical, though some of them are not deficient in wit and elegance. His Allegory of Criticism, an early paper in the Rambler, is a pertinent illustration. 464. Having now said so much to recommend simplicity, or the easy and natural manner of writing, and having pointed out the defects of an opposite manner; in order to prevent mistakes on this subject, it is necessary to observe, that it is very possible for an author to write simply and yet not beautifully. One may be free from affectation, and not have merit. Illus. 1. The beautiful simplicity supposes an author to possess real genius; to write with solidity, purity, and liveliness of imagination. In this case, the simplicity or unaffectedness of his manner, is the crowning ornament; it heightens every other beauty; it is the dress of nature, without which all beauties are imperfect. 2. But if mere unaffectedness were sufficient to constitute the beauty of style, weak, trifling, and dull writers might often lay claim to this beauty. And, accordingly, we frequently meet with pretended critics, who extol the dullest writers, on account of what they call the "chaste simplicity of their manner;" which, in truth, is no other than the absence of every ornament, through the mere want of genius and imagination. 3. We must distinguish, therefore, between that simplicity which accompanies true genius, and which is perfectly compatible with every proper ornament of style, and that which is no other than a careless and slovenly manner. Indeed, the distinction is easily made from the effect produced. The one never fails to interest the reader; the other is insipid and tiresome. 465. We proceed to mention one other manner or character of style different from any that has yet been spoken of; and which may be distinguished by the name of the vehement. This always implies strength; and is not, by any means, inconsistent with simplicity; but, in its predominant character, it is distinguishable from either the strong or the simple manner. Illus. It has a peculiar ardour; it is a glowing style; the language of a man, whose imagination and passions are heated, and strongly affected by what he writes; who is therefore negligent of minor graces, but pours himself forth with the rapidity and fulness of a torrent. belongs to the higher kinds of oratory; and, indeed, is rather expected from a man who is speaking, than from one who is writing in his It |