Reader's Mind, and to set the thing before him in the very same Light, in which it appears to yourself. Here an Extreme is to be shunn'd, lest, while you aim to make your Meaning fully understood, you become Verbose. So that the Art lies in expressing your Thought clearly in as few Words as possible. Practice is the best way to attain this; and it may be useful to write some Essay, and lay it by, till you have forgot it; and then look it over as the Work of a Stranger. By this means you may discover a great many Faults which escaped you in the heat of Writing, and be able to correct them.

Elegance of Thought is what we commonly call Wit, which adds to Propriety, Beauty, and pleases our Fancy, while Propriety entertains our Judgment. This depends so much on Genius, that 'tis impossible to teach it by Rules. To the Elegance of Words, or Style, belong all the Figures of Rhetorick, and to use these to Advantage requires a Judgment well form'd by Observation. In this therefore, as in learning the Graces upon an Instrument of Musick, good Examples are the best Instruction. Thus a Man may write Metaphors, Tropes, Hyperboles, and all the other Figures, without the Trouble of studying a System of Rhetorick; and I believe better too, for to attend to a great many Rules whilst you are writing, is the way to make your Style stiff and constrain'd, whereas Elegance consists very much in a genteel Ease and Freedom of Expression; it is like a coy Mistress, of so nice a Humour, that to court her too much, is the surest way to lose her; and as Success in Love is owing to good Fortune, and the natural Happiness of pleasing, rather than to Fidelity and Attendance, so the Art of chusing, out of several Expressions equally proper, that which is the most graceful, is best call'd a Curiosa

Felicitas, which two Words seem to comprehend all that can be said upon this Head.

The last Qualification I mention'd is Cadence, in Poetry call'd the Numbers. It consists in a Disposing of the Words in such Order, and with such Variation of Periods, as may strike the Ear with a sort of musical Delight, which is a considerable Part of Eloquence. This is chiefly that which makes a Style smooth, and not merely the avoiding of harsh Words. The best way to attain it, is to prepare yourself, before you begin to write, by reading in some harmonious Style, that so you may get your Ear well in Tune.

Besides all these Qualifications, there is something in Language, which, to borrow a Word from Singing, may be call'd a Manner. This, like the Air of Faces, is a Mark of Distinction, by which every one has somewhat peculiar to it self from all others. For, besides the manifest Difference between Beauty and Deformity, there is a wonderful Variety even among good Faces, for which reason the Painters have learn'd, from many scatter'd Beauties, to collect one perfect Idea, which is hard to be found in any Individual.

To apply this; Sir William Temple, Sir Roger L'Estrange, and Dr. Sprat (to mention no more) are each of them allow'd Masters in the Tongue, and yet every one has a different Manner, as may be seen by a short Character of each.

The Style of Sir William Temple is very harmonious and sweet, full of Spirit, and Raciness of Wit, to use a Word of his own. His Similies are particularly fine, his Allusions graceful, his Words significant, and the whole has a kind of Charm, which amuses the Reader with serious Pleasure, puts him in a good Humour while he is reading, and leaves him thoughtful when he breaks off.

L'Estrange's Talent is Humour, in which his Vein flows very freely; agreeably to this he is a perfect Master of all the Idioms and Proverbial Expressions which are peculiar to our Tongue; these he often applies happily enough, tho' sometimes not without Affectation; yet, generally speaking, his Style is pleasant, smooth, and natural; and that Gaiety and seeming Negligence, which is peculiar to him, entertains you with a similar sort of Delight, like that of witty and facetious Company. There is the same Difference in the Styles of these two, as in those of Cicero and Terence in the Latin; in the first you find more of the Orator, and in the latter more of the Englishman.

The elegant Dr. Sprat is, in my Judgment, one of the most genteel and exact Writers we have. His Style is grave and manly, infinitely preferable to Sir Roger's, and having all that is beautiful in Sir William Temple, only (if 'tis possible) with more Correctness and Decency. There appears in him all the Sweetness and Fluency, handsom Turns and apt Expressions, that can be desir'd. He has united the most charming Elegance to the strictest Propriety, and is witty without the least Shadow of Affectation. The soft Cadence of his Periods, methinks, resembles the Current of a pleasant Stream; It makes but little Noise, yet affects you with a calm Delight, which, if it were heard louder, wou'd be lost.

There are several other Writers, which may be read with great Profit; and above all, the Incomparable Tillotson, who always writes the best Sense, and in the best Manner. That which particularly recommends him is an Easiness and beautiful Simplicity in all his Expressions, which every one that reads him is apt to think may

be imitated without much Difficulty, and yet nothing perhaps is so hard in the Experiment.

ut sibi quivis

Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret.

Hor.

This brings to my mind what Monsieur Le Clerc says, that 'tis much easier to imitate the loftiest Flights in Seneca's Tragedies, or Lucan, than the Simplicity of Terence.

After you have observed the different manner of Style amongst the best Writers, and collected a general Idea from them all, you are to consider next the different Manner to be us'd by the same Writer, according to the Subject he treats of. The Severity of Philosophy requires a grave didactick Style, agreeable to the Plainness and Simplicity of Truth and Reason. Morality and Divinity are capable of all the Ornaments of Wit and Fancy. History is content with a plainer Dress, as being a Relation of Matters of Fact, the Reflexions upon which are to be short and pertinent, and the rest left to the various Humour and Judgment of every Reader.

But of all sorts of Writing there is none has that Variety and Liberty as Letters and Essays; the former, especially, include all Subjects whatsoever, and are varied not only according to the Subject, but also according to the Person to whom you write, so that it wou'd be an endless Labour to give Rules about them. Yet this, being a way of writing in which every one is necessarily exercis'd more or less, it deserves a particular Regard; nor will it be a difficult thing, at the Expence of a little Thought and Observation, to furnish yourself with Rules sufficient to all the Variety of Occasions that may occur.

II. AN ESSAY ON ALLEGORICAL

POETRY, &c.
1715

IT is a Misfortune, as Mr. Waller observes, which attends the Writers of English Poetry, that they can hardly expect their Works shou'd last long in a Tongue which is daily changing; that whilst they are new, Envy is apt to prevail against them; and as that wears off, our Language it self fails. Our Poets therefore, he says, shou'd imitate judicious Statuaries, that chuse the most durable Materials, and shou'd carve in Latin or Greek, if they wou'd have their Labours preserv'd for ever.

NOTWITHSTANDING the Disadvantage he has mention'd, we have two Antient English Poets, Chaucer and Spenser, who may perhaps be reckon'd as Exceptions to this Remark. These seem to have taken deep Root, like old British Oaks, and to flourish in defiance of all the Injuries of Time and Weather. The former is indeed much more obsolete in his Stile than the latter; but it is owing to an extraordinary native Strength in both, that they have been able thus far to survive amidst the Changes of our Tongue, and seem rather likely, among the Curious at least, to preserve the Knowledg of our Antient Language, than to be in danger of being destroy'd with it, and bury'd under its Ruins.

THO Spenser's Affection to his Master Chaucer led him in many things to copy after him, yet those who have read both will easily observe that these two Genius's were of a very different kind. Chaucer excell'd in his Characters; Spenser in his Descriptions. The first study'd Humour, was an excellent Satirist, and a lively but rough