by DIONYSIUS HALYCARNASSEUS *. Wonderful was the harmony, fays the hiftorian, which this infeparable union of interefts produced between married perfons; while each of them confidered the inevitable neceffity by which they were linked together, and abandoned all profpect of any other choice or establishment.

The exclufion of polygamy and divorces fufficiently recommends our prefent EUROPEAN practice with regard to marriage.

* Lib. ii,

1

ESSAY XX,

Of SIMPLICITY and REFINEMENT in WRITING,

INE writing, according to Mr. ADDISON, confists

FIN

of fentiments, which are natural, without being obvious. There cannot be a jufter, and more concise definition of fine writing.

Sentiments, which are merely natural, affect not the mind with any pleasure, and feem not worthy of our attention. The pleafantries of a waterman, the obfervations of a peasant, the ribaldry of a porter or hackney coachman, all of these are natural, and difagreeable. What an infipid comedy should we make of the chit-chat of the tea-table, copied faithfully and at full length ? Nothing can please persons of taste, but nature drawn with all her graces and ornaments, la belle nature; or if we copy low life, the ftrokes must be ftrong and remarkable, and must convey a lively image to the mind. The abfurd naïveté of Sancho Pancho is reprefented in fuch inimitable colours by CERVANTES, that it entertains as much as the picture of the most magnanimous hero or fofteft lover.

The cafe is the fame with orators, philofophers, critics, or any author who speaks in his own person, with

out

out introducing other speakers or actors. If his language be not elegant, his observations uncommon, his fense strong and mafculine, he will in vain boast his nature and fimplicity. He may be correct; but he never will be agreeable. It is the unhappiness of such authors, that they are never blamed or cenfured. The good fortune of a book, and that of a man, are not the same. The fecret deceiving path of life, which HORACE talks of, fallentis femita vita, may be the happieft lot of the one; but is the greatest misfortune, which the other can poffibly fall into.

On the other hand, productions, which are merely furprifing, without being natural, can never give any lafting entertainment to the mind. To draw chimeras, is not, properly speaking, to copy or imitate. The juftnefs of the reprefentation is loft, and the mind is difpleased to find a picture, which bears no resemblance to any original. Nor are fuch exceffive refinements more agreeable in the epiftolary or philosophic ftyle, than iņ the epic or tragic. Too much ornament is a fault in every kind of production. Uncommon expreffions, ftrong flashes of wit, pointed fimilies, and epigrammatic turns, especially when they recur too frequently, are a disfigurement, rather than any embellishment of difcourfe. As the eye, in furveying a GOTHIC building, is diftracted by the multiplicity of ornaments, and lofes the whole by its minute attention to the parts; fo the mind, in perufing a work overstocked with wit, is fatigued and disgufted with the conftant endeavour to shine and surprise. This is the cafe where a writer overabounds in wit, even though that wit, in itself, fhould be just and agreeable. But it commonly happens to fuch writers, that they feek for their favourite ornaments, even where the fubject does not afford them; and by

that

that means, have twenty infipid conceits for one thought which is really beautiful.

There is no fubject in critical learning more copious, than this of the juft mixture of fimplicity and refinement in writing; and therefore, not to wander in too large a field, I fhall confine myself to a few general obfervations on that head.

First, I observe, That though excesses of both kinds are to be avoided, and though a proper medium ought to be studied in all productions; yet this medium lies not in a point, but admits of a confiderable latitude. Confider the wide distance, in this refpect, between Mr. POPE and LUCRETIUS. These seem to lie in the two greatest extremes of refinement and fimplicity, in which a poet can indulge himfelf, without being guilty of any blameable excefs. All this interval may be filled with poets, who may differ from each other, but may be equally admirable, each in his peculiar ftyle and manner. CORNEILLE and CONGREVE, who carry their wit and refinement somewhat farther than Mr. POPE (if poets of fo different a kind can be compared together), and SOPHOCLES and TERENCE, who are more fimple than LUCRETIUS, feem to have gone out of that medium, in which the most perfect productions are found, and to be guilty of fome excess in these oppofite characters. Of all the great poets, VirGIL and RACINE, in my opinion, lie nearest the center, and are the fartheft removed from both the extremities.

My fecond obfervation on this head is, That it is very difficult, if not impoffible, to explain by words, where the juft medium lies between the exceffes of fimplicity and refinement, or to give any rule by which we can know precifely the bounds between the fault and the beauty. A critic may not only discourse very judiciously on this head, without inftructing his readers, but even without understanding the VOL. I.

P

matter