ESSAY

XXIII.

Of SIMPLICITY and REFINEMENT in writing.

F

INE writing, according to Mr. Addison, confifts of fentiments, which are natural, without being obvious. There cannot be a jufter, and more concife definition of fine writing.

SENTIMENTS, which are merely natural, affect not the mind with any pleasure, and feem not worthy of our attention. The pleasantries of a waterman, the obfervations of a peasant, the ribaldry of a porter or hackney coachman; all thefe are natural, and disagreeable. What an infipid comedy fhould we make of the chit-chat of the tea-table, copy'd faithfully and at full length? Nothing can please perfons of tafte, 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* naivety of Sancho Pancho is reprefented

* A word which I have borrow'd from the French, and which is wanted in our language.

in fuch inimitable colours by Cervantes, that it entertains as much as the picture of the moft magnanimous hero or fofteft lover.

THE cafe is the fame with orators, philofophers, critics, or any author, who fpeaks in his own perfon, without introducing other fpeakers or actors. If his language be not elegant, his observations uncommon, his fenfe ftrong and mafculine, he will in vain boast his nature and fimplicity. He may be correct; but he never will be agreeable. "Tis the unhappiness of fuch authors, that they are never blam'd nor cenfur'd. The good fortune of a book, and that of a man, are not the fame. The fecret deceiving path of life, which Horace talks of, fallen'tis femita vitæ, 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 difpleas'd to find a picture, which bears no refemblance to any original. Nor are fuch excefGive refinements more agreeable in the epiftolary or philofophic ftile than in 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, efpecially when they occur too frequently, are a disfigure

ment 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; so the mind, in perufing a work over-stock'd with wit, is fatigu'd and difgufted with the conftant endeavour to fhine and furprize. This is the cafe where a writer overabounds in wit, even tho' that wit, in itself, fhould be just and agreeable. But it commonly happens to fuch writers, that they seek for their favourite ornaments, even where the subject affords them not; and by 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 just mixture of fimplicity and refinement in writing; and therefore, not to wander in too large a field, I shall confine myself to a few general obfervations on that head.

Firft, I obferve, That tho' exceffes of both kinds are to be avoided, and tho' a proper medium ought to be fludy'd in all productions; yet this medium lies not in a point, but admits of a very confiderable latitude. Confider the wide distance, in this respect, betwixt Mr. Pope and Lucretius. These seem to lye in the two greatest extremes of refinement and fimplicity, in which a poet can indulge himself, without being guilty of any blameable excefs. All this interval may be fill'd with poets, who may differ from each other, but may be equally admirable, each in his peculiar ftile and manner. Corneille and Congreve, who carry

their wit and refinement fomewhat farther than Mr. Pope (if poets of fo different a kind can be compar'd together) and Sophocles and Terence, who are more fimple than Lucretius, seem to have gone out of that medium, in which the moft perfect productions are found, and to be guilty of fome excefs in thefe oppofite characters. Of all the great poets, Virgil and Racine, in my opinion, lye nearest the center, and are the fartheft remov'd 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 betwixt the excesses of fimplicity and refinement lyes, or to give any rule, by which we can know precisely the bounds betwixt the fault and the beauty. A critic may not only difcourse very judicioufly on this head, without inftructing his readers, but even without understanding the matter perfectly himself. There is not a finer piece of criticism than the dissertation on paftorals by Fontenelle; where, by a number of reflections and philofophical reasonings, he endeavours to fix the juft medium, which is fuitable to that fpecies of writing. But let any one read the pastorals of that author, and he will be convinc'd, that this judicious critic, notwithstanding his fine reasonings, had a false tafte, and fix'd the point of perfection much nearer the extreme of refinement, than pastoral poetry will admit of. The fentiments of his fhepherds are better fuited to the toilettes of Paris, than to the forests of Arcadia. But this it is impoffible to discover N 5 from

from his critical reafonings. He blames all exceffive painting and ornament as much as Virgil could have done, had he wrote a differtation on that fpecies of poetry. However different the tastes of men may be, their general difcourfes on thefe fubjects are commonly the fame. No criticism can be very inftructive, which defcends not to particulars, and is not full of examples and illuftrations. 'Tis allow'd on all hands, that beauty, as well as virtue, lies always in a medium; but where this medium is plac'd, is the great question, and can never be fufficiently explain'd by general reasonings.

I SHALL deliver it as a third observation on this fubject, that we ought to be more on our guard against the excess of refinement than that of fimplicity; and that because the former excess is both less beautiful, and more dangerous than the latter.

'Tis a certain rule, that wit and passion are intirely inconfiftent. When the affections are mov'd, there is no place for the imagination. The mind of man being naturally limited, 'tis impoffible, that all its faculties can operate at once: And the more any one predominates, the lefs room is there for the others to exert their vigour. For this reason, a greater degree of fimplicity is requir'd in all compofitions, where men, and actions, and paffions are painted, than in fuch as confift of reflections and obfervations. And as the former fpecies of writing is the more engaging and beautiful, one may fafely, upon this account, give the preference to