[ 66 ] 



then of moral Jlfpofitions and peculiar habits may be traced 

 ont throiigh that variety in tlie intelleftual character with 

 which they are fomctimes afl'ociated as caufe and efFe(5l, and 

 fometimes as common efFecls of the fame caufe difFufing a 

 general operation over the whole fyftem. The ftyle of thought 

 therefore which flows from the one muft in fome degree indi- 

 cate the other. 



That an author mixes much of himfelf with his fubjedl^ 

 however ridiculoufly and extravagantly Sterne in his life of 

 Mr. Shandy may have caricatured the fyftem, is undoubtedly 

 true. That an author's difpofitions may thence be inveftigated 

 we have teftimony of much weight and antiquity. Laudibus 

 argintur v'tni vhiofus Homeriis is the aflertion of Horace, and the 

 diflike of Euripides to the fair fex has been long fince col- 

 ledtcd from the unfavourable pidlures of them he has always 

 drawn. Longinus tells of internal difpofitions neceffary for 

 producing the fublime, and Qviintilian gives a catalogue of 

 the moral qualities which an orator fhould pofl'efs. But on 

 this queftion every man bears teftimony for himfelf; for does 

 not every man think that he can in fome degree anticipate 

 the mode in which thofe with whofe minds and habits he is 

 acquainted will aft on any particular occafion, or will treat 

 of a given fubjedl ? I do not mean to fay that he will be able 

 to write a treatife in the ftyle of each author of his acquaint- 

 ance. There is a divifion of literary as well as natural labour 

 which makes the beft ufe of the produdlive capital by con- 

 fining each writer to one particular fpecies of employment. 



And 



