[ 6o 3 



elegance into others lefs prolix ; and fharing in fome degree all the 

 beauties of Addifon's ftyle, except thofe which perhaps his lordfhip 

 could not copy, its eafe and fimplicity. Indeed Shaftfbury, in the 

 form in which we now have him, appears to be more attentive 

 than Addifon to the harmony of his cadence, and the regular con- 

 ftrudion of his fentcnces; and certainly if he has lefs fimplicity 

 has more ftrength. Bolingbroke, too, participating in corrednefs 

 with Addifon, has fome topics of peculiar praife ; he has more 

 force than Addifon — and — what may appear ftrange, when we con- 

 fider how much more vehement and copious he is, has more pre- 

 cifion. The nature of the fubjeds on which Bolingbroke and 

 Shaftfbury wrote naturally tended to make them more attentive 

 to precifion than Addifon. Thefe fubjeds were principally ab- 

 flrad morality and metaphyfics — fubjeds of which no knowledge 

 can be attained but by clofe and fteady thinking, or communi- 

 cated but by words of definite and conftant meaning. The lan- 

 guage of Addifon, however elegant in itfelf, or however admirably 

 adapted by its eafy flow to thofe familiar topics which are gene- 

 rally the fubjeds of diurnal eflfays, was too weak for the weight 

 of abftrad moral difquifition, and too vague for the niceties of 

 metaphyfical diftindion. It was fitted for him whofe objed was 

 to catch what floated on the furface of life j but it could not fervc 

 him who was to enter into the depths of the human mind, to 

 watch the progrefs of intelledual operation, and embody to the 

 vulgar eye thofe ever fleeting forms under which the paflions 

 vary. 



It 



