ys 
256 
Better thus :—= "* gs never te become of- 
Fenfwe.- 
«* His propenfity to fatire was fo checked 
avith difcretion, that his friends never 
dicated their becoming the object of it.” 
+Phisefentence is ‘the v very extreme of all 
that is mean and pitiful; nor reducible to 
the grammatical rules of an “pone lancuage 
ever known at Babel. 
“< His wit, to ufe ie expreffion of one 
euhokaeaw hin avell, ond who was himlelf- 
-a good judge, could not be {aid fo much to 
and phrafeology. 
be very refined or elevated, qualities apt 
to beget jealouly and appreheniion zz 
company, as to be a plain, Saining, well- 
bred, recommending kind of wit.” 
Here is ‘a fine exemplification of the 
pert’s cenfure, ¥ 
** And ten low words oft creep in one dull line,’? 
with a {uperabundance of native and ad- 
ventitious meannefs, both in compofition 
Nor does the next fen- 
tence at all dilparage it’s predeceflor in 
quitting the fame pitiful and groveling 
character of digtion. 
“¢ And- though perkaps he talked more 
than ftvi&t cules of behaviour might per- 
mit, men were fo pleafed with fhe! affable, 
communicative deportment of the mo- 
narch, that they a eave went away con- 
tented, beth with him and themfelves. 
‘This ade ed 1s the moft fhining part of the 
king’s character ; and he feems to haz 
beex Senfible of it: 
dropping the formality of Kate, and of re~ 
lapiing every moment into the companion.’ 
No congruity of figure feems to fubfift 
bene Anahpang and relepfing ; efpecially 
between droppizg in the active fenfe, and 
relapfing in the pafive, with application 
to the fame Subject. Befides a quality in 
the former claufe, (the formality of ftate) 
poo a quality, not a perfon, (the COM=- 
aniot) for correfpondence in the latter : 
fe how can we expe &t thefe delicate con- 
Gliencies of fine writing from fuch a mifer- 
zble artift as David Hume? 
«¢ $n the duties of private life, his con- 
ru &, though not free from exception, was, 
in te ma viz, laudable. . He was an eafy ge- 
Rerous ieee a. ciutl obi iging hufband, a 
Erien cly brother, an indulge:t father, and 
2 Sond natured mater. — The voluntary 
hip, however, that this prince con- 
rated hay, even his dente of gratitude, 
Queré Jeeble ;-and he never attached himfelf 
toany of his aa: tne or courtiers with a 
Hneere affeGion. He believed thém se bawe 
no motive in ferving:h ams but felt-intereft ; 
ancebe spas frill dover ini Ris tim, to facri« 
fice them We prefert.er - convenience. 
Nathing particularly Visecad ionable oc 
curs Im tinehe fentences); but, at the fame 
LM. Wakefield on the Style of Hume. 
for he was fond of 
~~ 
May. 
time, nothing, that can abaie the mot 
diitant alliance with dignity or elegance 3 
nothing, but what the moft humble adven- 
turer in letters might eafily have written. 
‘© With a detail of his private character 
we muft fet bounds to our panegyric en 
Charles.” 
Not much detail and lefs panegyric, of 
fuch a confpicuous, experienced, and_pe- 
culiar character, as that of Charles; 
been given in the preceding fentences : fo 
that the words in queftion feem employed 
with no difcrimination on this oceafion. 
“© The other parts ef his conduét may 
admit of fome apology; but can deferye 
{mail applaufe.” 
Both idiom and harmony demanded— 
«< but {mall applaufe:” this, however, 
the preceding but profcribed. Thus then 
might the paflages have been turned, IT 
think, with more neatnefs and propriety ; 
though it is much eafer te frame a new 
paragraph, | than to model the language 
and conftruction of another writer. 
“< With fhe commendation of his pri- 
vate charaéter mutt we finih our praife of 
Charles. If his public condué admit apo- 
logy, it can deferve but {mail applaufe-* 
«© He was indeed fo much fitted for pri- 
vatelife, preferably to public, that be even — 
pojefed order, frugality, and economy, 
in the former; was profufe, thoughtleis, 
and negligent 7 iz the latter.” 
Tie Y aie in Italics are either fuper- 
fluous or mean: nor isan adequate oppo- 
fitien difcoverable between order and eco- 
nomy, thoughtle{s and negligent; as the 
character of the fentences required. No 
writer of the leatt eee could have’ 
failed in fech an obvious and attainable 
proportion. 
*¢ When weconfider him as a fovereign,, 
his cherafter, though not altogether defti- 
tute of virtue, was iz the mciz dangerous 
to his people; and difhoncurable to him- 
felf. Negligent of the interefts of thema- 
tion, carelefs of its glory, averfe to its re- — 
Hgion, jealous of its liberty, lavifh of its 
treafure, fpating, only of its blgod; he 
expofed it by bis meafures, though be ever - 
appeared biit in fport, to fhe danger of a 
furious civil war; and even tothe ruin ‘and 
ignominy Of a foreign congue. Yet may 
all thefe enormities, if fairly and candidly 
examined, be .imputed, in a® great mea- 
fure, to the indolence of his temper; 2 
fault which however unfortunate nn a-mo- 
narch, it is impoffible far’ us to regard 
with creat feverity. ” 
aie lait fentence alone, of al! that have 
yet cccurred, 3s entitled to approbation < ig 
38 ptr!picuous and pure, without vulgarity, 
without affeéta aithout redundancy. 
es dr 
tro? Hy 
has. 
