no less at his command; that he is not more a master of the great than the ridiculous in human nature; of our noblest tendernesses, than of our vainest foibles; of our strongest emotions, than of our idlest sensations!"

The diction of these extracts in general corresponds with the character which we have given of the style of Pope: there is, however, one passage in the third paragraph on Shakspeare, which detracts from the eulogium, and is a gross violation both of grammar and construction; no preparation to guide or guess to the effect, or be perceived to lead toward it: to guess to an effect is certainly a vile idiom, and the conclusion of the clause is almost equally aukward and flat.

ATTERBURY, the friend of Pope, and a preacher of great eloquence and popularity, is the next author who, on account of his style, has a claim upon our attention. His sermons are written, for the period in which they were composed, with uncommon purity and correctness of diction. Their style is frequently elegant and beautiful, but it seldom rises to much energy or warmth, and is sometimes rendered insipid and tedious, by slovenly construction and protracted sentences. It possesses, however, both more animation and. more sweetness than the style of Tillotson, but not * Preface to the Works of Shakspeare.

more variety; a passage therefore from the first, and perhaps the best, sermon in his works, the subject of which is the duty of praise and thanksgiving, will afford a sufficiently clear idea of the style and manner of Atterbury.

""Tis one of the earliest instructions given us by philosophy, and which has ever since been approved and inculcated by the wisest men of all ages, that the original design of making man was, that he might praise and honour him who made him. When God had finished this goodly frame of things we call the world, and put together the several parts of it, according to his infinite wisdom, in exact number, weight, and measure, there was still wanting a creature, in these lower regions, that could apprehend the beauty, order, and exquisite contrivance of it; that from contemplating the gift, might be able to raise itself to the great Giver, and do honour to all his attributes. Every thing indeed that God made, did, in some sense, glorify its author, inasmuch as it carried upon it the plain mark and impress of the Deity, and was an effect worthy of that first cause from whence it flowed; and thus might the heavens be said, at the first moment in which they stood forth, to declare his glory, and the firmament to shew his handy work. But this was an imperfect and defective glory; the sign was of no

signification here below, whilst there was no one here as yet to take notice of it. Man, therefore, was formed to supply this want, endowed with powers fit to find out, and to acknowledge, these unlimited perfections; and then put into this Temple of God, this lower world, as the Priest of Nature, to offer up the incense of Thanks and Praise for the mute and insensible part of the Creation.

"Other parts of devotion, such as confession and prayer, seem not originally to have been designed for man, nor man for them. They imply guilt and want, with which the state of innocence was not acquainted. Had man continued in that estate, his worship (like the devotions of angels) had been paid to heaven in pure acts of thanksgiving; and nothing had been left for him to do, beyond the enjoying the good things of life, as nature directed, and praising the God of nature who bestowed them. But being fallen from innocence and abundance; having contracted guilt, and forfeited his right to all sorts of mercies; prayer and confession became necessary, for a time, to retrieve the loss, and to restore him to, that state wherein he should be able to live without them. These are fitted, therefore, for a lower dispensation; before which, in paradise, there was nothing but praise, and after which, there

shall be nothing but that in heaven.

Our per

fect state did at first, and will at last, consist in the performance of this duty; and herein, therefore, lies the excellence and the honour of our nature." *

A great portion of the popularity which attended Atterbury as a preacher, was most probably derived from the excellence of his delivery, and from his habit of preaching extempore; a custom that almost necessarily imparts animation and spirit, and which is noticed by Steele in N° 66 of the Tatler, as the peculiar practice of Atterbury; "he has," says he, "so much regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them; and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention."+

Contemporary with Atterbury was JOSEPH SPENCE; whose "Essay on Pope's Odyssey," published in 1727, is one of the most pleasing and useful pieces of criticism which we possess. It is written in the dialogue form, and contributed to render popular a species of composition very difficult to execute. He had been preceded in this mode of writing by Henry More, Addison, and Shaftesbury, and was immediately succeeded by * Vol. 1st, Sermon 1st.

Tatler, vol. 2, p. 133, 134, 8vo edition of 1797.

Berkeley, Harris, and Hurd. The good sense, candour, and learning, which are every where displayed in this work, " a work," as Dr. Warton observes," of the truest taste, and soundest criticism," demand some notice of the style in which they are enveloped; and more especially as no book is better calculated to direct the taste of the poetical student, or more adapted to excite a relish for just and liberal criticism.

Vivacity, ease, and purity, should form the leading features in the composition of the dialogue, which admits, more than any other species of style, of idiomatic expression. The licence, however, should be free from vulgarisms, and the general texture should exhibit the most finished specimen of colloquial simplicity, combined with elegance, which the progress of civilization can afford. In facility and animation, the diction of Spence is in no degree deficient; but it is too much loaded with idiom, and that, too, not always of the best kind; hence his style, though occasionally simply elegant, is too often careless and slovenly; owing probably to the wish of imparting to his language a conversational familiarity. This is the more to be regretted, as the taste and judgment which he displays in criticising the version of Pope are exquisitely delicate and correct.