« ElőzőTovább »
“IT was the wisdom," says Seneca, “ of an*** cient times, to consider what is most useful as
6 most illustrious,”. If this rule be applied to works of genius, scarcely any species of composition deserves more to be cultivated than the epistolary style, since none is of more various or frequent use, through the whole subordination of human life.
It has yet happened that among the numerous writers which our nation has produced, equal perhaps always in force and genius, and of late in elegancy and accuracy, to those of any other country, very few have endeavoured to distinguish themselves by the publication of letters, except such as were written in the discharge of public trusts, and during the transaction of great affairs ; which, though they afford precedents to the minister, and memorials to the historian, are of no use as examples of the familiar style, or models of private correspondence.
If it be enquired by foreigners, how this deficiency has happened in the literature of a country where all indulge themselves with so little danger in speaking and writing, may we not, without either bigotry or arrogance, inform them, that it must be imputed to our contempt of trifles, and our due sense of the diguity of the public? We do not think it reasonable to fill the world with volumes from which nothing can be learned, nor expect that the employınents of the busy, or the amusements of the
gay, should give way to narratives of our private affairs, complaints of absence, expressions of foudness, or declarations of fidelity.
A slight perusal of the innumerable letters by which the wits of France have siguralized their names,
that other nations need not be discouraged from the like attempts by the consciousness of inability; for surely it is not very difficult to aggravate trifling misfortunes, to magnify familiar incidents, repeat adulatory professions, accumulate servile hyperboles, and produce all that can be found in the despicable remains of Voiture and Scarron.
Yet, as much of life must be passed in affairs considerable only by their frequent occurrence, and much of the pleasure which our condition allows, inust be produced by giving elegance to trifles, it is necessary to learn how to become little without becoming mean, to maintain the necessary intercourse of civility, and fill up the vacuities of actions
agreeable appearances. It had therefore been of advantage, if such of our writers as have excelled in the art of decorating insignificance, had supplied us with a few sallies of innocent gaiety, effusions of honest tenderness, or exclamations of unimportant hurry. Precept has generally been posterior to perform
The art of composing works of genius has never been taught but by the example of those who performed it by the natural vigour of ima-. gination, and rectitude.of judgment. As we have few letters, we have likewise few criticisms upon the epistolary style. The observations with which Walsh has introduced his pages of inanity, are such as give him little claim to the rank assigned him by Dryden among the critics,
Letters, 66 tended as resemblances of conversation, and the 66 chief excellencies of conversation are good
“ humour and good breeding.” This remark equally valuable for its novelty and propriety, he dilates and enforces with an appearance of complete acquiescence in his own discovery.
No man was ever in doubt about the moral qualities of a letter. It has been always known that he who endeavours to please' must appear pleased, and he who would not provoke rudoness must not practise it. But the question among those who establish rules for an epistolary performance is, how gaiety or civility may be properly expressed; as among the critics in history, it is not contested whether truth ought to be preserved, but by what mode of diction it is best adorned.
As letters are written on all subjects, in all states of mind, they cannot be properly reduced to settled rules, or described by any single characteristic; and we may safely disentangle our minds from critical embarrassments, by determining that a letter has no peculiarity but its form, and that nothing is to be refused admission, which would be proper in any other method of treating the same subject. The qualities of the epistolary style most frequently required, are ease and simplicity, and even flow of unlaboured diction, and an artless arrangement of obvious sentiments. But these directions are no sooner applied to use, than their scantiness and imperfection become evident. Letters are written to the great and to the mean, to the learned and to the ignorant, at rest and in distress, in sport and in passion. Nothing can be more improper than ease and laxity of expression, when the importance of the subject impresses solicitude, or the dignity of the person exacts reverence.
That letters should be written with strict conformity to nature is true, because nothing but conformity to nature can make any composition beautiful or just. But it is natural to depart from
familiarity of language upon occasions not familiar. Whatever elevates the sentiments will consequently raise the expression ; whatever fills us with lope or terror will produce some perturbation of images, and some figurative distortions of phrase. Whereever we are studious to pl e, we are afraid of trusting our first thoughts, and endeavour to recommend our opinion by studied ornaments, accuracy of method, and elegance of style.
If the personages of the comic scene be allowed by Horace to raise their language in the transports of anger to the turgid veheinence of tragedy, the epistolary writer may likewise, without censure, comply with the varieties of his matter. events are to be related, he may with all the solemnity of an historian, deduce them from their causes, connect them with their concomitants, and trace them to their consequences. If a disputed position is to be established, or a remote principle tobe investigated, he may detail his reasonings with all the nicety of syllogistic method. If a menace is to be averted, or a benefit implored, he may, without any violation of the edicts of criticism, call every power of rhetoric to his assistance, and try every inlet at which love or pity enters the heart.
Letters that have no other end than the entertainment of the correspondents, are more properly regulated by critical precepts, because the matter and style are equally arbitrary, and rules are more necessary, as there is a larger power of choice. In letters of this kind, some conceive art graceful, and others think negligence amiable; some model them by the sonnet, and will allow them no means of delighting but the soft lapse of calm mellifluence; others adjust them by the epigram, and expect pointed sentences and forcible periods. The one party considers exemption from faults as the P 3
height of excellence, the other looks upon reglect of excellence as the most disgusting fault; one avoids censure, the other aspires to praise; one is always in danger of insipidity, the other continually on the brink of affectation.'
When the subject has no intrinsic dignity, it must necessarily owe its attractions to artificial em
bellishments, and may catch at all advantages · which the art of writing can supply. He that, like Pliny, sends his friend a portion for his daughter, will, without Pliny's eloquence or address, find means of exciting gratitude and securing acceptance; but he that has no present to make but a garland, a ribbon, or some petty curiosity, must endeavour to recommend it by his manner of giving it.
The purpose for which letters are written when no intelligence is communicated, or business transacted, is to preserve in the minds of the absent either love or esteem; to excite love we must impart pleasure, and to raise esteem we must discover abilities. Pleasure will generally be given, as abilities are displayed by scenes of imagery, points of conceit, unexpected sallies, and artful compliments. Trifles always require exuberance of ornament; the building which has no strength can be valued only for the grace of its decorations. The pebble must be polished with care, which hopes to be valued as, a diamond; and words ought surely to be laboured, when they are intended to stand for things.