equally extends to the Sublime of every des scription; to the Sublime of Painting; the Sublime of Music; in a word, to the Sublime, wherever it may exist. This is a truth, which, without further discussion, there needs but an appeal to experience to demonstrate.

It must not be considered any disparagement to what I have here said respecting the method of attaining Sublimity, that Sublimity is often attained without consulting this method. Although such a deliberate plan of making this acquisition be not sensibly adopted, still, it is always recurred to, imperceptibly. Condillac, in his Logic, makes a similar observation respecting reasoning. He observes, that people, who reason properly, always infer what they do not know, from what they do know, though, very often, they form their train of argumentation without an explicit attention to this process.

This, then, is the course by which Sublimity is attained, and this, I will venture to affirm, is the only one, by which it is attainable*.

I have now endeavoured to consider the Sublime in each material point of view, and to treat it with due comprehension. I have defined its nature, I have pointed out what ob

* See Appendix, Note A.

jects were most apt to excite it, and how they were to be viewed, in order to produce this effect. This was the whole of what appeared essential to the discussion of this subject. I shall, therefore, pursue the next theme of investigation.

75

STYLE.

CHAP. I.

HAVING endeavoured to ascertain the nature and origin of sublime writing, or, to express myself more critically, of sublime composition, I thought that it would not be unseasonable to take this opportunity of passing a few reflections upon Style. I shall attempt to give a just definition of this term, and to explain in what source the difference of Styles originates.

I have never yet chanced to meet with a precise delineation of the nature of Style. Dr. Blair professes that the task is not easy to undertake; and, as if he doubted whether he had succeeded, informs us, that the definition, which he had given of this critical point, was the best that he could attain. Indeed, his definition is much too general. He denomimates Style the peculiar manner in which a man expresses his conceptions, by means of language,

and proceeds afterwards to say, that it is extremely difficult to separate Style from Sentiment thus, apparently acknowledging that he did not know whether sentiment was or was not essential to it. I shall attempt, therefore, to present a more complete idea of this part of criticism, and to circumscribe it within its exact limits.

Before I proceed, I must not omit to notice, that Style is different from language, though often confounded with it. Language is only the fund of words, from which Style borrows, the body, which Style animates.

This presupposéd Style, it appears to me, may be accurately termed "The feeling ex"pression of thought." Sentiment is essential to its constitution. How a person can speak without feeling what he speaks, is not easily comprehensible; as difficult would it be to philosophers to conceive how a person could form an idea of what he speaks, without suffering an excitement of his sensibility. No one can speak without an intention to speak; if he does speak, he must speak from the feeling which induced him to give utterance to his thought. Consequently, this feeling will accompany and animate his thought. Hence, speech, independent of feeling, would be incoherent jargon, not unlike the wisdom of language uttered by people asleep.