graces, rapidity and vigour, in a word, a resistless and unabated impetuosity. Dr. Blair remarks, that the orations of Demosthenes present a complete model of this particular style. These qualities ascertained, the writer or speaker will endeavour to work up his mind, to rouse his sensibility, to the transcription of them he will transform himself into the precise state of passion, which they require. Issuing his language from the influence of this posture of thought, he will stamp it with the characteristic, which he affects: he will render it vehement to his desire. The same process, varied according to the nature of each style, will open access to each. I have not descanted upon the qualities of every particular one such an undertaking would be impracticable; since there may be as many different styles, as different tempers of mind. Besides, my object was not to make a catalogue of them, or to mark out their respective boundaries my sole scope was to shew, in a general manner, in what the perfection of each consisted, and in what principle their variety originated. : To what source their variety is to be traced, has been, with sufficient perspicuity, explained. This variety entirely depends upon the temper of mind, the peculiar sensibility, under which they are employed. The person in warmth, will deliver himself with warmth; in melancholy, with melancholy; in an attempt at elegance, with elegance. The perfection of the styles of these different characters, will, obviously, consist in blending, with exact grammatical expression, the true copy of these distinctive tempers*. Style, therefore, considered in its two properties of perfection and variety, seems to answer the description of it, which I ventured to undertake. This being the whole comprehension of the subject, as far as was necessary for a general survey, as far as was requisite to afford a compleat critical idea of it, to determine the nature of style, its origin, the source of its alterations, and every circumstance, which could expose it to open view, it is unnecessary to proceed to further detail. Precise descriptions of most of the ordinary species of styles, as likewise, other particulars relating to them, of most desired importance, may be found in the critics, in Quinctilian, in Blair, and in other celebrated authors. Respecting what might be the most perfect style, abstractedly considered, I take the liberty of referring to a note at the end of the different treatises, relating to the comparative merits of Sublimity, and Beauty. That note will compleatly answer the purpose of a separate discussion here. BEAUTY. CHAP. I. A Definition of Beauty. BEAUTY has been a theme of as much variety of opinion, and discussion, as the Sublime, but apparently with very different success; as some of the definitions of it seem to have ascertained its nature, and to differ only in terms. Abstracting from this variance, they appear to be just, and to agree, universally, with what they define*. I shall single out four of them from very celebrated authors. It must previously be ob * Various have been the disputes respecting the extent due to the signification of the term Beauty. A very welljudged extent seems to be assigned, when it is said to regulate both visible forms and sentiment. Granting the latitude, which common acceptation imparts to it, my definition will equally apply; therefore, about these dis putes I have little or no solicitude. served, that these authors speak only of complex beauty, probably from an idea, that, by taking beauty in its widest extent, they comprehend all its subordinate degrees. By complex beauty is meant such beauty as takes in more than one object, with one or more accessaries of quality, parts, or of any distinguishable chaA horse is a specimen of this species of beauty, because what beauty it possesses, is made up of a variety of component parts. racter. By simple beauty, is meant the beauty of any object, individually taken, as, of some colour, of a circle; in fhort, of any thing considered without relation. The celebrated authors, whose definitions I have selected, are Hutchinson, Diderot, St. Augustine, and Sir Joshua Reynolds. I have preferred the opinion of St. Augustine, with which I shall endeavour to make it evident, that the definitions of the other three coincide. Hutchinson defines beauty to consist in uniformity, and variety; and asserts, that it is in a compound ratio of both. Diderot, in his excellent essay Sur Le Beau, in the Dictionnaire de Grammaire, et de Literature, determines it, if I am not mistaken, to consist in the relation, which parts bear to the whole, and censures St. Auguftine's definition, as more appropriate to perfection, than to beauty. St. Augustine's definition, to which I subscribe, is this, "Omnis |