❝tures of what condition foever, though each in "different fort and manner, yet all with uniform "confent, admiring her as the Mother of their 66 peace and joy."-HOOKER Eccl. Pol.

In thefe Paffages the Diction is distinguished by a gradual Rife from abfolute fimplicity to confummate elegance.

The fimplicity is abfolute, when the Language is merely what the thought makes it.

Elegance implies a Choice; but the choice muft feem to spring from the impreffion of the Idea. By this it is diftinguished from Refinement, which isA ftudied Advantage in the Manner, independent on an adequate motive in the Thought.

A fuperior Genius may truft to the influence of his feelings the beauty, of whatever kind it may be, will pafs into the Language. Hence the effufions of Genius become the Laws of Compofition.

They who cultivate elegance with no other aim than to do juftice to the idea, will be defervedly admired but when, from obferving the pleasure this gives, they become too ftudious to please, they are

apt at times to fall into refinement. That which is but a Lapfe in Men of Parts, rifes into Design with those who have none. From a contempt of Simplicity in the expreffion, may be traced the several exceffes of refinement; and the prevalence of ill-tafte in many branches of Compofition.

FURTHER

FURTHER THOUGHTS

O N

MANNERS AND LANGUAGE.

ROM good fenfe, and a native bene

FR

volence of heart, fprings à Conscious nefs of what is due to ourselves, and others. This becomes, as Society improves, the just and only Standard of propriety and elegance in the Manners. But, as much the greater number of men are under no fuch direction, Elegance with them, is for the most part artificial; and as fuch must be fubject to fluctuation and excefs. Here we find it neceffary to diftinguish between true elegance, which is Taste, and has its origin in Feeling; and the Artificial, which is Fashion, B 2

and

and founded on Imitation.

It is of the lat

ter we speak, in deciding on national Manners; and which is generally understood by the word Politenefs.

If we confult the hiftory of Manners, we fhall find that they are in a constant progreffion from Rudenefs towards Elegance; from Elegance towards Refinement.

The state of Manners in every Age and Nation is to be collected chiefly from their Dramatic Writings. This leads to confider what state of Manners is most favourable to the dramatic Character.

The finest pathetic feelings fpring from a conflict between the fimple Dictates of Nature, and the restraints arising from a respect for the laws of Propriety and Decorum. Now, it should seem, that this Conflict muft be at the highest, when the Manners emerging out of Rudeness are in their progrefs towards Elegance; for, Rudeness being under no restraints, the Paffions must come to an immediate decifion; and the finer gradations of the Pathos are loft in the Violence of the Character. On the other hand, Elegance, taking

taking place as a rule of Conduct, has a conftant tendency to Refinement: And as the Aim of refinement, is, to fupprefs, or difguife the emotions of paffion, it must neceffarily introduce an uniformity of Manners: Hence it is evident, that an age of politenefs cannot abound in dramatic Manners. Thefe obfervations are established by experience: Thus, Ariftotle tells us, that the early dramatic writers were, in the manners, greatly fuperior to the Writers of his time, which was an age of Politeness. This will be confirmed, I believe, on a comparison of the age of Shakespear and Fletcher with the politer ages which have fucceeded.

Manners are the conftituents of Character; the modes by which we express our ideas and fentiments are, as well as the fentiments themselves, indications of the Manhers.

Simple Manners employ a congenial Language. The bold Metaphor, or figurative speech of the favage, is no exception; it is his idiom; the natural confequence of the poverty of his Tongue, and the Vivacity