CHAP. XXVIII.

Of periodical Effay Writers, particularly Addison and Johnson.

To

o hardly any fpecies of compofition has the British public been more fignally indebted than to the periodical Effay; and, perhaps, it was only from the British press, that fuch a publication could have iffued. The attempt to excite mental appetite, by furnishing, from day to day, intellectual aliment of fuch peculiar freshness, must have been fatally obftructed by any jealoufy of fuperintendance, or formality of licenfing. The abuse of the prefs is to be deplored as a calamity, and punished as a crime. But let neither Prince nor people forget the providential bleffings which have been derived to both from its conftitutional liberty. As this was one of the invaluable effects of the revolution in 1688, fo perhaps

no other means more contributed to carry the bleffings of that period to their confummate establishment, in the acceffion of the houfe of Brunswick.

The two writers who have most eminently diftinguished themselves in this path of literature, are Addifon and Johnfon. At a period when religion was held in more than ufual contempt, from its having been recently abused to the worst purposes; and when the higher walks of life ftill exhibited that diffolutenefs which the profli gate reign of the fecond Charles had made fo deplorably fashionable, Addifon feems to have been raifed by Providence for the double purpose of improving the public. tafte, and correcting the public morals. As the powers of the imagination had, in the preceding period, been peculiarly abused to the purposes of vice, it was Addifon's great object to fhew that wit and impurity had no neceflary connection. He not only evinced this by his reasonings, but he fo exemplified it in his own compofitions,

་

fitions, as to become in a fhort time more generally useful, by becoming more popular than any English writer who had yet appeared. This well-earned celebrity he endeavoured to turn to the best of all purpofes; and his fuccess was such as to prove, that genius is never fo advantageoufly em ployed as in the fervice of virtue, nor influence fo well directed as in rendering piety fashionable. At this diftance, when almoft all authors have written the better because Addifon wrote firft, and when the public taste which he refined has become competent, through that refinement, to criticise its benefactor, it is not eafy fully to appreciate the value of Addifon. To do this, we must attend to the progrefs of English literature, and make a comparison between him and his predeceffors.

But noble as the views of Addison were, and happily as he has, in general, accomplished what he intended; the praise which justly belongs to him must be qualified by the avowal, that it does not extend to every

every paffage which he has written. From the pernicious influence of thofe very manners which it was his object to correct, fome degree of taint has occafionally affected his own pages, which will make it neceffary to guard the royal pupil from a wholly promifcuous perufal. It is, however, but juftice to add, that the few inftances referred to, however exceptionable, are of fuch a kind as to expose him to the charge rather of inadvertence, or momentary levity, than of any unfixedness of principle, much lefs any depravity of heart.

Of all the periodical works, thofe of Johnson, in point of strict and undeviating moral purity, unquestionably stand highest. Every page is invariably delicate. It is, therefore, the rare praise of this author, that the most vigilant preceptor may commit his voluminous works into the hands of even his female pupil, without caution, limitation, or referve; fecure that the cannot stumble on a pernicious fentiment, or

rife from the perufal with the flightest taint of immorality. Even in his dictionary, moral rectitude has not only been fcrupuloufly maintained, but, as far as the nature of the work would admit, it has been affiduously inculcated. In the authorities which he has adduced, he has collected, with a difcrimination which can never be enough admired, a countless multitude of the most noble fentences which English literature afforded; yet he has frequently contented himself with inftances borrowed from inferior writers, when he found fome paffage, which at once ferved his purpose, and that of religion and morality; and also, as he declared himself, left he should risk contaminating the mind of the ftudent, by referring him to authors of more celebrity but lefs purity. When we reflect how fatally the unfufpected title of Dictionary has been made the vehicle for polluting principle, we fhall feel the value of this extreme confcien. tiousness of Johnson.

Still,