and gives the reader every possible assistance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to express it at first in its full strength, because he is to repeat the impression; and what he wants in trength, he proposes to fupply by copi. ousness. Writers of this character generally love magnificence and amplification. Their periods naturally run out into fome length, and having room for ornament of every kind, they admit it freely. Each of these manners has its peculiar advantages; and each becomes faulty when carried to the extreme. The extreme of conciseness becomes abrupt and obscure; it is apt also to lead into a Style too pointed, and bordering on the epigrammatic. The extreme of diffuseness becomes weak and languid, and tires the reader. However, to one or other of these two manners a writer may lean, according as his genius prompts him: and under the general character of a concife, or of a more open and diffufe Style, may possess much beauty in his compofition. For illustrations of these general characters, I can only refer to the writers who are examples of them. It is not fo much from detached passages, such as I was wont formerly to quote for instances, as from the current of an author's Style, that we are to collect the idea of a formed manner of writing. The two most remarkable examples that I know, of conciseness carried as far as propriety will allow, perhaps in fome cases farther, are Tacitus the Historian, and the President Montesquieu in L'Esprit de Loix." Aristotle too holds an eminent rank among didactic writers for his brevity. Perhaps no writer in the world was ever fo frugal of his words as Ariftotle; but this frugality of expreffion frequently darkens his meaning. Of a beautiful and magnificent diffuseness, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the most illustrious inftance that can be given. Addison, also, and Sir William Temple, come in fome degree under this class. $14 Blair. On the Nervous and the Feeble The Nervous and the Feeble, are generally held to be characters of Style, of the fame import with the Concife and the Diffafe. Tacy do indeed very often coincide. Diffuse writers have, for the most part, kme degree of feebleness; and nervous writers will generally be inclined to a con cise expression. This, however, does not always hold; and there are instances of writers, who, in the midst of a full and ample Style, have maintained a great degree of strength. Livy is an example; and in the English language, Dr. Barrow. Barrow's Style has many faults. It is unequal, incorrect, and redundant; but withal, for force and expressiveness uncommonly diftinguished. On every fubject, he multiplies words with an overflowing copiousness; but it is always a torrent of strong ideas and significant exprefsions, which he pours forth. Indeed, the foundations of a nervous or a weak Style are laid in an author's manner of thinking. If he conceives an object strongly, he will express it with energy: but, if he has only an indiftinct view of his fubject; if his ideas be loose and wavering; if his genius be such, or, at the time of his writing, fo carelessly exerted, that he has no firm hold of the conception which he would communicate to us, the marks of all this will clearly appear in his Style. Several unmeaning words and loose epithets will be found; his expressions will be vague and general; his arrangement indiftinct and feeble; we shall conceive somewhat of his meaning, but our conception will be faint, Whereas a nervous writer, whether he employs an extended or a concife Style, gives us always a strong impression of his meaning; his mind is full of his subject, and his words are all expreffive: every phrafe and every figure which he uses, tends to render the picture, which he would fet before us, more lively and complete. Ibid. § 15. On Harshness of STYLE. As every good quality in Style has an extreme, when pursued to which it becomes faulty, this holds of the Nervous Style as well as others. Too great a study of strength, to the neglect of the other qualities of Style, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner. Harshaefs arifes from unusual words, from forced inverfions in the construction of a fentence, and too much neglect of smoothness and eafe. This is reckoned the fault of fome of our earliest claffics in the English Language; fuch as Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon, Hooker, Chillingworth, Milten in his prose works, Harrington, Cudworth, and other writers of confiderable note in the days of Queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. These writers had nerves and strength in a high degree, U 3 and and are to this day eminent for that quality in Style. But the language in their hands was exceedingly different from what it is now, and was indeed entirely formed upon the idiom and construction of the Latin, in the arrangement of sentences. Hooker, for instance, begins the Preface to his celebrated work of Ecclefiaftical Polity with the following sentence: "Though for no "other cause, yet for this, that pofterity " may know we have not loosely, through " filence, permitted things to pass away as " in dream, there shall be, for men's in"formation, extant this much, concerning "the present state of the church of God " established amongst us, and their careful " endeavours which would have upheld the "same." Such a sentence now sounds harth in our ears. Yet some advantages certainly attended this fort of Style; and whether we have gained, or lost, upon the whole, by departing from it, may bear a question. By the freedom of arrangement, which it permitted, it rendered the language fufceptible of more strength, of more variety of collocation, and more harmony of period. But however this be, fuch a Style is now obsolete; and no modern writer could adopt it without the cenfure of harshness and affectation. The present form which the Language has affumed, has, in fome measure, facrificed the study of ftrength to that of perfpicuity and ease. Our arrangement of words has become less forcible, perhaps, but more plain and natural: and this is now understood to be the genius of our Language. Blair, § 16. On the Dry STYLE. The dry manner excludes all ornament of every kind. Content with being understood, it has not the least aim to please either the fancy or the ear. This is tolerable only in pure didactic writing; and even there, to make us hear it, great weight and folidity of matter is requifite; and entire perfpicuity of language. Arif totle is the complete example of a Dry Style. Never, perhaps, was there any author who adhered so rigidly to the strictness of a didactic manner, throughout all his writings, and conveyed so much inftruction, without the least approach to ornaWith the most profound genius, and extensive views, he writes like a pure intelligence, who addresses himself solely to the understanding, without making any use of the channel of the imagination, But ment. A Plain Style rises one degree above a dry one. A writer of this character em. ploys very little ornament of any kind, and rests almost entirely upon his sense. But, if he is at no pains to engage us by the employment of figures, musical arrangement, or any other art of writing, he studies, however, to avoid disgufting us, like a dry and a harsh writer. Befides Perfpicuity, he pursues Propriety, Purity, and Precision, in his language; which form one degree, and no inconfiderable one, of beauty. Liveliness too, and force, may be confiftent with a very Plain Style: and, therefore, fuch an author, if his sentiments be good, may be abundantly agreeable. The difference between a dry and plain writer, is, that the former is incapable of ornament, and feems not to know what it is; the latter seeks not after it. He gives us his meaning, in good language, distinct and pure; any further ornament he gives himself no trouble about; either, because he thinks it unnecessary to his subject; or, because his genius does not lead him to delight in it; or, because it leads him to despise it*. manner. This last was the case with Dean Swift, who may be placed at the head of those that have employed the Plain Style. Few writers have discovered more capacity. He treats every fubject which he handles, whether ferious or ludicrous, in a matterly He knew, almost beyond any man, the Purity, the Extent, the Precifion of the English Language; and, therefore, to such as with to attain a pure and correct Style, he is one of the most ufeful models. But we must not look for much ornament and grace in his Language. * On this head, of the General Characters of Style, particularly the Plain and the Simple, and the characters of those English authors who are claffed under them, in this, and the following Lec. tures (xix) several ideas have been taken from manufcript treatise on rhetoric, part of which was ingenious Author, Dr. Adam Smith, and which, shewn to many years ago, by the learned and it is hoped, will be given by him to the Public. His haughty and morose genius made him despise any embellishment of this kind, as beneath his dignity. He delivers his fentiments in a plain, downright, positive manner, like one who is fure he is in the right; and is very indifferent whether you be pleased or not. His fentences are commonly negligently arranged; diftinctly enough as to the sense, but without any regard to smoothness of found; often with out much regard to compactness or elegance. If a metaphor, or any other figure, chanced to render his fatire more poignant, he would, perhaps, vouchsafe to adopt it, when it came in his way; but if it tended only to embellish and illustrate, he would rather throw it afide. Hence, in his serious pieces, his style often borders upon the dry and unpleasing, in his humorous ones, the plainness of his manner fets off his wit to the highest advantage. There is no froth nor affectation in it; it seems native and unstudied; and while he hardly appears to fmile himself, he makes his reader laugh heartily. To a writer of fuchcesses or defects. From what has been cadence is varied; but not of the studied musical kind. His figures, if he ufes any, are short and correct; rather than bold and glowing. Such a Style as this may be attained by a writer who has no great powers of fancy or genius, by industry merely, and careful attention to the rules of writing; and it is a Style always agreeable. It imprints a character of moderate elevation on our composition, and carries a decent degree of ornament, which is not unsuitable to any subject whatever. A familiar letter, or a law paper, on the drieft subject, may be written with neatness; and a fermon, or a philofophical treatise, in a Neat Style, will be read with pleasure. Ibid, a genius as Dean Swift, the Plain Style was most admirably fitted. Among our philosophical writers, Mr. Locke comes under this class; perspicuous and pure, but almost without any ornament whatever, In works which admit, or require, ever so much ornament, there are parts where the plain manner ought to predominate. But we must remember, that when this is the character which a writer affects throughout his whole compofition, great weight of matter, and great force of sentiment, are required, in order to keep up the reader's attention, and prevent him from becoming tired of the author. Blair. 18. On the Neat STYLE. What is called a Neat Style comes next in order; and here we are got into the region of ornament; but that ornament not of the highest or most sparkling kind. A writer of this character shews, that he does not despise the beauty of language. It is an object of his attention. But his attention is shewn in the choice of his words, and in a graceful collocation of them; rather than in any high efforts of imagination, or elouence. His sentences are always clean, and free from the incambrance of fuperfluous words; of a moderate length; rather inclining to brevity, than a swelling structure; closing with propriety; without any tails, or adjections dragging after the proper close. His § 19. On an Elegant STYLE. An Elegant Style is a character, exprefsing a higher degree of ornament than a neat one; and, indeed, is the term usually applied to Style, when poffeffing all the virtues of ornament, without any of its ex formerly delivered, it will easily be understood, that complete Elegance implies great perfpicuity and propriety; purity in the choice of words, and care and dexterity in their harmonious and happy arrangement. It implies farther, the grace and beauty of imagination spread over Style, as far as the subject admits it; and all the illuftration which figurative language adds, when properly employed. In a word, an elegant writer is one who pleases the fancy and the ear, while he informs the understanding; and who gives us his ideas clothed with all the beauty of expreffion, but not overcharged with any of its misplaced finery. In this class, therefore, we place only the first rate writers in the language; such as Addison, Dryden, Pope, Temple, Bolingbroke, Atterbury, and a few more; writers who differ widely from one another in many of the attributes of Style, but whom we now class together, under the denomination of Elegant, as, in the scale of Ornament, poffefiing nearly the fame place, Ibid. §20. On the Florid STYLE. When the ornaments, applied to Style, are too rich and gaudy in proportion to the fubject; when they return upon us too faft, and strike us either with a dazzling luftre, or a false brilliancy, this forms what is called a Florid Style; a term commonly used to fignify the excess of ornament. 1 In a young composer this is very pardonable. Perhaps, it is even a promifing symptom, in young people, that their Style should incline to the Florid and Luxuriant: "Volo se esserat in adolefcente fæcundi"tas," fays Quinctilian, " multum inde "decoquent anni, multum ratio limabit, " aliquid velut ufu ipfo deteretur; fit mo⚫ do unde excidi poffit quid et exculpi.-• Audeat hæc ætas plura, et inveniat et " inventis gaudeat; fint licet illa non fatis " interim ficca et severa. Facile reme"dium eft ubertatis: sterilia nullo labore " vincuntur *." But, although the Florid Style may be allowed to youth, in their first essays, it must not receive the fame indulgence from writers of maturer years. It is to be expected, that judgment, as it ripens, should chaften imagination, and reject, as juvenile, all fuch ornaments as are redundant, unfuitable to the subject, or not conducive to illustrate it. Nothing can be more contemptible than that tinsel splendour of language, which some writers perpetually affect. It were well, if this could be ascribed to the real overflowing of a rich imagination. We should then have something to amufe us, at least, if we found little to inftruct us. But the worst is, that with those frothy writers, it is a luxuriancy of words, not of fancy. We fee a laboured attempt to rite to a fplendour of compofition, of which they have formed to themselves fome loose idea; but having no strength of genius for attaining it, they endeavour to fupply the defect by poetical words, by cold exclamations, by commonplace figures, and every thing that has the appearance of pomp and magnificence. It has efcaped these writers, that fobriety in ornament, is one great fecret for rendering it pleasing; and that without a founda tion of good sense and folid thought, the moft Florid Style is but a childish impofition on the Public. The Public, however, are but too apt to be so imposed on; at leait, the mob of readers; who are very ready to be caught, at first, with whatever is dawling and gaudy. I cannot help thinking, that it reflects *"In youth, I wish to fee luxuriancy of fancy "appear. Much of it will be diminished by years; much will be corrected by ripening " judgment; fome of it, by the mere practice of "compofition, will be worn away. Let there he "only fufficient matter, at first, that can bear " fome pruning and lopping off. At this time of "life, let genius be bold and inventive, and pride itself in its efforts, though these should not, as "yet, be correct. Luxuriancy can easily be cured; " but for barrenness there is no remedy." more honour on the religious turn, and good dispositions of the present age, than on the public tafte, that Mr. Hervey's Meditations have had so great a currency. The pious and benevolent heart, which is always displayed in them, and the lively fancy which, on fome occafions, appears, justly merited applaufe: but the perpetual glitter of expreffion, the fwoln imagery, and strained description which abound in them, are ornaments of a false kind. I would, therefore, advise students of oratory to imitate Mr. Harvey's piety, rather than his Style; and, in all compositions of a ferious kind, to turn their attention, as Mr. Pope says, "from founds to things, from fancy to the heart." Admonitions of this kind I have already had occafion to give, and may hereafter repeat them; as I conceive nothing more incumbent on me, in this course of Lectures, than to take every opportunity of cautioning my readers against the affected and frivolous use of ornament; and, instead of that flight and superficial taite in writing, which I apprehend to be at present too fashionable, to introduce, as far as my endeavours can avail, a taste for more folid thought, and more manly fimplicity in Style. Blair. § 21. On the different Kinds of SIM PLICITY. The first is, Simplicity of Compofition, as opposed to too great a variety of parts, Horace's precept refers to this: Denique fit quod vis fimplex duntaxat et unum. This is the fimplicity of plan in a tragedy, as diftinguished from double plots, and crowded incidents; the Simplicity of the Iliad, or Æneid, in opposition to the digressions of Lucan, and the scattered tales of Ariosto; the Simplicity of Grecian architecture, in oppofition to the irregular variety of the Gothic. In this sense, Simplicity is the fame with Unity. The second sense is, Simplicity of Thought, as oppofed to refinement. Simple thoughts are what arife naturally; what the occafion or the fubject suggest unfought; and what, when once fuggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and obvious train of thought, and which it required a peculiar turn of genius * " Then learn the wand'ring humour to con troul, "And keep one equal tenour through the whole." FRANCIS. to to pursue; within certain bounds very beautiful; but when carried too far, approaching to intricacy, and hurting us by the appearance of being recherché, or far fought. Thus, we would naturally say, that Mr. Parnell is a poet of far greater fimplicity, in his turn of thought, than Mr. Cowley: Cicero's thoughts on moral subjects are natural; Seneca's too refined and laboured. In these two senses of Simplicity, when it is opposed either to variety of parts, or to refinement of thought, it has no proper relation to Style. There is a third sense of Simplicity, in which it has refpect to Style; and stands opposed to too much ornament, or pomp of language; as when we say, Mr. Locke is a fimple, Mr. Hervey a florid, writer; and it is in this sense, that the "fimplex," the " tenue," or " fubtile genus dicendi," is understood by Cicero and Quinctilian, The fimple style, in this sense, coincides with the plain or the neat style, which I before mentioned; and, therefore, requires no farther illuftration. But there is a fourth sense of Simplicity, also respecting Style; but not respecting the degree of ornament employed, fo much as the easy and natural manner in which our language expreffes our thoughts. This is quite different from the former fenfe of the word just now mentioned, in which Simplicity was equivalent to Plainness: whereas, in this sense, it is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for indance, poffefses this simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more ornament and beauty. This Simplicity, which is what we are now to confider, ftands oppofed, not to ornament, but to affectation of ornament, or appearance of labour about our Style; and it is a diftinguithing excellency in writing. Blair. §22. SIMPLICITY appears eafy. A writer of Simplicity expresses himself in fuch a manner, that every one thinks he could have written in the fame way; Horace describes it, There are no marks of art in his expreffion; it feems the very language of nature, you fee, in the Style, not the writer and his labour, but the man, in his own natural character. He may be rich in his expreffion; he may be full of figures, and of fancy; but these flow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has studied it, but because it is the manner of expreffion moft, natural to him. A certain degree of negligence, also, is not inconfiftent with this character of style, and even not ungraceful in it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: "Habeat ille," says Cicero, (Orat. No. 77.) "molle quiddam, et quod indicet non ingratam negligentiam "hominis, de re magis quàm de verbo " laborantis †." This is the great advantage of Simplicity of Style, that, like simplicity of manners, it shows us a man's sentiments and turn of mind laid open without disguise. More studied and artificial manners of writing, however beautiful, have always this disadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the fplendour of dress, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal those peculiarities which diftinguith one man from another. But reading an author of Simplicity, is like converting with a perfon of diftinction at home, and with eafe, where we find natural manners, and a marked character. § 23. On Naïveté. 1bid. The highest degree of this Simplicity. is expressed by a French term to which we have none that fully answers in our language, Naïveté. It is not easy to give a precife idea of the import of this word. It always expresses a difcovery of character. I believe the best account of it is given by a French critic, M. Marmontel, who explains it thus: That fort of amiable ingenuity, or undisguised openness, which seems to give us some degree of superiority over the person who shews it; a certain infantine Simplicity, which we love in our hearts, but which displays fome features of the character that we think we could have art enough to hide; and which, therefore, always leads us to smile at the perfon who + "Let this Style have a certain foftness and "ease, which shall characterise a negligence, not " unpleafing in an author who appears to be more folicitous about the thought than the ex ut fibi quivis Speret idem, fudet multum, fruftraque laboret *"From well-known tales fuch fictions would vain." " preffion." difcovers |