and phrafes, which would be lefs fignificant of the ideas that we mean to convey. Style may be pure, that is, it may all be ftrictly English, without Scotticifms or Gallicifms, or ungrammatical, irregular expreffions of any kind, and may, neverthelefs, be deficient in propriety. The words may be ill-chofen; not adapted to the fubject, nor fully expreffive of the author's fenfe. He has taken all his words and phrafes from the general mafs of English Language; but he has made his felection among these words unhappily. Whereas Style cannot be proper without being alfo pure; and where both Purity and Propriety meet, befides making Style perfpicuous, they alfo render it graceful. There is no ftandard, either of Purity or of Propriety, but the practice of the beft writers and fpeakers in the country.

-When I mentioned obfolete or newcoined words as incongruous with Purity of Style, it will be eafily understood, that fome exceptions are to be made. On certain occafions, they may have grace. Poetry admits of greater latitude than profe, with respect to coining, or, at leaft, new-compounding words; yet, even here, this liberty fhould be ufed with a fparing hand. In profe, fuch innovations are more hazardous, and have a worfe effect. They are apt to give Style an affected and conceited air; and fhould never be ventured upon except by fuch, whofe eftablished reputation gives them fome degree of dictatorial power over Language. The introduction of foreign and learned words, unlefs where neceffity requires them, fhould always be avoided. Barren Languages may need fuch affistances; but ours is not one of thefe. Dean Swift, one of our moft correct writers, valued himself much on ufing no words but fuch as were of native growth: and his Language, may, indeed, be confidered as a itandard of the ftricteft Purity and Propriety in the choice of words. At prefent, we feem to be departing from this ftandard. A multitude of Latin words have, of late, been poured in upon us. On fome occafions, they give an appearance of elevation and dignity to Style. But often, alfo, they render it ftiff and forced: and, in general, a plain native Style, as it is more intelligible to all readers, fo, by a proper management of words, it may be made equally ftrong and expreffive with this Latinized English. Blair.

§ 7. On PRECISION.

The exact import of Precifion may be drawn from the etymology of the word. It comes from "precidere," to cut off: it imports retrenching all fuperfluities, and pruning the expreffion fo, as to exhibit neither more nor less than an exact copy of his idea who ufes it. I obferved before, that it is often difficult to separate the qualities of Style from the qualities of Thought; and it is found fo in this inftance. For in order to write with Precifion, though this be properly a quality of Style, one must poffefs a very confiderable degree of dif tinctnefs and accuracy in his mannner of thinking.

The words, which a man uses to exprefs his ideas, may be faulty in three refpects: They may either not exprefs that idea which the author intends, but fome other which only refembles, or is a-kin to it; or, they may exprefs that idea, but not quite fully and completely; or, they may exprefs it together with fomething more than he intends. Precision stands oppofed to all thefe three faults; but chiefly to the laft. In an author's writing with propriety, his being free from the two for mer faults feems implied. The words which he ufes are proper; that is, they exprefs that idea which he intends, and they exprefs it fully; but to be Precife, fignifies, that they exprefs that idea, and no more. There is nothing in his words which introduces any foreign idea, any fuperfluous, unfeafonable acceffory, fo as to mix it confufedly with the principal object, and thereby to render our concep tion of that object loofe and indiftinct.. This requires a writer to have, himself, a very clear apprehenfion of the object he. means to prefent to us; to have laid faft. hold of it in his mind; and never to waver in any one view he takes of it; a perfection to which, indeed, few writers attain. Ibid.

$ 8. On the Ufe and Importance of

PRECISION.

clearly

be compofed in the fame Style with Orations. Every one fees alfo, that different parts of the fame compofition require a variation in the Style and manner. In a fermon, for inftance, or any harangue, the application or peroration admits of more ornament, and requires more warmth, than the didactic part. But what I mean at present to remark is, that, amidft this variety, we still expect to find, in the compofitions of any one man, fome degree of uniformity or confiftency with himself in manner; we expect to find fome predominant character of Style impreffed on all his writings, which shall be fuited to, and fhall mark, his particular genius, and turn of mind. The orations in Livy differ much in Style, as they ought to do, from the reft of his hiftory. The fame is the cafe with thofe in Tacitus. Yet both in Livy's orations, and in those of Tacitus, we are able clearly to trace the diftinguishing manner of each historian: the magnificent fulness of the one, and the fententious concifenefs of the other. The Lettres Perfanes," and " L'Efprit de Loix," are the works of the fame author. They required very different compofition furely, and accordingly they differ widely; yet ftill we fee the fame hand. Wherever there is real and native genius, it gives a determination to one kind of Style rather than another. Where nothing of this appears; where there is r marked nor peculiar chaacter in the compofitions of any author, we are apt to infer, not without reafon, that he is a vulgar and trivial author, who writes from imitation, and not from the impulfe of original genius. As the moft celebrated painters are known by their hand, fo the best and most original writers are known and distinguished, throughout all their works, by their Style and peculiar manner. This will be found to hold almost without exception.

Blair.

dicates, a Style ornamented, flowing, and sweet; refting more upon numbers and grace, than ftrength; he inftances Hefiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Euripides, and principally Ifocrates. The Middle kind is the just mean between these, and comprehends the beauties of both; in which clafs he places Homer and Sophocles among the Poets in Profe, Herodotus, Demofthenes, Plato, and (what seems strange) Ariftotle. This must be a very wide clafs indeed, which comprehends Plato and Aristotle under one article as to Style*. Cicero and Quinctilian make alfo a threefold divifion of Style, though with respect to different qualities of it; in which they are followed by most of the modern writers on Rhetoric; the Simplex, Tenue, or Subtile; the Grave, or Vehemens; and the Medium, or temperatum genus dicendi. thefe divifions, and the illuftrations they give of them, are so loose and general, that they cannot advance us much in our ideas of Style. I fhall endeavour to be a little more particular in what I have to fay on this fubject. Ibid.

But

§ 12. On the Concife STYLE. One of the first and most obvious dif tinctions of the different kinds of Style, iş what arifes from an author's spreading out his thoughts more or lefs. This distinction forms what are called the Diffuse and the Concife Styles. A concife writer compreffes his thought into the feweft poffible words; he feeks to employ none but fuch as are moft expreffive; he lops off, as redundant, every expreffion which does not add fomething material to the fenfe. Ornament he does not reject; he may be lively and figured; but his ornament is intended for the fake of force rather than grace. He never gives you the fame thought twice. He places it in the light which appears to him the maft ftriking; but if you do not apprehend it well in that light, you need not expect to find it in any other. His fentences are arranged with compactness and strength, rather than with cadence and harmony. The utmoft precifion is ftudied in them; and they are commonly defigned to fuggest more to the reader's imagination than they directly Ibid. exprefs.

13. On the Diffuse STYLE. A diffuse writer unfolds his thought fully. He places it in a variety of lights, * De Compofitione Verborum, Cap. 25.

and

and gives the reader every poffible affiftance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to exprefs it at firft in its full ftrength, because he is to repeat the impreffion; and what he wants in ftrength, he propofes to fupply by copioufness. 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 concisenefs becomes abrupt and obfcure; it is apt alfo 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 poffefs much beauty in his compofition.

For illuftrations of these general characters, I can only refer to the writers who are examples of them. It is not fo much from detached paffages, fuch as I was wont formerly to quote for inftances, 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 cafes farther, are Tacitus the Hiftorian, and the Prefident Montefquieu in "L'Efprit de Loix." Ariftotle too holds an eminent rank among didactic writers for his brevity. Perhaps no writer in the world was ever so frugal of his words as Ariftotle; but this frugality of expreffion frequently darkens his meaning. Of a beautiful and magnificent diffufenefs, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the moft illuftrious inftance that can be given. Addison, alfo, and Sir William Temple, come in fome degree under this class.

Blair.

$14. On the Nervous and the Feeble

STYLE.

The Nervous and the Feeble, are generally held to be characters of Style, of the fame import with the Concife and the Diffufe. They do indeed very often coincide. Diffuse writers have, for the most part, fome degree of feebleness; and nervous writers will generally be inclined to a con

cife expreffion. This, however, does not always hold; and there are inftances of writers, who, in the midst of a full and ample Style, have maintained a great degree of ftrength. 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 expreffiveness uncommonly diftinguished. On every subject, he multiplies words with an overflowing copioufnefs; but it is always a torrent of ftrong ideas and fignificant expreffions 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 ftrongly, he will exprefs it with energy: but, if he has only an indiftinct view of his fubject; if his ideas be loofe and wavering; if his genius be fuch, 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 loofe epithets will be found; his expreffions will be vague and general; his arrangement indiflinct and feeble; we fhall conceive fomewhat 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 impreffion of his meaning; his mind is full of his fubject, and his words are all expreffive: every phrase and every figure which he uses, tends to render the picture, which he would fet before us, more lively and complete. Ibid.

§ 15. On Harfbness of STYLE. As every good quality in Style has an extreme, when purfued to which it becomes faulty, this holds of the Nervous Style as well as others. Too great a ftudy of ftrength, to the neglect of the other qualities of Style, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner. Harfhnels arifes from unufual words, from forced inverfions in the construction of a sentence, and too much neglect of fmoothness 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, Milton in his profe 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 ftrength in a high degree,

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 conftruction of the Latin, in the arrangement of fentences. Hooker,, for inftance, begins the Preface to his celebrated work of Ecclefiaftical Polity with the following fentence: "Though for no "other caufe, yet for this, that pofterity " may know we have not loosely, through filence, permitted things to pafs away as «in dream, there fhall be, for men's in"formation, extant this much, concerning "the present state of the church of God "eftablished amongst us, and their careful << endeavours which would have upheld the "fame." Such a fentence now founds harth in in our ears. Yet fome advantages certainly attended this fort of Style; and whether we have gained, or loft, upon the whole, by departing from it, may bear a queftion. By the freedom of arrangement, which it permitted, it rendered the language fufceptible of more ftrength, of more variety of collocation, and more harmony of period. But however this be, fuch a Style is now obfolete; and no modern writer could adopt it without the cenfure of harfhnefs and affectation. The prefent form which the Language has affumed, has, in fome measure, facrificed the study of strength to that of perfpicuity and eafe. Our arrangement of words has become less forcible, perhaps, but more plain and natural: and this is now under. tood 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 leaft aim to pleafe either the fancy or the ear. This is tolerable only in pure didactic writing; and even there, to make us bear it, great weight and folidity of matter is requifite; and entire perfpicuity of language. Ariftotle is the complete example of a Dry Style. Never, perhaps, was there any author who adhered fo rigidly to the ftrictnefs of a didactic manner, throughout all his writings,and conveyed fo much inftruction, without the leaft approach to ornament. With the most profound genius, and extenfive views, he writes like a pure intelligence, who addrefies himself folely to the understanding, without making any ufe of the channel of the imagination. But

this is a manner which deferves, not to be imitated. For, although the goodness of the matter may compenfate the dryness or harfhnefs of the Style, yet is that dryness a confiderable defect; as it fatigues attention, and conveys our fentiments, with difadvantage, to the reader or hearer. Ibid.

§ 17. On the Plain STYLE. A Plain Style rifes one degree above a dry one. A writer of this character employs very little ornament of any kind, and refts almost entirely upon his fenfe. But, if he is at no pains to engage us by the employment of figures, mufical arrangement, or any other art of writing, he ftudies, however, to avoid difgufting us, like a dry and a harsh writer. Befides Perfpicuity, he purfues Propriety, Purity, and Precifion, in his language; which form one degree, and no inconfiderable one, of beauty. Livelinefs too, and force, may be confiftent with a very Plain Style: and, therefore, fuch an author, if his fentiments 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 feeks 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 unneceffary to his fubject; or, because his genius does not lead him to delight in it; or, because it leads him to defpife it *.

This laft was the cafe with Dean Swift, who may be placed at the head of those that have employed the Plain Style. Few writers have difcovered more capacity. He treats every subject which he handles, whether ferious or ludicrous, in a masterly manner. He knew, almoft beyond any man, the Purity, the Extent, the Precision of the English Language; and, therefore, to fuch as wish to attain a pure and corret Style, he is one of the most useful 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 thofe English authors who are claffed under them,in this, and the following Lectures [xix] feveral ideas have been taken from a manufcript treatife on rhetoric, part of which was fhewn to me many years ago, by the learned and ingenious Author, Dr. Adam Smith, and which, it is hoped, will be given by him to the Public.

His