Page images
PDF
EPUB

and gives the reader every poffible affiftance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to exprefs it at first in its full strength, because he is to repeat the impreffion; and what he wants in trength, he propofes to fupply by copi. oufnefs. 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 thefe manners has its peculiar advantages; and each becomes faulty when carried to the extreme. The extreme of concifenefs becomes abrupt and obfcure; it is apt alfo to lead into a Style too pointed, and bordering on the epigrammatic. The extreme of diffufenefs becomes weak and languid, and tires the reader. However, to one or other of thefe 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 illustrations of thefe general charafters, 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 concilenefs 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.” "L'Efprit 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 d.frufenefs, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the moft illuftrious inftance that can be given. Addison, alfo, and Sir William Temple, come in fome degree under this clafs. 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 Diffafe. They do indeed very often coincide. Diffufe writers have, for the most part, kme 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 expreffivenefs uncommonly diftinguished. On every fabject, he multiplies words with an overflowing copioufnefs; but it is always a torrent of. trong ideas and fignificant expreffions, which he pours forth. Indeed, the founda-, tions 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 indiftinct 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 ufes, tends to render the picture, which he would set before us, more lively and complete. Ioid.

15. On Harness 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 study of ftrength, to the neglect of the other qualities of Style, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner. Harthaefs arifes from unufual words, from forced inverfions in the construction of a fentence, 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. Thefe writers had nerves and ftrength 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 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 loofely, through "filence, permitted things to pafs away as "in dream, there fhall be, for men's in"formation, extant this much, concerning "the prefent ftate of the church of God "established amongst us, and their careful "endeavours which would have upheld the "fame." Such a sentence now founds harth 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 harshness and affectation. The prefent form which the Language has affumed, has, in fome meafure, facrificed the study of ftrength to that of perfpicuity and cafe. Our arrangement of words has become less forcible, perhaps, but more plain and natural: and this is now underftood to be the genius of our Language.

16. On the Dry STYLE.

Blair,

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 strictnefs of a didactic manner, throughout all his writings, and conveyed so much inftruction, without the leaft approach to ornaWith the most profound genius, and extensive views, he writes like a pure intelligence, who addreffes himself folely to the understanding, without making any ufe of the channel of the imagination, But

ment.

this is a manner which deferves not to be imitated. For, although the goodnefs 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 dif, advantage, 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 writers have difcovered more capacity. that have employed the Plain Style. Few whether ferious or ludicrous, in a masterly He treats every fubject which he handles, man, the Purity, the Extent, the Precision manner. He knew, almoft beyond any of the English Language; and, therefore, to fuch as with to attain a pure and cor. rect Style, he is one of the most useful models. But we must not look for much ornament and grace in his Language.

Style, particularly the Plain and the Simple, and

*On this head, of the General Characters of

the characters of thofe English authors who are claffed under them, in this, and the following Lec tures (xix) feveral ideas have been taken from mewn to me, many years ago, by the learned and manufcript treatife on rhetoric, part of which was ingenious Author, Dr. Adam Smith, and which, it is hoped, will be given by him to the Public.

His haughty and morofe genius made him defpife any embellishment of this kind, as beneath his dignity. He delivers his fentiments in a plain, downright, pofitive manner, like one who is fure he is in the right; and is very indifferent whether you be pleafed or not. His fentences are commonly negligently arranged; diftinctly enough as to the fenfe, 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, vouchfafe to adopt it, when it came in his way; but if it tended only to embellish and illuftrate, he would rather throw it afide. Hence, in his ferious pieces, his ftyle often borders upon the dry and unpleafing in his humorous ones, the plainnefs of his manner fets off his wit to the higheft advantage. There is no froth nor affectation in it; it feems native and unftudied; and while he hardly appears to fmile himself, he makes his reader laugh heartily. To a writer of fuch a genius as Dean Swift, the Plain Style was moft admirably fitted. Among our philofophical writers, Mr. Locke comes under this clafs; perfpicuous and pure, but almoft without any ornament whatever. In works which admit, or require, ever fo 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 fentiment, 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 higheft or molt fparkling kind. A writer of this character fhews, that he does not defpife the beauty of language. It is an object of his attention. But his attention is fhewn in the choice of his words, and in a graceful collocation of them; rather than in any high efforts of imagination, or elouence. His fentences are always clean, and free from the incumbrance of fuperfluous words; of a moderate length; rather inclining to brevity, than a fwelling ftructure; ciofing with propriety; without any tails, or adjections dragging after the proper clofe. His

cadence is varied; but not of the studied mufical kind. His figures, if he ufes any, are fhort 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 compofition, and carries a decent degree of ornament, which is not unfuitable to any fubject whatever. A familiar letter, or a law paper, on the driest fubject, may be written with neatnefs; and a fermon, or a philofophical treatife, in a Neat Style, will be read with pleasure.

Ibid,

$ 19. On an Elegant STYLE. An Elegant Style is a character, expreffing a higher degree of ornament than a neat one; and, indeed, is the term ufually applied to Style, when poffeffing all the virtues of ornament, without any of its exceffes or defects. From what has been formerly delivered, it will eafily be underftood, 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 fpread over Style, as far as the fubject admits it; and all the illustration which figurative language adds, when properly employed. In a word, an elegant writer is one who pleafes 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 mifplaced finery. In this clafs, therefore, we place only the first rate writers in the language; fuch as Addifon, 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 clafs together, under the denomination of Elegant, as, in the fcale of Ornament, poffeing 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 ftrike us either with a dazzling luftre, or a falfe brilliancy, this forms what is called a Florid Style; a term commonly used to fignify the excefs of ornament.

In a young compofer this is very pardonable. Perhaps, it is even a promifing fymptom, in young people, that their Style mould incline to the Florid and Luxuriant: "Volo fe efferat in adolefcente fæcundi"tas," fays Quinctilian, " multum inde decoquent anni, multum ratio limabit, "aliquid velut ufu ipfo deteretur; fit modo unde excidi poifit quid et exculpi.-Audeat hæc ætas plura, et inveniat et "inventis gaudeat; fiat licet illa non fatis interim ficca et fevera. Facile reme"dium eft ubertatis: fterilia nullo labore

"vincuntur *." but, although the Florid Style may be allowed to youth, in their firft eflays, it must not receive the fame indulgence from writers of maturer years. It is to be expected, that judgment, as it ripens, fhould chaften imagination, and reject, as juvenile, all fuch ornaments as are redundant, unfuitable to the fubject, or not conducive to illustrate it. Nothing can be more contemptible than that tinfel fplendour of language, which fome writers perpetually affect. It were well, if this could be afcribed to the real overflowing of a rich imagination. We fhould then have fomething to amufe us, at leaft, 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 rile to a fplendour of compofition, of which they have formed to themfelves fome locfe idea; but having no ftrength of genius for attaining it, they endeavour to supply 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 thefe writers, that fobriety in ornament, is one great fecret for rendering it pleafing and that without a foundation of good fenfe and folid thought, the moft Florid Style is but a childish impofition on the Public. The Public, however, are but too apt to be fo impofed on; at leaft, the mob of readers; who are very ready to be caught, at firit, with whatever is darling and gaudy.

[ocr errors]

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 be "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

itfelf in its efforts, though thefe fhould not, as "yet, be correct. Luxuriancy can eafily be cured; "but for barrennefs there is no remedy."

more honour on the religious turn, and good difpofitions of the prefent age, than on the public tafte, that Mr. Hervey's Meditations have had fo great a currency. The pious and benevolent heart, which is always difplayed in them, and the lively fancy which, on fome occafions, appears, justly merited applaufe: but the perpetual glitter of expreffion, the fwoln imagery, and trained "defcription which abound in them, are ornaments of a falfe kind. I would, therefore, advise students of oratory to imitate Mr. Harvey's piety, rather than his Style; and, in all compofitions of a ferious kind, to turn their attention, as Mr. Pope fays, "from founds to things, from

66

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 courfe of Lectures, than to take every opportunity of cautioning my readers against the affected and frivolous ule of ornament; and, inftead of that flight and fuperficial taite in writing, which I apprehend to be at prefent too fathionable, to introduce, as far as my endeavours can avail, a tafte for more folid thought, and more manly fimplicity in Style.

Blair.

§ 21. On the different Kinds of SIM

as

PLICITY.

The firft is, Simplicity of Compofition, 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 neid, in oppofition to the digreffions of Lucan, and the fcattered tales of Ariofto; the Simplicity of Grecian architecture, in oppofition to the irregular variety of the Gothic. In this fenfe, Simplicity is the fame with Unity.

The fecond fenfe is, Simplicity of Thought, as opposed to refinement. Simple thoughts are what arife naturally; what the occafion or the fubject fuggeft unfought; and what, when once fuggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expreffes 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 purfue; 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 fay, that Mr. Parnell is a poet of far greater fimplicity, in his turn of thought, than Mr. Cowley Cicero's thoughts on moral fubjects are natural; Seneca's too refined and laboured. In thefe two fenfes of Simplicity, when it is oppofed either to variety of parts, or to refinement of thought, it has no proper relation to Style.

There is a third fenfe of Simplicity, in which it has refpect to Style; and ftands opposed to too much ornament, or pomp of language; as when we fay, 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 ftyle, in this fenfe, coincides with the plain or the neat ftyle, which I before mentioned; and, therefore, requires no farther illuftration.

But there is a fourth fenfe of Simplicity, alfo refpecting Style; but not refpecting the degree of ornament employed, fo much as the eafy 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 Plainnefs: whereas, in this fenfe, it is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for intance, poffeffes 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 expreffes himself in fuch a manner, that every one thinks he could have written in the fame way; Horace defcribes it,

[blocks in formation]

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 thefe flow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has ftudied it, but because it is the manner of expreflion moft, natural to him. A certain degree of negligence, alfo, is not inconfiftent with this character of ftyle, and even not ungraceful in it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: "Habeat ille," fays Cicero, (Orat. No. 77.) "molle quiddam, et "quod indicet non ingratam negligentiam "hominis, de re magis quàm de verbo "laborantis t." This is the great advantage of Simplicity of Style, that, like fimplicity of manners, it shows us a man's fentiments and turn of mind laid open without difguife. More ftudied and artificial manners of writing, however beautiful, have always this difadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the fplendour of drefs, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal thofe peculiarities which diftinguith one man from another. But reading an author of Simplicity, is like converting with a person of diftinction at home, and with eafe, where we find natural manners, and a marked character.

$23. On Naïveté.

Ibid.

The highest degree of this Simplicity. is expreffed by a French term to which we have none that fully answers in our language, Naiveté. It is not eafy to give a precife idea of the import of this word. It always expreffes 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 undifguifed openness, which feems to give us fome degree of fuperiority over the perfon who fhews it; a certain infantine Simplicity, which we love in our hearts, but which difplays fome features of the character that we think we could have art enough to hide; and which, therefore, always leads us to fimile at the person who

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »