rules I fhall have occafion to lay down, will, if I judge rightly, be agreeable illuftrations of these principles. Every subject must be of importance that tends to unfold the human heart; for what other science is of greater ufe to human beings? The prefent fubject is too extensive to be difcuffed without dividing it into parts; and what follows fuggefts a divifion into two parts. In every period, two things are to be regarded: firft, the words of which it is compofed; next, the arrangement of these words; the former refembling the stones that compofe a building, and the latter refembling the order in which they are placed. Hence the beauties of language with refpect to fignification, may not improperly be diftinguished into two kinds: first, the beauties that arife from a right choice of words or materials for conftructing the period; and next, the beauties that arife from a due arrangement of these words or materials. I begin with rules that direct us to a right choice of words, and then proceed to rules that concern their arrangement. And with respect to the former, communication of thought being the chief end of language, it is a rule, That perfpicuity ought not to be facrificed to any other beauty whatever: if it should be doubted whether perfpicuity be a pofitive beauty, it cannot be doubted that the want of it is the greatest defect. Nothing therefore in language ought more to be studied, than to prevent all ob fcurity scurity in the expreffion; for to have no meaning, is but one degree worse, than to have a meaning that is not understood. Want of perfpicuity from a wrong arrangement, belongs to the next branch. I shall here give a few examples where the obscurity arifes from a wrong choice of words; and as this defect is too common in the ordinary herd of writers to make examples from them neceffary, I confine myself to the most celebrated authors. Livy, fpeaking of a rout after a battle, Multique in ruina majore quam fuga oppreffi obtruncatique. L. 4. § 46. This author is frequently obfcure, by expreffing but part of his thought, leaving it to be completed by his reader. His defcription of the seafight, 1. 28. cap. 30. is extremely perplexed. Fronde nova puerum palumbes Texere. Horace, Carm. 1. 3. ode 4, Puræ rivus aquæ, filvaque jugerum Fallit forte beatior. Horace, Carm. 1. 3. ode 16. Cum fas atque nefas exiguo fine libidinum Discernunt avidi. Horace, Carm. 1. 1. ode 18. Ac fpem fronte ferenat. Eneid. iv. 477. I am in greater pain about the foregoing paffages, than about any I have ventured to criticife, being aware that a vague or obfcure expreffion, is apt to gain favour with those who neglect to examine it with a critical eye. To fome it carries the sense that they relish the moft; and by fuggesting various meanings at once, it is admired by others as concife and comprehenfive: which by the way fairly accounts for the opinion generally entertained with respect to most languages in their infant ftate, of expreffing much in few words. This observation may be illuftrated by a paffage from Quintilian, quoted in the first volume for a different purpose. At At quæ Polycleto defuerunt, Phidia atque Alcameni dantur. Phidias tamen diis quam hominibus efficiendis melior artifex traditur: in ebore vero, longe citra æmulum, vel fi nihil nif Minervam Athenis, aut Olympium in Elide Jovem feciffet, cujus pulchritudo adjeciffe aliquid etiam receptæ religioni videtur; adeo majeftas operis Deum equavit. The fentence in the Italic characters appeared to me abundantly perfpicuous, before I gave it peculiar attention. And yet to examine it independent of the context, its proper meaning is not what is intended the words naturally import, that the beauty of the ftatues mentioned, appears to add some new tenet or rite to the established religion, or appears to add new dignity to it; and we must confult the context before we can gather the true meaning; which is, that the Greeks were confirmed in the belief of their established religion by thefe majestic ftatues, fo like real divinities. There may be a defect in perfpicuity proceeding even from the flightest ambiguity in conftruction; as where the period commences with a member conceived to be in the nominative case, which afterward is found to be in the accufative. Ex ample: "Some emotions more peculiarly con"nected with the fine arts, I propofe to handle "in feparate chapters *." Better thus: "Some Elements of Criticifm, vol. i. p. 43. edit. I. "emotions "emotions more peculiarly connected with the "fine arts, are propofed to be handled in fepa"rate chapters." I add another error against perfpicuity; which I mention the rather because with some writers it paffes for a beauty. It is the giving different names to the fame object, mentioned oftener than once in the fame period. Example: Speaking of the English adventurers who first attempted the conqueft of Ireland, " and instead of reclaiming "the natives from their uncultivated manners, "they were gradually affimilated to the ancient "inhabitants, and degenerated from the customs "of their own nation." From this mode of expreffion, one would think the author meant to diftinguish the ancient inhabitants from the natives; and we cannot discover otherwife than from the fenfe, that these are only different names given to the fame object for the fake of variety. But perfpicuity ought never to be facrificed to any other beauty, which leads me to think that the paffage may be improved as follows: " and dege"nerating from the customs of their own nation, 66 they were gradually affimilated to the natives, "instead of reclaiming them from their unculti"vated manners." The next rule in order, because next in importance, is, That the language ought to correspond to the fubject: heroic actions or fentiments re |