Page images
PDF
EPUB

common words, from forced inversions in the construction of a sentence, and too great neg lect of smoothness and ease. This is imputed as a fault to some of our earliest classics in the English language; such as Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon, Hooker, Harrington, Cudworth, and other writers of considerable reputation in the days of Queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. These writers had nerves and strength in a considerable degree; and are to this day distinguished by that quality in style. But the language, in their hands, was very dif ferent from what it is at present, and was, indeed, entirely formed upon the idiom and construction of the Latin, in the arrangement of sentences. The present form which the language has assumed, has, in some degree, sacrificed the study of strength to that of ease and perspicuity. Our arrangement has become less forcible, perhaps, but more plain and natural; and this is now considered as the genius of our tongue.

Hitherto style has been considered under those characters which regard its expressiveness of an author's meaning: We will now consider it in another view, with respect to the degree of ornament employed to embellish it. Here the style of different authors seems to rise in the following gradation: A dry, a plain, a neat, an elegant, a flowery manner. Of these we will treat briefly, in the order in which they stand.

A dry manner excludes every kind of orna ment. Satisfied with being understood, it aims not to please, in the least degree, either the fancy or the ear. This is tolerable only in pyre didactic writing; and even there to make

us bear it, great solidity of matter is necessary, and entire perspicuity of language.

one.

A plain style advances one degree above a dry A writer of this character employs very little ornament of any kind, and rests almost entirely upon his sense. But, though he does not engage us by the arts of composition, he avoids disgusting us like a dry and harsh writer. Besides perspicuity, he observes propriety, purity, and precision, in his language; which form no inconsiderable degree of beauty. Liveliness and force are also compatible with a plain style; and, consequently, such an author, if his sentiments be good, may be sufficiently agreeable. The difference between a dry and a plain writer is, that the former is incapable of ornament,-the latter goes not in pursuit of it. Of those who have employed the plain style, Dean Swift is an eminent example.

A neat style is next in order; and here we are advanced into the region of ornament; but that ornament is not of the most sparkling kind. A writer of this character shows that he does not despise the beauty of language, by his attention to the choice of his words, and to their graceful collocation. His sentences are always free from the incumbrance of superfluous words; are of a moderate length; rather inclining to brevity than a swelling structure; and closing with propriety. There is variety in his cadence; but no appearance of studied harmony. His figures, if any, are short and accurate, rather than bold and glowing. Such a style may be attained by a writer whose powers of fancy or genius are not extensive, by industry and attention. This sort of style is not unsuitable to any subject

whatever. A familiar epistle, or a law paper, on the driest subject, may be composed with neatness; and a sermon, or a philosophical treatise, in a neat style, will be read with satisfaction.

An elegant style admits a higher degree of ornament than a neat one; and possesses all the virtues of ornament, without any of its excesses or defects. Complete elegance implies great perspicuity and propriety; purity in the choice of words, and carefulness and skill in their harmonious and happy arrangement. It implies farther, the beauty of imagination spread over style, as far as the subject allows it, and all the illustration which figurative language affords, when properly employed. An elegant writer, in short, is one who delights the fancy and the ear, while he informs the understanding; and who clothes his ideas with all the beauty of expression, but does not overload them with any of its misplaced finery.

Style-Simple; Affected; Vehement.

Directions for forming a proper Style.

SIMPLICITY, applied to writing, is a term very commonly used; but, like many other critical terms, it is often used vaguely, and without precision. The different meanings given to the word simplicity have been the chief cause of this inaccuracy. It will not, therefore, be improper to make a distinction between them, and show in what sense simplicity is a proper attribute of style. There are four different acceptations in which this term is taken,

The first is simplicity of composition, which is opposed to too great a variety of parts. This is the simplicity of plan in a tragedy, as distinguished from double plots and crowded incidents; the simplicity of the Iliad, in opposition to the digressions of Lucan; the simplicity of Grecian architecture, in opposition to the irregularity of the Gothic-Simplicity, in this sense, is the same as unity.

The second sense, is simplicity of thought in opposition to refinement. Simple thoughts are those which flow naturally, which are easily suggested by the subject or occasion, and which, when once suggested, are universally understood. Refinement in writing means a less obvious and natural turn of thought, which, when carried too far, approaches to intricacy, and is unpleasing, by the appearance of being far sought. Thus we should say, that Mr. Parnell is a poet of much greater simplicity, in his turn of thought, than Mr. Cowley.

A third sense of simplicity,-is that in which it regards style,-is opposed to too much ornament or pomp or pomp of language. Thus we say, Mr. Locke is a simple, Mr. Hervey a florid, writer.

There is a fourth sense of simplicity, which also respects style: but it regards not so much the degree of ornament employed as the easy and natural manner in which language is expressive of our thoughts. In this sense, simplicity is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for example, has this simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer possesses more ornament and beauty. This simplicity, which is now the object of our consideration,

stands opposed not to ornament but to affectation of ornament; and is a superior excellency in composition.

A writer who has attained simplicity has no marks of art in his expression; it appears the very language of nature. We see not the writer and his labour, but the man in his own natural character. He may possess richness of expression; he may be full of figures and of fancy; but these flow from him without difficulty; and he seems to write in this manner, not because he has studied it, but because it is the mode of expression most familiar and easy to him. With this character of style, a certain degree of negligence is not inconsistent, nor even ungraceful; for too accurate an attention to words is foreign to it. Simplicity of style possesses this considerable advantage, that, like simplicity of manners, it shows us a man's sentiments and turn of mind laid open without disguise. A more studied and artificial mode of writing, however beautiful, has always this disadvantage, that it exhibits an author in form, like a man at court, where the splendor of dress, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal those peculiarities which distinguish one individual from another. But read, ing an author of simplicity is like conversing with a person of rank at home, and with ease, where we see his natural manners and his real character.

With regard to simplicity, in general, we may observe, that the ancient original writers are always the most eminent for it. This proceeds from a very obvious cause, that they wrote from the dictates of natural genius, and were not formed upon the labours and writings of others,

« PreviousContinue »