Page images
PDF
EPUB

ornament, and requires more warmth, than the didactic part.

Obs. But what we mean at present to remark is, that, amidst this variety, we still expect to find, in the compositions of any one man, some degree of uniformity or consistency with himself in manner; we expect to find impressed on all his writings, some predominant character of style which shall be suited to his particular genius, and shall mark the turn of his mind.

Example. The orations in Livy differ much in style, as they ought to do, from the rest of history. The same is the case with those in Tacitus. Yet both in Livy's orations, and in those of Tacitus, we are able clearly to trace the distinguishing manner of each historian; the magnificent fulness of the one, and the sententious conciseness of the other.

Corol. 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 no marked nor peculiar character in the compositions of an author, we are apt to infer, and not without reason, that he is a vulgar and trivial author, who writes from imitation, and not from the impulse of original genius. As the most celebrated painters are known by their hand, so 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.

434. One of the first and most obvious distinctions of the different kinds of style, is what arises from an author's spreading out his thoughts more or less. This distinction forms, what are called, the diffuse and the concise styles.

Illus. 1. A concise writer compresses his thoughts into the fewest possible words; he seeks to employ none but such as are most expressive; he lops off, as redundant, every expression which does not add something material to the sense.

Ornament he does not reject; he may be lively and figured; but his ornament is intended for the sake of force rather than grace. He never gives you the same thought twice. He places it in the light which appears to him the most striking; but if you do not apprehend it well in that light, you need not expect to find it in any other.

His sentences are arranged with compactness and strength, rather than with cadence and harmony. The utmost precision is studied in them; and they are commonly designed to suggest more to the reader's imagination than they directly express.

Illus. 2. A diffuse writer unfolds his thought fully. He places it in a variety of lights, 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 strength he proposes to supply by copiousness.

Writers of this character generally love magnificence and amplification. Their periods naturally run out into some length, and having room for ornament of every kind, they admit it freely. -Scholium. 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 of other of these two manners, a writer may lean according as his genius prompts him: and under the general character of a concise, or of a more open and diffuse style, he may possess much beauty in his composition.

435. For illustrations of these general characters, we can only refer to the writers who are examples of them. It is not so much from detached passages, such as we have been quoting as examples in the foregoing pages of this grammar, as from the current of an author's style, that we are to collect the idea of a formed manner of writing.

Illus. 1. Two of the most remarkable examples of conciseness, carried as far as propriety will allow, perhaps in some 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 so frugal of his words as Aristotle; but this frugality of expression frequently darkens his meaning.

2. Of a beautiful and magnificent diffuseness, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the most ilustrious instance that can be given. Addison also, and Sir William Temple come, in some degree, under this class.

436. In judging when it is proper to lean to the concise, and when to the diffuse manner, we must be directed by the nature of the composition. Discourses that are to be spoken require a more copious style than books that are to be read.

Illus. When the whole meaning must be caught from the mouth of the speaker, without the advantage which books afford of pausing at pleasure, and reviewing what appears obscure, great conciseness is always to be avoided. We should never presume too much on the quickness of our hearer's understanding; but our style ought to be such, that the bulk of men can go along with us easily, and without effort.

[ocr errors]

Corol. A flowing copious style, therefore, is required in all public speakers; guarding at the same time, against such a degree of diffusion as renders them languid and tiresome; which will always prove to be the case, when they inculcate too much, and pesent the same thought under too many different views.

437. In written compositions, a certain degree of conciseness possesses great advantages. It is more lively; keeps up attention; makes a brisker and stronger impression; and gratifies the mind by supplying more exercise to a reader's own thought. A sentiment, which, expressed diffusely, will barely be admitted to be just, will, when expressed concisely, be admired as spirited. Description, when we want to have it vivid and animated, should be in a concise strain.

Illus. 1. This is different from the common opinion; most persons being ready to suppose, that upon description a writer may dwell more safely than upon other topics, and that, by a full and extended style, it is rendered more rich and expressive. On the contrary, a diffuse manner generally weakens description. Any redundent words or circumstances encumber the fancy, and make the object that we present to it, appear confused and indistinct.

2. Accordingly, the most masterly describers, Homer, Tacitus, Milton, are almost always concise in their descriptions. They shew us more of an object at one glance, than a feeble diffuse writer can shew, by turning it round and exhibiting it in a variety of lights.

Corol. The strength and vivacity of description, whether in prose or poetry, depend much more upon the happy choice of a few striking circumstances, than upon their multiplicity and variety.

438. Addresses to the passions, likewise, ought to be in the concise, rather than the diffuse manner. In these, it is dangerous to be diffuse, because it is very difficult to support proper warmth for any length of time. When we become prolix, we are always in hazard of cooling the reader. The fancy and the feelings of the heart too run fast; and if once we can put them in motion, they supply many particulars to greater advantage than an author can display them. The case is different when we address ourselves to the understanding: as for example in all matters of reasoning, explication, and instruction.

Obs. In these cases, that most elegant rhetorician Dr. Blair, would prefer a more free and diffuse manner. When you are to strike the fancy, or to move the heart, be concise; when you are to in form the understanding, which moves more slowly, and requires the assistance of a guide, it is better to be full. Historical narration may be beautiful, either in a concise or a diffuse manner, according to the writer's genius. Livy and Herodotus are diffuse; Thucydides and Sallust are succinct; yet all of them are agreeable.

439. A diffuse style generally abounds in long periods; and a concise writer, it is certain, will often employ short sentences.

Obs. But of long and short sentences, we had occasion, formerly, to treat, under the head of "The Construction of Periods." (See Chapter I. and the Harmony of Periods, Chapter IX. Book IIÌ.)

440. The nervous and the feeble are generally held to be characters of style, of the same import with the concise and the diffuse. They do indeed very often coincide. Diffuse writers have, for the most part, some degree of feebleness; and nervous writers will generally be inclined to a concise mode of expres

sion.

Illus. 1. 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. Their style may have many faults. It may be unequal, incorrect, and redundant, but withal, for force and expressiveness, uncommonly distinguished.On every subject, they will multiply words with an overflowing copiousness; but they ever pour forth a torrent of forcible ideas and significant expressions.

2. Indeed the foundations of a nervous or a weak style are laid in an author's manner of thinking. If he conceives an object vigorously, he will express it with energy: but if he has only an indistinct view of his subject; if his ideas be loose and wavering; if his genius be such, or, at the time of his writing, so 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 in his composition; his expressions will be vague and general; his arrangement indistinct and feeble; we shall conceive a portion of his meaning, but our conception will be faint.

3. Whereas a nervous writer, whether he employs an extended or a concise style, gives us always a strong impression of his meaning; his mind is full of his subject, and his words are all expressive; every phrase and every figure which he uses, tends to render the picture, which he would set before us, more lively and complete.

441. Under the head of diffuse and concise style, (Art. 436. and 437.) we have shewn that an author might lean either to the one or to the other, and yet be beautiful. This is not the case with respect to the nervous and the feeble. Every author, in every composition, ought to study to express himself with some strength, and in proportion as he approaches to the feeble, he becomes a bad writer.

Obs. In all kinds of writing, however, the same degree of strength is not demanded. But the more grave and weighty any composition is, the more should a character of strength predominate in the style.

Corol. Hence, in history, philosophy, and solemn discourses, it is chiefly expected. One of the most complete models of a nervous style, is Demosthenes in his orations.

442. Every good quality in style, when pursued too far has an extreme, to which it becomes faulty, and this holds of the nervous style as well as of other styles. Too great a study of strength, to the neglect of the other qualities of style, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner.

Illus. Harshness arises from unusual words, from forced inversions in the construction of a sentence, and too much neglect of smoothness and ease. This is reckoned the fault of some of our earliest classicks in the English language; writers who, from the nerves and strength which they have displayed, 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. The present form which the language has assumed, has, in some measure, sacrificed the study of strength to that of perspicuity 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.

443. The restoration of King Charles II. seems to be the æra of the formation of our present style. Lord Clarendon was one of the first who laid aside those frequent inversions which prevailed among writers of the former age. After him, Sir William Temple polished the language still more. But Dryden is the author, who, by the number and reputation of his works, formed it more than any of his predeces

« PreviousContinue »