Surprised, astonished, amazed, confounded. I am surprised, with what is new or unexpected; I am astonished, at what is vast or great; I am amazed, with what is incomprehensible; I am confounded, by what is shocking or terrible.

Desist, renounce, quit, leave off. Each of these words imply some pursuit or object relinquished; but from different motives. We desist, from the difficulty of accomplishing. We renounce, on account of the disagreeableness of the object, or pursuit. We quit, for the sake of some other thing which interests us more; and we leave off, because we are weary of the design. A politician desists from his designs, when he finds they are impracticable; he renounces the court, because he has been affronted by it; he quits ambition for study or retirement; and leaves off his attendance on the great, as he becomes old and weary of it.

Pride, vanity. Pride, makes us esteem ourselves; vanity, makes us desire the esteem of others. It is just to say, as Dean Swift has done, that a man is too proud to be vain.

Haughtiness, disdain. Haughtiness, is founded on the high opinion we entertain of ourselves; disdain, on the low opinion we have of others.

To distinguish, to separate. We distinguish, what we want not to confound with another thing; we separate, what we want to remove from it. Objects are distinguished from one another, by their qualities. They are separated, by the distance of time or place.

To weary, to fatigue. The continuance of the same thing wearies us; labour fatigues us. I am weary with standing; I am fatigued with walking. A suitor wearies us by his perseverance; fatigues us by his importunity.

To abhor, to detest. To abhor, imports, simply, strong dislike; to detest, imports also strong disapprobation. One abhors being in debt; he detests treachery.

To invent, to discover. We invent things that are new; we discover what was before hidden. Galileo invented the telescope; Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood.

Only, alone. Only, imports that there is no other of the same kind; alone, imports being accompanied by no other. An only child, is one who has neither brother nor sister; a child alone, is one who is left by itself. There is a difference, therefore, in precise language, betwixt these two phrases, virtue only makes us happy;' and 'virtue alone makes us happy.' Virtue only makes us happy, imports, that nothing else can do it. Virtue alone makes us happy, imports, that virtue, by itself, or unaccompanied with other advantages, is sufficient to do it.

Entire, complete. A thing is entire, by wanting none of its parts; complete, by wanting none of the appendages that belong to it. A man may have an entire house to himself; and yet not have one complete apartment.

Tranquillity, peace, calm. Tranquillity, respects a situation free from trouble, considered in itself; peace, the same situation with respect to any causes that might interrupt it; calm, with regard to

a disturbed situation going before, or following it. A good man enjoys tranquillity in himself; peace, with others; and calm, after

the storm.

A difficulty, an obstacle. A difficulty, embarrasses; an obstacle, stops us. We remove the one; we surmount the other. Generally, the first expresses somewhat arising from the nature and circumstances of the affair; the second, somewhat arising from a foreign cause. Philip found difficulty in managing the Athenians from the nature of their dispositions; but the eloquence of Demosthenes was the greatest obstacle to his designs.

Wisdom, prudence. Wisdom, leads us to speak and act what is most proper. Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly. A wise man employs the most proper means for success; a prudent man, the safest means for not being brought into danger.

Enough, sufficient. Enough, relates to the quantity which one wishes to have of any thing. Sufficient, relates to the use that is to be made of it. Hence, enough, generally imports a greater quantity than sufficient does. The covetous man never has enough; although he has what is sufficient for nature.

To avow, to acknowledge, to confess. Each of these words imports the affirmation of a fact, but in very different circumstances. To avow, supposes the person to glory in it; to acknowledge, supposes a small degree of faultiness, which the acknowledgment compensates; to confess, supposes a higher degree of crime. A patriot avows his opposition to a bad minister, and is applauded; a gentleman acknowledges his mistake, and is forgiven; a prisoner confesses the crime he is accused of, and is punished.

To remark, to observe. We remark in the way of attention, in order to remember; we observe, in the way of examination, in order to judge. A traveller remarks the most striking objects he sees; a general observes all the motions of his enemy.

Equivocal, ambiguous. An equivocal expression is, one which has one sense open, and designed to be understood; another sense concealed, and understood only by the person who uses it. An ambiguous expression is, one which has apparently two senses, and leaves us at a loss which of them to give it. An equivocal expression is used with an intention to deceive; an ambiguous one, when it is used with design, is, with an intention not to give full information. An honest man will never employ an equivocal expression; a confused man may often utter ambiguous ones, without any design. I shall only give one instance more.

With, by. Both these particles express the connexion between some instrument, or means of effecting an end, and the agent who employs it; but with, expresses a more close and immediate connexion; by, a more remote one. We kill a man with a sword; he dies by violence. The criminal is bound with ropes by the executioner. The proper distinction in the use of these particles, is elcgantly marked in a passage of Dr. Robertson's History of Scotland. When one of the old Scottish kings was making an inquiry into the tenure by which his nobles held their lands, they started up, and drew

6

their swords; 'By these,' said they, we acquired our lands, and with these we will defend them.' By these we acquired our lands;' signifies the more remote means of acquisition by force and martial deeds; and, with these we will defend them;' signifies the immediate direct instrument, the sword which they would employ in their defence.

These are instances of words, in our language, which by careless writers, are apt to be employed as perfectly synonymous, and yet are not so. Their significations approach, but are not precisely the same. The more the distinction in the meaning of such words is weighed, and attended to, the more clearly and forcibly shall we speak or write.*

From all that has been said on this head, it will now appear, that, in order to write or speak with precision, two things are especially requisite: one, that an author's own ideas be clear and distinet; and the other, that we have an exact and full comprehension of the force of those words which he employs. Natural genius is here required; labour and attention still more. Dean Swift is one of the authors, in our language, most distinguished for precision of style. In his writings, we seldom or never find vague expressions and synonymous words carelessly thrown together. His meaning is always clear, and strongly marked.

I had occasion to observe before, that though all subjects of writing or discourse demand perspicuity, yet all do not require the same degree of that exact precision which I have endeavoured to explain. It is, indeed, in every sort of writing, a great beauty to have, at least, some measure of precision, in distinction from that loose profusion of words which imprints no clear idea on the reader's mind. But we must, at the same time, be on our guard, lest too great a study of precision, especially in subjects where it is not strictly requisite, betray us into a dry and barren style; lest, from the desire of pruning too closely, we retrench all copiousness and ornament. Some degree of this failing may, perhaps, be remarked in Dean Swift's serious works. Attentive only to exhibit his ideas clear and exact, resting wholly on his sense and distinctness, he appears to reject, disdainfully, all embellishment, which, on some occasions, may be thought to render his manner somewhat hard and dry. To unite copiousness and precision, to be flowing and graceful, and at the same time correct and exact in the choice of every word, is, no doubt, one of the highest and most difficult

* In French there is a very useful treatise on the subject, the Abbé Girard's Synonymes Françoises, in which he has made a large collection of such apparent synonymes in the language, and shown, with much accuracy, the difference in their signification. It is much to be wished, that some such work were undertaken for our tongue, and executed with equal taste and judgment. Nothing would contribute more to precise and elegant writing. In the mean time, this French Treatise may be perused with considerable profit. It will accustom persons to weigh, with attention, the force of words; and will suggest several distinctions betwixt synonymous terms in our own language, analogous to those which he has pointed out in the French; and, according ly, several of the instances above given, were suggested by the work of this author.

attainments in writing. Some kinds of composition may require more of copiousness and ornament; others, more of precision and accuracy; nay, in the same composition, the different parts of it may demand a proper variation of manner. But we must study never to sacrifice, totally, any one of these qualities to the other; and by a proper management, both of them may be made fully consistent, if our own ideas be precise, and our knowledge and stock of words be, at the same time, extensive. v

QUESTIONS.

WHAT is the next subject of consi- attention? When considered with rederation? What is the best definition spect to words and phrases, what three that can be given of it? How does it qualities does perspicuity require? Of differ from mere language, or words? purity and propriety of language what To what has it always some reference? is observed? How are they distinguishOf what is it a picture; and hence, ed? What does propriety imply? How what follows? Why is it no wonder may style be pure, and at the same that these two should be so intimately time be deficient in propriety? But as connected; and for what have different style cannot be proper without being countries consequently been noted? pure also, what follows? What is the With what did the eastern nations ani- only standard of purity and propriety? mate their style? Of the Athenians, Of the use of obsolete, or new coined and their style; and of the Asiatics, words, what is remarked? In the use and theirs, what is remarked? In what of them, where is the greatest latitude modern languages are the same cha- admitted; and how must this liberty racteristical differences to be seen. In be used? What effect are they apt to giving the general characters of style, give to style, in prose? Of the introducof what is it usual to talk; and what tion of foreign or learned words, what are they? As our author is afterwards is observed? Where may such assistto discourse of the general characters ance be needed? On what did Dean of style, with what is it necessary to Swift value himself; and of his lanbegin? Under what two heads may the qualities of a good style be ranged; and why? When both these ends are answered, what is accomplished? What will be admitted to be the fundamental quality of style; and what is said of it? What, therefore, must be our first object? What writers will fail to please us long; and why? What do authors, sometimes, plead as an excuse for want of perspicuity? Why can this excuse rarely, if ever, be admitted? When is perspicuity, in expressing our ideas, always attainable? To what is the obscurity which so generally reigns among metaphysical writers, to be attributed? In what manner do they see objects; and what is the consequence? How is perspicuity to be considered? With an author of what description are we pleased? In what two particulars does the study of perspicuity require

guage, what is remarked? What is the present state of our language? A multitude of what words have of late been poured in upon us; and what is their effect? What remark follows? what shall we next consider; and why? Whence may the exact import of precision be drawn; and what does it import? What was before observed; and why? In what three respects, may the words which a man uses to express his ideas, be faulty? To which of the three does precision chiefly stand opposed? When an author writes with propriety, why does his being free from the two former faults seem implied? But, to be precise, signifies what? What is not found in his words? What does this require? From what may the use and importance of precision be deduced? Why can it not, clearly and distinctly, view more than one object at a time?

How is this illustrated? How is the re- own language, what might be given?, mark, that the same is the case with Of the instances which our author is to words, illustrated? What does this give, what does he observe? What is form; and to what is it the proper op- the difference between austerity, seposite? From what does it generally verity, and rigour; what is opposed to arise? Of feeble writers, what is ob- each; and what examples of illustraserved? Of what are they sensible? tion are given? What is the difference What do they not distinctly conceive; between custom and habit? By them and what is the consequence? How is respectively, what do we mean; and the image as they set it before you al- what illustration follows? What is the ways seen? How is this illustrated in difference between surprised, astothe use of the words courage and for-nished, amazed, and confounded? titude; and what is the difference be- What do desist, renounce, quit, and tween them? Repeat the succeeding leave off, respectively imply; and how remark. From what has been said, is this illustrated? What is the diffewhat appears? How is this remark il-rence between pride and vanity; and lustrated? All subjects, not equally re- what illustration is given? On what quiring precision, what, on some occa- are haughtiness and disdain respecsions, is sufficient; and why? Of the tively founded? What is the difference style of Archbishop Tillotson, Sir Wil- between to distinguish, and to sepaliam Temple, and Mr. Addison, what is rate; and how is this difference illus

remarked?

trated? How is the difference between Of Lord Shaftesbury's faults, in to weary, and to fatigue, illustrated? point of precision, what is observed; What do to abhor, and to detest, reand why is this, in him, the more un-spectively import; and what illustrapardonable? What is the quality of tion is given? What is the difference his style? With what was he well between to invent, and to discover ; acquainted; and of those which he em- and what illustration is given? What ploys, what is observed? To what are do only and alone respectively import ; his defects in precision to be attribu- and by what examples is this difference ted? Of what is he excessively fond; illustrated? There is, therefore, a diffeand with what is he never satisfied?rence in precise language betwixt what Hence, what follows? If he has occa- two phrases; and what do they respecsion to mention any person, or author, tively import? What is the difference in what manner does he do it? How is between entire and complete; and this remark illustrated? Of this method what illustration follows? What do of distinguishing persons, what is ob- tranquillity, peace, and calm, respecserved? But it is not so contrary to pre- tively respect; and by what example cision as what? What illustrations fol- is this illustrated? How are a difficulty low? On some occasions, to what ex- and an obstacle distinguished; and by tent does he carry this affectation? In what example is this illustrated? What the following paragraph of the inquiry is the difference between wisdom and concerning virtue, what does he mean prudence; and by what sentence is to show? Repeat the paragraph; and this difference illustrated? To what do also the remarks upon it? Of such su- enough, and sufficiently, respectively perfluity of words, what is observed? relate? Hence, what follows; and Repeat Quintilian's description of this what example is given? What do to sort of style? What is the great source avow, to acknowledge, and to confess, of a loose style? Why are they called sy-respectively suppose; and what illusnonymous? How are they varied? What trations are given? What is the differwill we hardly find in any language? ence between to remark and to obWhy, and how, may an accurate writer serve; and what illustration is given? always employ them to great advan- Distinguish ambiguous and equivocal tage? But, in order to this end, to what fully; and give the examples of illusmust he be extremely attentive; and tration. What connexion is expressed why? Hence, what is thrown over by the particles with and by; and what style? Of synonymous words in the illustration follows? Repeat Dr. RoLatin language, what is remarked; bertson's elegant distinction of these and what instances are given? In our particles, with the signification of each.

R