Illus. 1. Who, for instance, would call Virgil's description of a tempest, in the first Æneid, an imitation of a atorm? If we heard of the imitation of a battle, we might naturally think of some sham-fight, or representation of a battle on the stage, but could never apprehend that it meant one of Homer's descriptions in the Iliad.

2. But imitation and description agree in their principal effect, of recalling, by external signs, the ideas of things which they do not see. But though in this they coincide, yet it should not be forgotten, that the terms themselves are not synonymous; that they import different means of effecting the same end; and of course make different impressions on the mind.

Scholium. Whether we consider poetry in particular, and discourse in general, as imitative or descriptive; it is evident, that their whole power in recalling the impressions of real objects, is derived from the significancy, the choice and arrangement, of words. Their excellency flows altogether from these sources. Having shewn how the source may be preserved pure, we shall, in the next book, enter upon style and eloquence in their most extensive signification.

BOOK VI.

THE GENERAL CHARACTERS OF STYLE.

CHAPTER I.

THE DIFFUSE AND CONCISE STYLES.

432. WORDS being the copies of our ideas, there must always be a very intimate connection between the manner in which we employ words, and our manner of thinking. From the peculiarity of thought and expression which belongs to every writer, there is a certain character imprinted on his style, which may be denominated his manner; commonly expressed by such general terms as strong, weak, dry, simple, affected, or the like.

Illus. These distinctions carry, in general, some reference to an author's manner of thinking, but refer chiefly to his mode of expression. They arise from the whole tenor of his language; and comprehend the effect produced by all those parts of style which we have already considered; the choice which he makes of single words; his arrangement of these in sentences; the degree of his precision; his embellishment, by means of musical cadence, figures, or other arts of speech; and, finally, the cultivation of his genius and taste. Of such general characters of style, therefore, it remains now to speak, as the result of those elementary parts of which we have hitherto treated.

433. That different subjects require to be treated of, in different sorts of style, is a position so obvious, that it needs no illustration. Every one sees that treatises of philosophy, for instance, ought not to be composed in the same style with orations. Every one sees also, that different parts of the same composition require a variation in the style and manner. In a sermon, or any harangue, as shall be shewn hereafter, the application or peroration admits more 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 his 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 any 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 or 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.

Ilus. 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 illustrious 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.

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 present 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 redundant 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 inform 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 III.)

440. The nervous and the feeble are generally held to be characters of style, of the same import with the concise and she 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 expression.

Ilus. 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