m their first essays, it must not receive the same indulgence from writers of maturer years. It is to be expected, that judgment, as it ripens, should chasten imagination, and reject as juvenile all such ornaments as are redundant, unsuitable to the subject, or not conducive to illustrate it. Nothing can be more contemptible than that tinsel splendour of language, which some writers perpetually affect. It were well, if this could be ascribed to the real overflowing of a rich imagination. We should then have something to amuse us, at least, if we found little to instruct us. But the worst is, that with those frothy writers, it is a luxuriancy of words, not of fancy. We see a laboured attempt to rise to a splendour of composition, of which they have formed to themselves some loose idea; but having no strength of genius for attaining it, they endeavour to supply the defect by poetical words, by cold exclamations, by common-place figures, and every thing that has the appearance of pomp and magnificence. It has escaped these writers, that sobriety in ornament is one great secret for rendering it pleasing; and that without a foundation of good sense and solid thought, the most florid style is but a childish imposition on the public. The public, however, are but too apt to be so imposed on; at least, the mob of readers, who are very ready to be caught, at first, with whatever is dazzling and gaudy.

I cannot help thinking, that it reflects more honour on the religious turn, and good dispositions of the present age, than on the public taste, that Mr. Hervey's Meditations have had so great a currency. The pious and benevolent heart which is always displayed in them, and the lively fancy which, on some occasions, appears, justly merits applause but the perpetual glitter of expression, the swoln imagery, and strained description which abound in them, are ornaments of a false kind. I would, therefore, advise students of oratory to imitate Mr. Hervey's piety rather than his style: and, in all compositions of a serious kind, to turn their attention, as Mr. Pope says, 'from sounds to things, from fancy to the heart.' Admonitions of this kind, I have already had occasion to give, and may hereafter repeat them; as I conceive nothing more incumbent on me in this course of lectures, than to take every opportunity of cautioning my readers against the affected and frivolous use of ornament: and instead of that slight and superficial taste in writing, which I apprehend to be at present too fashionable, to introduce, as far as my endeavours can avail, a taste for more solid thought, and more manly simplicity in style.

QUESTIONS.

HAVING treated at considerable the other hand, what is remarked? How length of the figures of speech, before is this illustrated? In the second place, finally dismissing this subject, what does that figures be beautiful, what is requiour author think incumbent on him? site? What has been shown? When Though these have, in part, been anticipated, yet, what may be of use; and why? With repeating what observation, does our author begin? Instances of what, have already been given? On

only, therefore, are they beautiful; and what remark follows? When will they have a miserable effect; and what is a very erroneous idea? This is indeed, what? What has often been the effect

of this false idea? From what does the obvious distinctions of the different real and proper ornaments of style arise; kinds of style arise, and what does it and how do they flow? Of a writer of form? Of a concise writer, what is obgenius, what is remarked? On what oc- served? How does he regard ornament? casions should we never attempt to hunt In what light does he place his thoughts? for figures; and why? What is the third How are his sentences arranged; what direction given concerning the use of is studied in them; and for what are figures; and why? What is the effect they commonly designed? Of a diffuse on composition of too great attention to writer, what is remarked? Why does ornament; and what remark follows? he place his thought in a variety of What is said of the direction of the an- lights; and why is he not careful to excient critics on this head? What says press it in its full strength at first? Cicero? With what direction does Quin- What do writers of this character tilian conclude his discourse concerning generally love; and of their periods, them? On the use of figurative lan- what is observed? Of each of these guage, what is the fourth direction? Of manners, what is observed? What reimagination, what is observed? What mark follows? For illustrations of these improvement may it derive from culti-general characters, to whom does our vation; but what will prove disgusting? author refer? How are we to collect With what consideration should we sa- the idea of a formed manner of writing? tisfy ourselves? What will always com- Who are the two most remarkable exmand attention; and of what are they amples known by our author? Of Aristhe foundation? What remark follows? totle, and of his frugality, what is obWhat directions cannot be too often served? Of a beautiful and magnificent given to those who wish to excel in the diffuseness, who is the most illustrious liberal arts? When our author entered instance that can be given; and what upon the consideration of style, what other writers fall in some degree under did he observe? To what do these dis- this class? In judging when it is proper tinctions, in general, carry some refe- to lean to the concise, and when to the rence; but refer chiefly to what? From diffuse manner, by what must we be what do they arise; and what do they directed? Why do discourses that are comprehend? Of what does it remain to be spoken, require a more copious now to speak? Of the style necessary style, than books that are to be read? for different subjects, what is observed? On what should we never presume? How is this illustrated from philosophi- What style, therefore, is required in all cal writings, from orations, and from public speeches; guarding, at the same the different parts of a sermon? But time, against what? In written compowhat does our author at present mean sitions, why does a certain degree of to remark? How is this remark illus- conciseness, possess great advantages? trated from the writings of Livy, and How is this illustrated? When should of Tacitus? How is this further illus- description be in a concise strain? How trated? Wherever there is real and na- does it appear that this is different from tive genius, what is its effect? Where the common opinion? What does our nothing of this appears, what are we author, on the contrary, apprehend; apt to infer? How is this illustrated? and why? Accordingly, of the most Among the ancients, how did Dionysi- masterly describers, what is observed? us of Halicarnassus, divide these gene- At one glance, what do they show us? ral characters of style? By the austere, Upon what, does the strength and viwhat does he mean; and what exam-vacity of description much depend? ples are given? What does he mean by the florid? Whem does he instance as writers of this character? What is the middle kind; what does it comprehend; and in this class who are placed? Of this last class, what is observed; and why? Of Cicero, and Quintilian's division of style, what does our author remark; and why does he not dwell on it? From what does one of the most

In what style should addresses to the passions be made? In these, why is it dangerous to be diffuse? What hazard attends becoming prolix? Of the heart, and the fancy, what is observed? In addresses to what, is the case quite different; and there, what manner is preferred? When should you be concise, and when is it better to be full? Of historical narration, what is observed; and how

Is this illustrated? Of a diffuse writer, | does the style of different authors seem what was observed; and of a concise to rise? Of a dry manner, what is obwriter, what, therefore, is certain? served? Where, only, is it tolerable What, however, is not to be inferred and what, even there, is requisite? Of from this; and why not? Who is a Aristotle, what is here observed? Why remarkable example of this; and of does not this manner deserve to be imihis sentences, what is observed? Of tated? What is remarked of a plain the style of most of the French wri- style? Of a writer of this character, ters, what is observed? What does a what is observed? What does he purFrench author do; and what is the sue in his language? What, also, may direct effect of these short sentences? be consistent with a very plain style; What is the effect of the quick, succes- and therefore, what follows? What is sive impulses, which they make on the the difference between a dry and a mind? Of long periods, what is ob- plain writer? Repeat the remarks here served? When is an intermixture of made on the style of Dean Swift. What, long and short sentences requisite ? But also, is remarked of Mr. Locke? In a of them, what is said? How are the neat style, what have we reached; nervous and the feeble generally held? and of a writer of this character, what How does it appear that they do very is observed? By whom may such a often coincide? As this does not always style as this be attained; and how? hold, of what are there instances? Of it, what is remarked, and how exWho are examples; and of the latter tensively may it be used? Of an elestyle, what is observed? Where is the gant style, what is observed? From foundation of a nervous or weak style what has been formerly delivered, what laid? How is this illustrated? Of his will be easily understood? What farwords and expressions, what is obser- ther does it imply; and of an elegant ved? What impression does a ner-writer, what is observed? Whom may vous writer give us of his subject; and we place in this class; and of them why? What was before observed? what is observed? What forms a florid How should every author study to ex-style? Of it, in a young composer, what press himself? What remark follows; is remarked; and what says Quintilian? and when should strength predominate Why must not this style receive the in style? Hence, where is it expected most; and who is one of the most perfect examples? What holds of the nervous style as well as others? What is the effect of too great a study of strength; and from what does harshness arise? Of whom is this reckoned the fault? Of these writers, and of the language in their hands, what is observed? What illustration of this remark is given? What advartages attend this sort of style? To what has the present form of our language sacrificed the study of strength? Of our arrangement of words, what is remarked? What was the area of the formation of our present style? Who was the first who laid aside those frequent inversions? Who polished the language still more? But to whom are we most indebted for the present state of our language; and of him, what is observed? Since his time, to what has considerable attention been paid; but what follows? How do we now compare with the ancients? Hitherto, how have we considered style? How do we now proceed to consider it? Here, how

same indulgence from writers of mature years? Of these frothy writers, what is observed; and in them, what do we see? What has escaped them? Of Mr. Hervey's Meditations, what is observed? In them, what justly merits applause; but what are of a false kind? What advice, to students of oratory, is therefore given? Why are admonitions of this kind repeated?

ANALYSIS.

1. Directions about the use of figures.
A. The chief beauties of composition do
not depend upon them.

2.

3.

B. They must rise naturally from the subject.

c. They should not be employed too fre quently.

D. Without a genius for them, they should not be attempted.

Style, with respect to its expression.

A. The diffuse and the concise style.

B. The nervous and the feeble style.

Style, with respect to ornament.

A. A dry style.

B. A plain style.
c. A neat style.
D. An elegant style.
E. A florid style."

LECTURE XIX.

GENERAL CHARACTERS OF STYLE.-SIMPLE, AFFECTED, VEHEMENT.-DIRECTIONS FOR

FORMING A PROPER STYLE.

HAVING entered, in the last lecture, on the consideration of the general characters of style, I treated of the concise and diffuse, the nervous and feeble manner. I considered style also, with relation to the different degrees of ornament employed to beautify it, in which view, the manner of different authors rises according to the following gradation: dry, plain, neat, elegant, flowery.

I am next to treat of style under another character, one of great importance in writing, and which requires to be accurately examined, that of simplicity, or a natural style, as distinguished from affectation. Simplicity, applied to writing, is a term very frequently used; but, like other critical terms, often used loosely and without precision. This has been owing chiefly to the different meanings given to the word simplicity, which, therefore, it will be necessary here to distinguish ; and to show in what sense it is a proper attribute of style. We may remark four different acceptations in which it is taken.

The first is, simplicity of composition, as opposed to too great a variety of parts. Horace's precept refers to this:

Denique sit quod vis simplex duntaxat et unum."

This is the simplicity of plan in a tragedy, as distinguished from double plots, and crowded incidents; the simplicity of the Iliad, or Eneid, in opposition to the digressions of Lucan, and the scattered tales of Ariosto; the simplicity of Grecian architecture, in opposition to the irregular variety of the Gothic. In this sense, simplicity is the same with unity.

The second sense is simplicity of thought, as opposed to refinement. Simple thoughts are what arise naturally; what the occasion or the subject suggest unsought; and what, when once suggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and obvious train of thought, and which it required a peculiar turn of genius to pursue; within certain bounds very beautiful; but when carried too far, approaching to intricacy, and hurting us by the appearance of being recherché, or far sought. Thus, we would naturally say, that Mr. Parnell is a poet of far greater simplicity, in his turn of thought, than Mr. Cowley; Cicero's thoughts on moral subjects are natural; Seneca's too refined and laboured. In these two senses of simplicity, when it is opposed, either to variety of parts, or to refinement of thought, it has no proper relation to style

*Then learn the wandering humour to control,
And keep one equal tenour through the whole.'

FRANCIS

There is a third sense of simplicity, in which it has respect to style; and stands opposed to too much ornament or pomp of language; as when we say, Mr. Locke is a simple, Mr. Hervey a florid writer; and it is in this sense, that the 'simplex,' the 'tenue,' or 'subtile genus dicendi,' is understood by Cicero and Quintilian. The simple style, in this sense, coincides with the plain or the neat style, which I before mentioned; and, therefore, requires no farther illustration.

But there is a fourth sense of simplicity, also, respecting style; but not respecting the degree of ornament employed, so much as the easy and natural manner in which our language expresses our thoughts. This is quite different from the former sense of the word just now mentioned, in which simplicity was equivalent to plainness : whereas, in this sense, it is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for instance, possesses this simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more ornament and beauty. This simplicity, which is what we are now to consider, stands opposed, not to ornament, but to affectation of ornament, or appearance of labour about our style; and it is a distinguishing excellency in writing.

A writer of simplicity expresses himself in such a manner, that every one thinks he could have written in the same way; Horace describes it,

ut sibi quivis

Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret

Ausus idem.*

There are no marks of art in his expression: it seems the very language of nature; you see in the style, not the writer and his labour, but the man in his own natural character. He may be rich in his expression; he may be full of figures, and of fancy; but these flow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has studied it, but because it is the manner of expression most natural to him. A certain degree of negligence, also, is not inconsistent with this character of style, and even not ungraceful in it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: Habeat ille,' says Cicero, (Orat. No. 77) 'molle quiddam, et quod indicet non ingratam negligentiam hominis, de re magis quàm de verbo laborantis.' This is the great advantage of simplicity of style, that, like simplicity of manners, it shows us a man's sentiments and turn of mind laid open without disguise. More studied and artificial manrers of writing, however beautiful, have always this disadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the splendour of dress, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal those peculiarities which distinguish one man from another. But reading an author of simplicity, is like conversing with a person of distinction

*From well-known tales such fictions would I raise,

As all might hope to imitate with ease;

Yet while they strive the same success to gain,
Should find their labours, and their hopes in vain.'

FRANCIS.

'Let this style have a certain softness and ease, which shall characterize a neg ligence, not unpleasing in an author, who appears to be more solicitous about the thought than the expression.