be compofed in the fame Style with Orations. Every one fees alfo, that different parts of the fame compofition require a variation in the Style and manner. In a fermon, for inflance, or any harangue, the application or pereration admits of more ornament, and requires more warmth, than the didactic part. But what I mean at prefent to remark is, that, amidft this variety, we fill expect to find, in the compofitions of any one man, fome degree of uniformity or confiftency with himself in manner; we expect to find fome predominant character of Style impreffed on all his writings, which fhall be fuited to, and fhall mark, his particular genius, and turn of mind. The orations in Livy differ much in Style, as they ought to do, from the reft of his hiftory. The fame is the cafe with thofe in Tacitus. Yet both in Livy's orations, and in thofe of Tacitus, we are able clearly to trace the diftinguithing manner of each hiftorian: the magnificent fulness of the one, and the fententious concifenefs of the other. The "Lettres Perfanes," and "L'Efprit de Loix," are the works of the fame author. They required very different compofition furely, and accordingly they differ widely; yet fill we fee the fame hand. 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 compofitions of any author, we are apt to infer, not without reafon, that he is a vulgar and trivial author, who writes from imitation, and not from the impulfe of original genius. As the moft celebrated painters are known by their hand; fo the best and most original writers are known and diftinguished, throughout all their works, by their Style and peculiar manner. This will be found to hold almoft without exception. Blair. § 11. On the Auftere, the Florid, and the

Middle STYLE.

The ancient Critics attended to the fe general characters of Style which we are now to confider. Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus divides them into three kinds; and calls them, the Auftere, the Florid, and the Middle. By the Auftere, he means a Style diftinguished for ftrength and firm nefs, with a neglect of fmoothness and ornament: for examples of which, he gives Pinder and Efchylus among the Poets, and Thucydides among the Profe writers. By the Florid, he means, as the name in

dicates, a Style ornamented, flowing, and fweet; refting more upon numbers and grace, than ftrength; he inftances Hefiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Euripides, and princi. paily Ifocrates. The Middle kind is the juft mean between thefe, and comprehends the beauties of both; in which clafs he places Homer and Sophocles among the Poets: in Profe, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Plato, and (what feems ftrange) Ariftotle. This must be a very wide clafs indeed, which comprehends Plato and Ariftotle under one article as to Style. Cicero and Quinctilian make alfo a threefold divifion of Style, though with respect to dif ferent qualities of it; in which they are followed by moft of the modern writers on Rhetoric; the Simplex, Tenue, or Subtile; the Grave, or Vehemens; and the Medium, or temperatum genus dicendi. But thete divifions, and the illuftrations they give of them, are fo loofe and general, that they cannot advance us much in our ideas of Style. I fhall endeavour to be a little more particular in what I have to fay on this fubject.

Ibid.

12. On the Concife STYLE. One of the first and most obvious diftinclions of the different kinds of Style, is what arifes from an author's fpreading out his thoughts more or lefs. This diftinction forms what are call d the Diffufe and the Concife Styles. A concife writer compreffes his thought into the fe weft poffible words; he fecks to employ none but fuch as are moft expreffive; he lops off, as redundant, every expreflion which does not add fomething material to the fenfe. Ornament he does not reject; he may be lively and figured; but his ornament is intended for the fake of force rather than grace. He never gives you the fame thought twice. He places it in the light which appears to him the moft ftriking; but if you do not apprehend it well in that light, you need not expect to find it in any other. His fentences are arranged with compactnefs and ftrength, rather thanwith cadence and harmony. The utmolt precifion is ftudied in them; and they are commonly defigned to fuggeft more to the reader's imagination than they directly exprefs. Ibid.

and gives the reader every poffible affiftance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to exprefs it at firft in its full ftrength, because he is to repeat the impreffion; and what he wants in ftrength, he propofes to fupply by copioufnels. Writers of this character generally love magnificence and amplification Their periods naturally run out into fome length, and having room for ornainent of every kind, they admit it freely.

Each of thefe manners has its peculiar advantages; and each becomes faulty when carried to the extreme. The extreme of concifenefs becomes abrupt and obfcure; it is apt alfo to lead into a Style too pointed, and bordering on the epigrammatic. The extreme of diffufenefs becomes weak and languid, and tires the reader. However, to one or other of thefe two manners a writer may lean, according as his genius prompts him: and under the general character of a concife, or of a more open and diffufe Style, may poffefs much beauty in his compofition.

For illustrations of thefe general charaders, I can only refer to the writers who are examples of them. It is not fo mach from detached paffages, fuch as I was wont formerly to quote for inftances, as from the current of an author's Style, that we are to collect the idea of a formed manner of writing. The two moft remarkable examples that I know, of concifenefs carried as far as propriety will allow, perhaps in fome cafes farther, are Tacitus the Hiftorian, and the Prefident Montefquieu in L'Efprit de Loix." Ariftotle too holds an eminent rank among didactic writers for his brevity. Perhaps no writer in the world was ever fo frugal of his words as Ariftotle; but this frugality of expreflion frequently darkens his meaning. Of a beautiful and magnificent difufenefs, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the mot illustrious inftance that can be given. Addifon, alfo, and Sir William Temple, come in fome degree under this class.

Blair.

14. On the Nervous and the Feeble
STYLE.

The Nervous and the Feeble, are generally held to be characters of Style, of the fame import with the Concife and the Diffale. They do indeed very often coincide. Diffufe writers have, for the most part, fome degree of feebleness; and nervous writers will generally be inclined to a con

cife expreflion. cife expreffion. 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 itrength. Livy is an example; and in the English language, Dr. Barrow. Barrow's Style has many faults. It is un equal, incorrect, and redundant; but withal, for force and expreffiveness uncommonly distinguished. On every subject, he multiplies words with an overflowing copioufnefs; but it is always a torrent of ftrong ideas and fignificant expreffions which he pours forth. Indeed, the foundations of a nervous or a weak Style are laid in an author's manner of thinking. If he conceives an object ftrongly, he will exprefs it with energy: but, if he has only an indiftinct view of his fubject; if his ideas be loofe and wavering; if his genius be fuch, or, at the time of his writing, fo 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 loofe epithets will be found; his expreflions will be vague and general; his arrangement indistinct and feeble; we fhall conceive fomewhat of his meaning, but our conception will be faint. Whereas a nervous writer, whether he em ploys an extended or a concife Style, gives us always a ftrong impreffion of his meaning; his mind is full of his fubject, and his words are all expreffive: every phrafe and every figure which he ufes, tends to render the picture, which he would fet before us, more lively and complete. Ibid.

15. On Harness of STYLE. As every good quality in Style has an extreme, when purfued to which it becomes faulty, this holds of the Nervous Style as well as others. Too great a study of ftrength, to the neglect of the other qualities of Style, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner. Harshness arifes from unusual words, from forced inverfions in the conftruction of a sentence, and too much neglect of fmoothness and eafe. This is reckoned the fault of fome of our earliest claffics in the English Language; fuch as Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon, Hooker, Chillingworth, Milton in his profe works, Harrington, Cudworth, and other writers of confiderable note in the days of Queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. These writers had nerves and ftrength in a high degree,

and

and 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 conftruction of the Latin, in the arrangement of fentences. Hooker, for inftance, begins the Preface to his celebrated work of Ecclefiaftical Polity with the following fentence: "Though for no "other caufe, yet for this, that pofterity "may know we have not loofely, through "filence, permitted things to pafs away as "in dream, there fhall be, for men's in«formation, extant this much, concerning the prefent ftate of the church of God " established amongst us, and their careful "endeavours which would have upheld the "fame." Such a fentence now founds harth in our ears. Yet fome advantages certainly attended this fort of Style; and whether we have gained, or loft, upon the whole, by departing from it, may bear a queftion. By the freedom of arrangement, which it permitted, it rendered the language fufceptible of more ftrength, of more variety of collocation, and more harmony of period. But however this be, fuch a Style is now obfolete; and no modern writer could adopt it without the cenfure of harfhnefs and affectation. The prefent form which the Language has af fumed, has, in fome measure, facrificed the ftudy of strength to that of perfpicuity and eafe. Our arrangement of words has become lefs forcible, perhaps, but more plain and natural: and this is now underflood to be the genius of our Language.

Blair.

§ 16. On the Dry STYLE. The dry manner excludes all ornament of every kind. Content with being understood, it has not the leaft aim to please either the fancy or the ear. This is tolerable only in pure didactic writing; and even there, to make us bear it, great weight and folidity of matter is requifite; and entire perfpicuity of language. Ariftotle is the complete example of a Dry Style. Never, perhaps, was there any author who adhered to rigidly to the strictnefs of a didactic manner, throughout all his writings, and conveyed fo much inftruction, without the leaft approach to ornament. With the moft profound genius, and extenfive views, he writes like a pure intelligence, who addreffes himself folely to the understanding, without making any ufe of the channel of the imagination. But

this is a manner which deferves not to be imitated. For, although the goodness of the matter may compenfate the drynefs or harfhness of the Style, yet is that drynes a confiderable defect; as it fatigues atten tion, and conveys our fentiments, with dif advantage, to the reader or hearer.

Ibid.

§ 17. On the Plain STYLE. A Plain Style rifes one degree above a dry one. A writer of this character employs very little ornament of any kind, and refts almost entirely upon his fenfe. But, if he is at no pains to engage us by the employment of figures, mufical ar rangement, or any other art of writing, he ftudies, however, to avoid difgufting us, like a dry and a harsh writer. Beides Perfpicuity, he purfues Propriety, Purity, and Precifion, in his language: which form one degree, and no inconfiderable one, of beauty. Livelinefs too, and force, may be confiftent with a very Plain Style: and, therefore, fuch an author, if his fentiments be good, may be abundantly agreeable. The difference between a dry and plain writer, is, that the former is incapable of ornament, and feems not to know what it is; the latter fecks not after it. He gives us his meaning, in good language, dific and pure; any further ornament he gives himself no trouble about; either, becaue he thinks it unneceffary to his fubje&t; c", becaufe his genius does not lead him to delight in it; or, because it leads him to despise it.

This last was the cafe with Dean Swift. who may be placed at the head of thofe that have employed the Plain Style. Few writers have difcovered more capacity. He treats every fubject which he handles, whether ferious or ludicrous, in a masterly manner. He knew, almoft beyond and man, the Purity, the Extent, the Precifion to fuch as wish to attain a pure and corof the English Language; and, therefore, rect Style, he is one of the moft ufeti models. But we must not look for much ornament and grace in his Language.

Style, particularly the Plain and the Simple, and

On this head, of the General Characters of

the characters of thofe English authors who are claffed under them, in this, and the following Le tures [xix] feveral ideas have been taken from a manufcript treatife on rhetoric, part of which was fhewn to me many years ago, by the learned d

ingenious Author, Dr. Adam Smith, and which, it is hoped, will be given by him to the Public.

His

His haughty and morofe genius made him defpife any embellishment of this kind, as beneath his dignity. He delivers his fentiments in a plain, downright, pofitive manner, like one who is fure he is in the right; and is very indifferent whether you be pleafed or not. His fentences are commonly negligently arranged; diftinctly enough as to the fenfe, but without any regard to smoothnefs of found; often with out much regard to compactness or elegance. If a metaphor, or any other figure, chanced to render his fatire more poignant, he would, perhaps, vouchfafe to adopt it, when it came in his way; but if it tended orly to embellish and illuftrate, he would rather throw it afide. Hence, in his ferious pieces, his ftyle often borders upon the dry and unpleafing; in his humorous ores, the plainnefs of his manner fets off his wit to the highest advantage. There is no froth nor affectation in it; it feems native and unstudied; and while he hardly appears to fmile himself, he makes his reader laugh heartily. To a writer of fuch a genius as Dean Swift, the Plain Style was most admirably fitted. Among our philofophical writers, Mr. Locke comes under this clafs; perfpicuous and pure, but almost without any ornament whatever. In works which admit, or require, ever fo much ornament, there are parts where the plain manner ought to predominate. But we must remember, that when this is the character which a writer affects throughout his whole compofition, great weight of matter, and great force of fentiment, are required, in order to keep up the reader's attention, and prevent him from becoming tired of the author.

Blair.

$ 18. On the Neat STYLE. What is called a Neat Style comes next in order; and here we are got into the region of ornament; but that ornament not of the highest or moft fparkling kind. A writer of this character fhews, that he does not defpife the beauty of language. It is an object of his attention. But his attention is fhewn in the choice of his words, and in a graceful collocation of them; rather than in any high efforts of imagination, or eloquence. His fentences are always clean, and free from the incumbrance of fuperfluous words; of a moderate length; rather inclining to brevity, than a fwelling ftructure; clofing with propriety; without any tails, or adjections dragging after the proper close.

His

cadence is varied; but not of the ftudied mufical kind. His figures, if he ufes any, are fhort and correct; rather than bold and glowing. Such a Style as this may be attained by a writer who has no great powers of fancy or genius, by induftry merely, and careful attention to the rules of writing; and it is a Style always agreeable. It imprints a character of mcderate elevation on our compofition, and carries a decent degree of ornament, which is not unfuitable to any fubject whatever. A familiar letter, or a law paper, on the driest fubject, may be written with neatnefs; and a fermon, or a philofophical treatise, in a Neat Style, will be read with pleasure.

Ibid.

§ 19. On an Elegant STYLE. An Elegant Style is a character, expreffing a higher degree of ornament than a neat one; and, indeed, is the term ufually applied to Style, when poffeffing all the virtues of ornament, without any of its exceffes or defects. From what has been formerly delivered, it will eafily be underfood, that complete Elegance implies great perfpicuity and propriety; purity in the choice of words, and care and dexterity in their harmonious and happy arrangement. It implies farther, the grace and beauty of imagination fpread over Style, as far as the fubject admits it; and all the illuftration which figurative language adds, when properly employed. In a word, an elegant writer is one who pleafes the fancy and the ear, while he informs the understanding; and who gives us his ideas clothed with all the beauty of expreffion, but not overcharged with any of its mifplaced finery. In this clafs, therefore, we place only the first rate writers in the language; fuch as Addifon, Dryden, Pope, Temple, Bolingbroke, Atterbury, and a few more; writers who differ widely from one another in many of the attributes of Style, but whom we now clafs together, under the denomination of Elegant, as, in the fcale of Ornament, poffefling nearly the fame place.

Ibid.

§ 20. On the Florid STYLE. When the ornaments, applied to Style, are too rich aud gaudy in proportion to the fubject; when they return upon us too faft, and ftrike us either with a dazzling luftre, or a falfe brilliancy, this forms what is called a Florid Style; a term commonly used to fignify the excefs of ornament.