charge of Malebranche is not only ill founded, but absolutely ridiculous. One would however be apt to suspect that certain writers among us had considered the subject in the same gloomy point of view; or at least that they had studiously avoided every refine ment in style, as unbecoming a lover of truth and wisdom. Their sentiments are debased by the lowest expressions; they seem condemned to the curse of creeping upon the ground all the days of their life. But there is another extreme, which ought also to be carefully avoided. Language may be too pompous, as well as too mean. Some authors mistake pomp for dignity; and with the view of raising their expres→ sions above vulgar language, elevate them above common apprehension. They seem to consider it as a mark of their genius, that it requires some sagacity to discover their meaning, but when their meaning is discovered, it seldom repays the labour of the search.

CHAP. II.

OF PURITY OF STYLE.

STYLE has been defined to be the peculiar manner in which a man expresses his conceptions through the medium of language. It differs from mere language or words. Though the words which an author employs be unexceptionable, yet his style may be chargeable with great faults; it may be dry, stiff, feeble, affected. The style of an author is always intimately

connected with his manner of thinking: it is a picture of the ideas which arise in his mind, and of the manner in which they arise. Hence the difficulty of drawing an exact line of separation between the style and the sentiment.

All that can be required of language is to convey our ideas clearly to the mind of others, and, at the same time, to clothe them in an advantageous dress. The two general heads of perspicuity and ornament, therefore, comprehend all the qualities of a good style. Perspicuity demands our chief care; for, without this quality, the richest ornaments of language only glimmer through the dark, and puzzle, instead of pleasing, the reader. An author's meaning ought always to be obvious, even to the most careless and inattentive reader, so that it may strike his mind, as the light of the sun strikes our eyes. We must study, not only that every reader may understand us, but that it shall be impossible for him not to understand us. If we are obliged to follow a writer with much care, to pause, and to read over his sentences a second time, in order to comprehend them fully, he will not long continue to please. Mankind are generally too indolent to relish so much labour: they may pretend to admire the author's depth, after they have discovered his meaning; but they will seldom be inclined to bestow upon his work a second perusal.

In treating of perspicuity of style, it will be proper, in the first place, to direct our attention to single words and phrases, and afterwards to the construction of sentences.

Perspicuity, considered with respect to words and

phrases, requires the qualities of purity, propriety, and precision. Of these the first two are often confounded with each other, and indeed they are very nearly allied: a distinction however obtains between them. Purity of style consists in the use of such words, and such constructions, as belong to the idiom of the language which we use; in opposition to words and phrases which are imported from other languages, or which are obsolete, or new-coined, or used without proper authority. Propriety of style consists in the selection of such words, as the best and most established usage has appropriated to those ideas which we employ them to express. It implies the correct and happy application of them, according to that usage, in opposition to vulgarisms, or low expressions, and to words and phrases which would be less significant of the ideas which we intend to convey. Style may be pure, that is, it may be strictly English, without Scoticisms or Gallicisms, or ungrammatical and unwarranted expressions of any kind, and may nevertheless be deficient in propriety. The words may be unskilfully chosen, not adapted to the subject, nor fully expressive of the author's sentiments; he may have taken his words and phrases from the general mass of the English language, but his selection may happen to be injudicious.

Purity may justly be denominated grammatical truth. It consists in the conformity of the expression to the sentiment which the writer intends to convey; as moral truth consists in the conformity of the sentiment intended to be conveyed, to the sentiment actually entertained; and logical truth in the conformity of

the sentiment to the nature of things. The opposite to logical truth is error; to moral truth a lie; to grammatical truth a solecism.

The only standard by which the conformity implied in grammatical truth must be ascertained in every language, is the authorized, national, and present use of that language.

Grammatical errors, foreign idioms, and obsolete or new-coined words, were mentioned as inconsistent with purity of style. It will not be improper to collect a few hints concerning each of these faults.

I. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.

It is not in consequence of any peculiar irregularity or difficulty inherent in the English language, that the general practice, both of speaking and writing it, is chargeable with inaccuracy. That inaccuracy rather proceeds from its simplicity and facility; circumstances which are apt to persuade us that a grammatical study of our native tongue is altogether superfluous. Were the language less easy and simple, we should find ourselves under the necessity of studying it with greater care and attention. But we commonly take for granted, that we possess a competent knowledge of it, and are able on any occasion to apply our knowledge to practice. A faculty, solely acquired by use, conducted by habit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without the labour of reflection: we meet with no obstacles in our progress, or we do not perceive them; we find ourselves able to proceed without rules, and we never suspect that they may be of any use. A

a de

grammatical study of our own language forms no part of the ordinary course of instruction, and we seldom apply to it of our own accord. This however is ficiency which no other advantages can supply: much practice in the polite world, and a general acquaintance with the best authors, must undoubtedly be considered as excellent helps; but even these will hardly be sufficient. A critical knowledge of ancient languages, and an intimate acquaintance with ancient authors, will be found still less adequate to the purpose: Dr. Bentley, the greatest critic and most able grammarian of the age in which he lived, was notably deficient in the knowledge of his native tongue.*

Grammatical errors are so plentifully scattered over the pages of our eminent writers, that it will be no difficult task to select a sufficient number of examples.

1. Grammatical Errors in the Use of Pronouns.

We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same proportion more than us.-Swift's Conduct of the Allies. King Charles, and more than him, the duke, and the Popish faction, were at liberty to form new schemes.—Bolingbroke's Disserta tion on Parties.

Phalaris, who was so much older than her.-Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris.

«Erat Bentleius vir infinitæ doctrinæ, acutissimi sensus, acerrimi judicii. Et his tribus rebus omnis laus et virtus continetur critici." (Hermanni Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 264. Lipsiae, 1827-8, 3 tom. 8vo.) As a classical critic, this is his character drawn by a most competent judge. As an English critic, his character may be learned from Bishop Pearce's "Review of the Text of Milton's Paradise Lost in which the chief of Dr. Bentley's emendations are consider'd." Lond. 1733, 8vo.