תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

from neglect of smoothnefs and eafe. This is reckone ed the fault of fome of our earlieft claffics; fuch, as Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon, Hooker, Harring ton, Cudworth, and other writers of confiderable reputation in the days of Queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. These writers had nerves and strength in a high degree; and are to this day diftinguifhed by this quality in ftyle. But the language in their hands was very different from what it is now, and was indeed entirely formed upon the idiom and conftruction of the Latin in the arrangement of fentences. The present form of our language has in fome degree facrificed the ftudy of ftrength to that of ease and perfpicuity. Our arrangement is lefs forcible, but more plain and natural; and this is now confidered, as the genius of our tongue.

Hitherto ftyle has been confidered under those characters, which regard its expreffiveness of an author's meaning. We fhall now confider it with refpect to the degree of ornament, employed to embellish it. Here the ftyle of different authors feem to rife in the following gradation; a dry, a plain, a neat, an elegant, a flowery manner.

A dry manner excludes every kind of ornament. Content with being understood, it aims not to please either the fancy or the ear. This is tolerable only in pore didactic writing; and even there, to make us

bear it, great folidity of matter and entire perfpicuity of language are required.

A plain ftyle rifes one degree above a dry one. Α writer of this character employs very little ornament of any kind, and refts almost entirely upon his fenfe. But, though he does not engage us by the arts of compofition, he avoids difgufting us, like a dry and a harsh writer. Befide perfpicuity he obferves propriety, purity, and precision in his language; which form no inconfiderable degree of beauty. Livelinefs and force are alfo compatible with a plain ftyle; and therefore fuch an author, if his fentiments be good, may be fufficiently agreeable. The difference between a dry and a plain writer is this; the former is incapable of ornament; the latter goes not in pursuit of it. employed the plain ftyle, Dean example.

Of thofe, who have Swift is an eminent

A neat style is next in order; and here we are advanced into the region of ornament; but not of the most sparkling kind. A writer of this character shows by his attention to the choice of words and to their graceful collocation that he does not defpife the beauty of language. His fentences are always free from the incumbrance of fuperfluous words; of a moderate length; inclining rather to brevity, than a fwelling ftructure; and clofing with propriety. There is variety in his cadence; but no appearance of studied har

M

mony. His figures, if he use any, are short and accurate rather, than bold and glowing. Such a ftyle may be attained by a writer, whofe powers of fancy or ge nius are not great, by industry and attention. This fort of style is not unsuitable to any subject whatever. A familiar epistle, or a law paper on the driest subject, may be written with neatnefs; and a fermon, or a philofoph ical treatise in a neat style, is read with fatisfaction.

An elegant ftyle implies a higher degree of ornament, than a neat one; poffeffing all the virtues of ornament without any of its exceffes or defects. Complete elegance implies great perfpicuity and propriety; purity in the choice of words; and care and fkill in their aṛrangement. It implies farther the beauties of imagination spread over ftyle as far, as the fubject permits; and all the illuftration, which figurative language adds, when properly employed. An elegant writer in fhort is one, who delights the fancy and the ear, while he informs the understanding; who clothes his ideas in all the beauty of expreffion, but does not overload them with any of its misplaced finery,

A florid ftyle implies excess of ornament. In a young compofer it is not only pardonable, but often a promifing fymptom. But, although it may be allowed. to youth in their firft effays; it must not receive the fame indulgence from writers of more experience. In them judgment fhould chaften imagination, and reic

every ornament, which is unfuitable or redundant. That tinsel splendor of language, which fome writer's perpetually affect, is truly contemptible. With fuch it is a luxuriancy of words, not of fancy. They forget that, unless founded on good fenfe and folid thought, the most florid style is but a childish impofition on the public.

STYLE. SIMPLE, AFFECTED, VEHEMENT. DIRECTIONS FOR FORMING A PROPER

SIMPLICITY,

STYLE.

IMPLICITY, applied to writing, is a term very commonly used; but, like many other critical terms, often used without precifion. The different meanings of the word fimplicity are the chief caufe of this inaccuracy. It is therefore neceffary to fhow, in what fenfe fimplicity is a proper attribute of ftyle. There are four different acceptations, in which this term is taken.

The first is fimplicity of compofition, as oppofed to too great a variety of parts. This is the fimplicity of plan in tragedy, as diftinguished from double plots and crowded incidents; the fimplicity of the Iliad in oppofition to the digreffions of Lucan; the fimplicity of Grecian architecture in oppofition to the irregular variety of the Gothic. Simplicity in this fenfe is the fame with unity.

The fecond fenfe is fimplicity of thought in oppofi tion to refinement. Simple thoughts are thofe, which flow naturally; which are fuggefted by the subject or occafion; and which, when once fuggefted, are easily understood by all. Refinement in writing means a lefs. obvious and natural train of thought, which, when carried too far, approaches to intricacy, and difpleafes us by the appearance of being far fought. Thus Parnell is a Poet of much greater fimplicity in his turn of thought, than Cowley. In thefe two fenfes fimplicity has no relation to ftyle.

The third fenfe of fimplicity regards ftyle, and is oppofed to too much ornament, or pomp of language. Thus we fay Mr. Locke is a fimple, Mr. Harvey a florid writer. A fimple ftyle, in this fenfe, coincides with a plain or neat style.

The fourth fenfe of fimplicity also respects style; but it regards not fo much the degree of ornament employed, as the easy and natural manner, in which our language expreffes our thoughts. In this fenfe fimplicity is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for example, poffeffes this fimplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more ornament and beauty. This fimplicity is opposed not to ornament, but to affectation of ornament; and is a fuperior excellence in compofition.

1

« הקודםהמשך »