13. " The tackle of my heart is cracked and burnt; My heart hath one poor string to stay it by, Which holds but till thy news be uttered."-SHAKSPEARE FAULTY HYPERBOLES. 14. "By every wind that comes this way, Send me at least a sigh or two; Such and so many I'll repay As shall themselves make winds to get to you."-COWLEY 15. "All armed in brass, the richest dress of war, (A dismal, glorious sight) he shone afar. The sun himself started with sudden fright, To see his beams return so dismal bright."-COWLEY. 16. "Aumerle, thou weep'st, my tender-hearted cousin! Our sighs, and they, shall lodge the summer-corn, § 347. IF we examine the compositions of any two individuals on the same subject, we shall generally find that, not only do their respective sentiments differ, but also their modes of expressing those sentiments. This is no more than natural. We must expect the thoughts and words of men to differ similarly with their actions and dispositions. Now, the peculiar manner in which a writer expresses his thoughts by means of words is called STYLE,—a word derived from the Latin stylus, the name of a pointed steel instrument employed by the Romans in writing on their waxen tablets. Yet, while the mental peculiarities of most writers are apparent in their diction, there are some general distinctive features which enable § 847. On examining the compositions of two different persons on the same subject, what will we generally find? What is style? From what is the word derived Enu us to divide their various styles into different classes, as follows the Dry, the Plain, the Neat, the Elegant, the Florid, the Simple, the Labored, the Concise, the Diffuse, the Nervous, and the Feeble. These we shall now consider, premising that (with the exception of the Dry, the Labored, and the Feeble, which are always to be avoided) they are appropriate to different subjects, and must be selected by a writer with reference to the matter he proposes to treat. It is obvious that the swelling style of an oration would be altogether out of place in a philosophical essay or an unpretending letter. As we define each, we shall note to what compositions it is adapted. § 348. The difference between the first five of the styles enumerated above, consists chiefly in the amount of ornament employed. A dry style excludes ornament of every kind. Aiming only to be understood, it takes no trouble to please either the fancy or the ear. Such a style is tolerable in didactic writing alone, and even there only solidity of matter and perspicuity of language enable us to endure it. This is so generally felt that we have but few specimens of a purely dry style. Aristotle's may be mentioned among the most striking; and, in modern times, Berkley has perhaps approached it as nearly as any other writer A plain style rises one degree above that last described. While the plain writer is at no pains to please us with ornament, he carefully avoids disgusting us with harshness. In addition to perspicuity, which is the only aim of the dry writer, he studies precision, purity, and propriety. Such figures as are naturally suggested and tend to elucidate his meaning, he does not reject; while such as merely embellish he avoids as beneath his notice. To this class of writers Locke and Swift belong. Next in order is the neat style. Here ornaments are employed, but merate the principal varieties of style. By what must a writer be guided in making a Belection between them? § 848. In what does the difference between the first five of these styles consist? Describe the dry style. In what kind of writing alone is it tolerable? What authors afford the most striking specimens of this style? Describe the plain style. Besides perspicuity, what does the plain writer study? What figures does he employ? What writers belong to this class? What style is next in order n point of ornament? De not those of the most elevated or sparkling kind; they are appropriate and correct, rather than bold and glowing. Beauty of composition is sought to be attained rather by a judicious selection and arrangement of words than by striking efforts of imagination. The sentences employed are of moderate length, and carefully freed from superfluities. This style is adapted to every species of writing; to the letter, the essay, the sermon, the law-paper, and even the most abstract treatise. Advancing a step, we come to the elegant style; which possesses all the beauty that ornament can add, without any of the drawbacks arising from its improper or excessive use. It may be regarded as the perfection of style. "An elegant writer," says Blair, "is oue who pleases the fancy and the ear, while he informs the understanding; and who gives us his ideas clothed with all the beauty of expression, but not overcharged with any of its misplaced finery." Such a one preëminently is Addison; and such, though in a less degree, are Pope, Temple, and Bolingbroke. A florid style is one in which ornament is everywhere employed. The term is used with a two-fold signification:—for the ornaments may spring from a luxuriant imagination and have a solid basis of thought to rest upon or, as is too often the case, the luxuriance may be in words alone and not in fancy; the brilliancy may be merely superficial, a glittering tinsel, which, however much it may please the shallowminded, cannot fail to disgust the judicious. As first defined, this style has been employed by several distinguished writers with marked succoss; among these the most prominent is Ossian, whose poems consist almost entirely of bold and brilliant figures. But it is only writers of transcendent genius that can thus indulge in continued ornament with any hope of success. Inferior minds inevitably fall into the second kind of floridity alluded to above, than which nothing is more contemptible. Vividness of imagination in the young often betrays them into this fault; it is one, however, which time generally corrects, and which is therefore to be preferred to the opposite extreme. 'Luxuriance," says Quintilian, can easily be cured; but for barrenness there is no remedy." 66 66 Careful revision is the best mear of correcting an over-florid style. scribe it. To what varieties of composition is it adapted? What is the next style? Describe it. What does Blair say of the elegant writer? What authors have excelled in this style? What is meant by a florid style? State in what two senses this term is used. As first defined, by whom has it been employed? What writers alone can hopo to use it with success? Into what are interior minds that attempt it apt to fall? Who are often betrayed into this fault by vividness of imagination? What does Quintilian say respecting luxuriance and barrenness? What is the best means of correcting an ver-florid style? What other means is suggested? Show how it operates. Unnecessary words must be stricken out, and even the whole sentence must sometimes be remodelled. On the ornamental parts, in particular, the file must be freely used. Figures which are not in all respects chaste and appropriate to the subject, must be unceremoniously removed. To write frequently on familiar themes will be found another effective means of correcting excessive floridity. In such exercises, the inappro priateness of too much ornament will be obvious to the writer himself, and the effort made to repress it will have a beneficial effect on all his compositions. § 349. The simple and the labored style are directly opposed to each other, the difference between them lying principally in the structure of their respective sentences. The simple writer expresses himself so easily that the reader, before making the attempt, imagines he can write as well himself. His diction bears no marks of art; it seems to be the very language of nature. The man of taste and good sense is unable to suggest any change whereby the author could have dealt more properly or efficiently with his subject. Simplicity does not imply plainness; when ornaments are suited to the subject, it adopts them, its chief aim being consistency with nature. The best specimens of simplicity are afforded by the writers of antiquity,—particularly Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Cæsar; and the reason is plain, because they wrote from the dictates of natural genius, and imitated neither the thoughts nor the style of others. Among moderns, Goldsmith's writings are characterized by this quality in the highest degree. Simplicity having been thus defined at length, it is unnecessary to say much respecting the labored style, which is in all respects its reThe characteristics of the latter are affectation, misplaced ornament, a preponderance of swelling words, long and involved sentences, and a constrained tone, neither easy, graceful, nor natural. verse. § 350. Styles are distinguished as concise and diffuse, according as few or many words are employed by the writer to express his thoughts. The concise writer, aiming to express himself in the briefest possi § 349. What is the opposite of a simple style? In what does the difference between them chiefly consist? Describe the diction of the simple writer. What ornaments does he employ? Who afford the best specimens of simplicity? Why? What modern writer possesses this quality in a high degree? What are the characteristics of the labored style! § 350. What constitutes the difference between the concise and the diffuse style! How does the concise writer express himself? How, the diffuse? When do both thes9 ble manner, rejects as redundant every thing not material to the sense He presents a thought but once, and then in its most striking light. His sentences are compact and strong rather than harmonious, and suggest more than they directly express. The diffuse writer, on the other hand, presents his thoughts in a variety of lights, and endeavors by repetition to make himself perfectly understood. Fond of amplification, he indulges in long sentences, making up by copiousness what he lacks in strength. Each of these styles has its beauties, and each becomes faulty when carried to excess. Too great conciseness produces abruptness and obscurity; while extreme diffuseness dilutes the thought, and makes but a feeble impression on the reader. In deciding to which of these qualities it is best to incline in any particular instance, we should be controlled by the nature of the subject. Discourses intended for delivery require a more copious style than matter which is to be printed and read at leisure. When, as in the case of the latter, there is an opportunity of pausing and reviewing what is not at first understood, greater brevity is allowable than when the meaning has to be caught from the words of a speaker, and is thus, if too tersely expressed, liable to be lost. As a general thing, in descriptions, essays, and sublime and impassioned writing, it is safer to incline to conciseness. The interest is thus kept alive, the attention is riveted, and the reader's mind finds agreeable exercise in following out the ideas suggested, without being fully presented, by the author. The most concise, as well as the simplest, writers are found among the ancients. Aristotle and Tacitus, above all others, are characterized by terseness and brevity of expression; the former, indeed, in a greater degree than propriety allows. The genius of our language, as we have already seen, is opposed to the pointed brevity which constitutes the principal charm of the classics. We shall therefore find comparatively few specimens of concise composition in our literature; while, on the contrary, we can boast of many writers, who, in elegant diffuseness, will not compare unfavorably with Cicero, the great model of antiquity in this variety of style. §351. The nervous and the feeble style produce re styles become faulty? What results from too great conciseness? What, from extreme di Tuseness? In deciding, in any particular instance, to which it is best to incline, by what should we be controlled? Which of these styles is recommended for matter that is to be spoken, and on what grounds? Which is the better for sublime and impassioned writing, and why? Where must we look for the most concise writers? What two, in particular, are mentioned? Which of these styles does thè genius of our lan gnage favor? |