صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ing with propriety; without any tails or adjections dragging after the proper close. His cadence is varied; but not of the studied musical kind. His figures, if he uses any, are short 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 industry merely, and careful attention to the rules of writing, and it is a style always agreeable. It imprints a character of moderate elevation on our composition, and carries a decent degree of ornament, which is not unsuitable to any subject whatever. A familiar letter, or a law paper, on the driest subject, may be written with neatness; and a sermon, or a philosophical treatise, in a neat style, will be read with pleasure. An elegant style is a character, expressing a higher degree of ornament than a neat one; and indeed, is the term usually applied to style, when possessing all the virtues of ornament, without any of its excesses or defects. From what has been formerly delivered, it will easily be understood, that complete elegance implies great peropicuity 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 spread over style, as far as the subject admits it; and all the illustration which figurative language adds, when properly employed. In a word, an elegant writer is one 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. In this class, therefore, we place only the first rate writers in the language; such as Addison, 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 class together, under the denomination of elegant, as, in the scale of ornament, possessing nearly the same place.

6

When the ornaments applied to style, are too rich and gaudy in proportion to the subject; when they return upon us too fast, and strike us either with a dazzling lustre, or a false brilliancy, this forms what is called a florid style; a term commonly used to signify the excess of ornament. In a young composer this is very pardonable. Perhaps it is even a promising symptom in young people, that their style should incline to the florid and luxuriant; Volo se efferat in adolescente fæcunditas,' says Quintilian, multum inde decoquent anni, multum ratio limabit, aliquid velut usu ipso deteretur; sit modò unde excidi possit quid et exculpi. Audeat hæc ætas plura, et inveniat et inventis gaudeat ; sint licet illa non satis interim sicca et severa. Facile remedium est ubertatis: sterilia nullo labore vincuntur."* But, although the florid style may be allowed to youth,

* In youth, I wish to see luxuriancy of fancy appear. Much of it will be diminished by years; much will be corrected by ripening judgment; some of it, by the mere practice of composition, will be worn away. Let there be only sufficient matter, at first, that can bear some pruning and lopping off. At this time of life, let genius be bold and inventive, and pride itself in its efforts, though these should not, as yet,be cor rect. Luxuriancy can easily be cured; but for barrenness there is no remedy.'

in 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? Whom 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 harsnness 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 advantages 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.
B. They must rise naturally from the
subject.

2.

3.

c. They snould not be employed too frequently.

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 attri bute 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.

« السابقةمتابعة »