X.

WHEN I mentioned obfolete or new-coined LECT. words as incongruous with Purity of Style, it will be easily understood, that foine exceptions are to be made. On certain occafions, they may have grace. Poetry admits of greater latitude than profe, with respect to coining, or, at least, new-compounding words; yet, even here, this liberty fhould be used with a fparing hand. In profe, fuch innovations are more hazardous, and have a worse effect. They are apt to give Style an affected and conceited air; and fhould never be ventured upon, except by fuch, whose established reputation gives them fome degree of dictatorial power over Language.

THE introduction of foreign and learned words, unless where neceffity requires them, fhould always be avoided. Barren Languages may need fuch affiftances; but ours is not one of these. Dean Swift, one of our most correct writers, valued himfelf much on using no words but fuch as were of native growth: and his Language may, indeed, be confidered as a ftandard of the ftricteft Purity and Propriety, in the choice of words. At prefent, we feem to be departing from this ftandard. A multitude of Latin words have, of late, been poured in upon us. On fome occafions, they give an appearance of elevation and dignity to Style. But often alfo, they render it stiff and forced :

And,

X.

LECT. And, in general, a plain native Style, as it is more intelligible to all readers, fo, by a proper management of words, it may be made equally strong and expreffive with this Latinifed English.

LET US now confider the import of Precifion in Language, which, as it is the highest part of the quality denoted by Perfpicuity, merits a full explication; and the more, becaufe diftinct ideas are, perhaps, not commonly formed about it.

THE exact import of Precifion may be drawn from the etymology of the word. It comes from "precidere," to cut off: It imports retrenching all fuperfluities, and pruning the expreffion fo, as to exhibit neither more nor less than an exact copy of his idea who uses it. I observed before, that it is often difficult to feparate the qualities of Style from the qualities of Thought; and it is found fo in this inftance. For, in order to write with Precifion, though this be properly a quality of Style, one must poffefs a very confiderable degree of distinctness and accuracy in his manner of thinking.

THE words, which a man ufes to express his ideas, may be faulty in three respects: They may either not exprefs that idea which the au

thor

X.

thor intends, but fome other which only re- LECT. fembles, or is akin to it; or, they may exprefs that idea, but not quite fully and completely; or, they may exprefs it, together with fomething more than he intends. Precifion ftands opposed to all these three faults; but chiefly to the laft. In an author's writing with Propriety, his being free from the two former faults feems implied. The words which he ufes are proper; that is, they exprefs that idea. which he intends, and they exprefs it fully; but to be Precife, fignifies, that they exprefs that idea, and no more. There is nothing in his words which introduces any foreign idea, any fuperfluous unfeasonable acceffory, fo as to mix it confufedly with the principal object, and thereby to render our conception of that object loose and indiftinct. This requires a writer to have, himself, a very clear apprehenfion of the object he means to prefent to us; to have laid fast hold of it in his mind; and never to waver in any one view he takes of it a perfection to which, indeed, few writers attain.

THE use and importance of Precision, may be deduced from the nature of the human mind. It never can view, clearly and diftinctly, above one object at a time. If it muft look at two or three together, especially objects among which there is refemblance or

connection,

LEC T. connection, it finds itself confused and embar

X.

raffed. It cannot clearly perceive in what they agree, and in what they differ. Thus, were any object, fuppofe fome animal, to be prefented to me, of whose structure I wanted to form a distinct notion, I would defire all its trappings to be taken off, I would require it to be brought before me by itself, and to stand alone, that there might be nothing to distract my attention. The fame is the cafe with words. If, when you would inform me of your meaning, you alfo tell me more than what conveys it; if you join foreign circumftances to the principal object; if, by unneceffarily varying the expreffion, you fhift the point of view, and make me fee sometimes the object itself, and fometimes another thing that is connected with it; you thereby oblige me to look on feveral objects at once, and I lofe fight of the principal. You load the animal, you are showing me, with fo many trappings and collars, and bring fo many of the fame fpecies before me, fomewhat refembling, and yet somewhat differing, that I fee none of them clearly.

THIS forms what is called a Loofe Style; and is the proper oppofite to Precifion. It ge nerally arifes from ufing a fuperfluity of words. Feeble writers employ a multitude of words to make themselves understood, as they think,

more

X.

more diftinctly; and they only confound the LECT. reader. They are fenfible of not having caught the precife expreffion, to convey what they would fignify; they do not, indeed, conceive their own meaning very precisely themselves; and, therefore, help it out, as they can, by this and the other word, which may, as they fuppofe, fupply the defect, and bring you fomewhat nearer to their idea: They are always going about it, and about it, but never just hit the thing. The image, as they fet it before you, is always feen double; and no double image is diftinct. When an author tells me of his hero's courage in the day of battle, the expreffion is precife, and I underftand it fully. But if, from the defire of multiplying words, he will needs praise his courage and fortitude; at the moment he joins these words together, my idea begins to waver. He means to exprefs one quality more strongly; but he is, in truth, expreffing two. Courage refifts danger; fortitude fupports pain. The occafion of exerting each of thefe qualities is different; and being led to think of both together, when only one of them fhould be in my view, my view is rendered unsteady, and my conception of the object indiftin&t.

FROM what I have faid, it appears that an author may, in a qualified fenfe, be perspicuous, while yet he is far from being precife. VOL. I.

R

He