X.

LECT. He uses proper words, and proper arrangement; he gives you the idea as clear as he conceives it himself; and fo far he is perfpicuous but the ideas are not very clear in his own mind; they are loose and general; and, therefore, cannot be expreffed with Precision. All fubjects do not equally require Precifion. It is fufficient, on many occasions, that we have a general view of the meaning. The fubject, perhaps, is of the known and familiar kind; and we are in no hazard of mistaking the sense of the author, though every word which he uses be not precife and exact.

Few authors, for instance, in the English Language, are more clear and perfpicuous, on the whole, than Archbishop Tillotson, and Sir William Temple; yet neither of them are remarkable for Precifion. They are loose and diffuse; and accustomed to exprefs their meaning by feveral words, which fhew you fully whereabouts it lies, rather than to fingle out thofe expreffions, which would convey clearly the idea they have in view, and no more. Neither, indeed, is Precifion the prevailing character of Mr. Addison's Style; although he is not fo deficient in this refpect as the other two authors.

LORD SHAFTSBURY's faults, in point of Precifion, are much greater than Mr. Addison's;

and

X.

and the more unpardonable, because he is a LECT. profeffed philofophical writer; who, as fuch, ought, above all things, to have ftudied Precifion. His Style has both great beauties, and great faults; and, on the whole, is by no means a safe model for imitation. Lord Shaftsbury was well acquainted with the power of words; those which he employs are generally proper and well founding; he has great variety of them; and his arrangement, as fhall be afterwards fhown, is commonly beautiful. His defect, in Precifion, is not owing fo much to indiftinct or confufed ideas, as to perpetual affectation. He is fond, to excefs, of the pomp and parade of Language; he is never fatisfied with expreffing any thing clearly and fimply; he must always give it the dress of ftate and majefty. Hence perpetual circumlocutions, and many words and phrases employed to defcribe fomewhat, that would have been described much better by one of them. If he has occafion to mention any perfon or author, he very rarely mentions him by his proper name. In the treatise, entitled, Advice to an Author, he defcants for two or three pages together upon Ariftotle, without once naming him in any other way, than the Mafter Critic, the Mighty Genius and Judge of Art, the Prince of Critics, the Grand Mafter of Art, and Confummate Philologift. In the fame way, the Grand Poetic Sire, the Philofophical

R 2

X.

LECT. lofophical Patriarch, and his Difciple of Noble Birth, and lofty Genius, are the only names by which he condefcends to distinguish Homer, Socrates, and Plato, in another paffage of the fame treatife. This method of diftinguishing perfons is extremely affected; but it is not fo contrary to Precifion, as the frequent circumlocutions he employs for all moral ideas; attentive, on every occafion, more to the pomp of Language, than to the clearness which he ought to have ftudied as a philofopher. The moral sense, for instance, after he had once defined it, was a clear term; but, how vague becomes the idea, when, in the next page, he calls it, "That natural affec"tion, and anticipating fancy, which makes "the fenfe of right and wrong?" Self-examination, or reflection on our own conduct, is an idea conceived with eafe; but when it is wrought into all the forms of, "A man's di"viding himself into two parties, becoming a

felf-dialogist, entering into partnership with himself, forming the dual number practi"cally within himfelf," we hardly know what to make of it. On fome occafions, he fo adorns, or rather loads with words, the plaineft and fimpleft propofitions, as, if not to obfcure, at least, to enfeeble them.

In the following paragraph, for example, of the Inquiry concerning Virtue, he means to

fhow,

X.

fhow, that, by every ill action we hurt our LECT. mind, as much as one who fhould fwallow poison, or give himself a wound, would hurt his body. Obferve what a redundancy of words he pours forth: "Now, if the fabric "of the mind or temper appeared to us, fuch "as it really is; if we faw it impoffible to "remove hence any one good or orderly affec"tion, or to introduce any ill or diforderly "one, without drawing on, in fome degree, "that diffolute ftate which, at its height, is "confeffed to be fo miferable; it would then, " undoubtedly, be confeffed, that fince no ill, "immoral, or unjust action, can be com"mitted, without either a new inroad and "breach on the temper and paffions, or a "further advancing of that execution already "done; whoever did ill, or acted in preju"dice of his integrity, good-nature, or worth, "would, of neceffity, act with greater cruelty "towards himself, than he who fcrupled not "to fwallow what was poifonous, or who, "with his own hands, fhould voluntarily "mangle or wound his outward form or con"ftitution, natural limbs or body *." Here, to commit a bad action, is, firft, "To remove

a good and orderly affection, and to intro"duce an ill or diforderly one;" next, it is, To commit an action that is ill, immoral,

LECT.

X.

"and unjuft;" and in the next line, it is, "To do ill, or to act in prejudice of integrity, "good-nature, and worth;" nay, so very fimple a thing as a man's wounding himself, is, "To mangle, or wound, his outward form " and constitution, his natural limbs or body." Such fuperfluity of words is difguftful to every reader of correct tafte; and ferves no purpose but to embarrass and perplex the sense. This fort of Style is elegantly described by Quinctilian, "Eft in quibusdam turba inanium ver"borum, qui dum communem loquendi "morem reformidant, ducti fpecie nitoris, "circumeunt omnia copiofa loquacitate quæ "dicere volunt*." Lib. vii. cap. 2.

THE great fource of a loose Style, in oppo. fition to Precifion, is the injudicious ufe of those words termed Synonymous. They are called Synonymous, because they agree in expreffing one principal idea; but, for the most part, if not always, they express it with fome diversity in the circumstances. They are varied by fome acceffory idea which every word introduces, and which forms the diftinction between them. Hardly, in any Lan

•« A crowd of unmeaning words is brought together, by fome authors, who, afraid of expreffing themselves "after a common and ordinary manner, and allured by an "appearance of fplendour, furround every thing which they mean to fay with a certain copious loquacity."

8

guage,