Qualities of Style (Simplicity, Clearness, Strength, The Kinds of Composition (Description, Narration, Exposition), . JONATHAN SWIFT- Elements of Style (Similitudes, Allegory, Irony), Qualities of Style (Simplicity, Clearness, Strength, Pathos, Elements of Style (Sentences), Qualities of Style (Simplicity, Obscurity, Wit, Melody, Taste), Philosophy (Mandeville, Wollaston, Shaftesbury, BERKELEY), Miscellaneous (Bentley, Hughes, Budgell, Arbuthnot, BOL Theology (Morgan, Chubb, Butler, Warburton, Leland, Lardner, Foster, Wesley, Whitefield, &c.), Philosophy (Hutcheson, Hartley, Edwards, HUME), A MANUAL OF ENGLISH PROSE LITERATURE. INTRODUCTION. In the case of the authors chosen for full examination, and to some extent also in the case of the others, the various peculiarities of Style are taken up in a fixed order; and it may help the reader's memory to state this order at the beginning. The preliminary account of each author's Character is intended mainly as an introduction to the characteristics of his style; and while it gratifies a natural curiosity in repeating what is known of his appearance or personality, does not profess to be a complete account of the man in all his relations, public and domestic. The analysis of the style proceeds upon the following order: Vocabulary, Sentence and Paragraph, and Figures of Speech, which may be called the ELEMENTS OF STYLE; Simplicity, Clearness, Strength, Pathos, Melody, Harmony, and Taste, the QUALITIES OF STYLE; Description, Narration, Exposition, Persuasion, the KINDS OF COMPOSITION. Upon each of these subdivisions we shall make some remarks, endeavouring to justify the arrangement wherever it seems to be open to objection or misapprehension. ELEMENTS OF STYLE. VOCABULARY. Command of language is the author's first requisite. A good memory for words is no less indispensable to the author than a good memory for forms is to the painter. Words are the material that the author works in, and it is necessary above everything that he should have a large store at his command. Probably no man has ever been master of the whole wealth of the English vocabulary. The extent of each man's mastery can be ascertained with exactness only by an actual numerical calculation, such as has been made for the poetry of Shakspeare and Milton. This has not yet been attempted for any of our great prose writers; and until some enthusiast arises with sufficient industry for such a labour, we must be content with a vague estimate, formed upon our general impression of freshness and variety of diction. The simple fact of holding a place among the leaders of literature is a proof of extraordinary mastery of language. But can we, without actual numeration, distinguish degrees of mastery? Most probably we can. We could have told from a general impression, without actually counting, that Shakspeare uses a greater variety of words than Milton. We can perceive, without referring to the enlargement of dictionaries, that our language has increased in scope and flexibility since the middle of last century. In like manner we can fix relatively any author's command of words. We may say with confidence that Defoe is more copious and varied than Addison, and Burke than Johnson; and, although our judgment of modern writers is more liable to error, we may venture to say that De Quincey, Macaulay, and Carlyle show a greater command of expression than any prose writers of their generation. It is interesting, also, to observe on what special subjects an author's expression is most copious and original. Perhaps no one has an equal abundance of words for all purposes. From the inevitable limitation of human faculties, no man, however "myriadminded," can give his attention to everything. Inevitably every man falls into special tracks of observation, reflection, and imagination; and each man accumulates words, and expresses himself with fluency and variety, concerning the subjects that are oftenest in his thoughts. Were we to apply the test of arithmetic, we should find that two men using very much the same number of words upon the whole, have the depths and shallows of their verbal wealth at very different places. To mark out fully where a vocabulary is weak and where it is strong, we should have to anticipate the qualities of style and the kinds of composition. A man that can write freely and eloquently in one strain or in one species of composition, may be dry and barren in another strain or another species of composition. Most writers have some one vein that they peculiarly and obviously excel in. Thus Addison is rich in the language of melodious and elegant simplicity, Paley in the language of homely simplicity, |