kind, and may, nevertheless, be deficient in propriety. The words may be ill chofen; not adapted to the fubject, nor fully expresive of the author's fenfe. He has taken all his words and phrases from the general mass of English language; but he has made his felection among these words unhappily. Whereas, style cannot be proper without being alio pure; and where both purity and propriety meet, befides making ftyle perfpicuous, they alfo render it graceful. There is no itandard, either of purity or of propriety, but the practice of the beft writers and speakers in the country.

When I mentioned obfolete or new-coined words as incongruous with purity of style, it will be eafily understood, that fome exceptions are to be made. On certain occafions, they may have grace. Foetry 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 paring hand. In profe, fuch innovations are more hazardous, and have a worfe effect. They are apt to give style an affected and conceited air; and fhould never be ventured upon, except by fuch, whofe eftablished reputation gives them fome degree of dic tatorial power over language.

The introduction of foreign and learned words, unless where necelity requires them, fhould always be avoided. Barren languages may need fuch affftances; but ours is not one of thefe. Dean Swift, one of our most correct writers, valued himself much on using no words but fuch as were of native growth, and his language may, indeed, be confdered as a standard of the ftrictest purity and propriety, in the choice of words. At prefent, we feem to be departing from this itandard. 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 Vol. I. Z

alfo, they render it stiff and forced : and, in general, a plain native ftyle, as it is more intelligible to all readers, fo, by a proper management, of words, it may be made equally ftrong and expreffive with this Latinifed English.

Let us now confider the import of precision in language, which, as it is the highest part of the quality denoted by perfpicuity, merits a full explica tion; and the more, becaufe diftinct ideas are, perhaps, not commonly formed about it.

The exact import of precision 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 obferved before, that it is often difficult to feparate the qualities of ftyle 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 ftyle, one must poffefs a very confiderable degree of diftinctness and accuracy in his manner of thinking.

The words, which a man ufes to exprefs his ideas, - may be faulty in three refpects they may either not exprefs that idea which the author intends, but fome other which only resembles, 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 ac

ceffory, fo as to mix it confusedly with the principal object, and thereby to render our conception of that object loofe and indiftinct. This requires a writer to have, himfelf, a very clear apprehen fion of the object he means to prefent to us; to have laid faft 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 ufe and importance of precifion, 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 must look at two or three together, efpecially objects among which there is refemblance or connexion, it finds itfelf confufed and embarraffed. 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 whofe ftructure I wanted to form a dif tinct notion, I would defire all its trappings to be taken off, I would require it to be brought before me by itself, and to ftand 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 fhowing me, with fo many trappings and collars, and bring fo many of the fame fpecies before me, fomewhat refembling, and yet fomewhat differing, that I fee none of them clearly.

This forms what is called a loose style; and is the

proper oppofite to precifion. It generally arifes from using a fuperfiuity of words. Feeble writers employ a multitude of words to make themselves understood, as they think, more diftinctly; and they only confound the reader. They are fenfible of not having caught the precife expreflion, to convey what they would fignify; they do not, indeed, cons ceive their own meaning very precifely themfelves; 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 juft 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 understand it fully. But if, from the defire of multiplying words, he will needs praife his courage and fortitude; at the moment he joins these words together, my idea bes gins to waver. He means to exprefs one quality more ftrongly ; but he is, in truth, expreffing two Courage relifts danger; fortitude. fupports paina The occafion of exerting each of these 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 unfteady, and my conception of the object indistinct.

From what I have faid, it appears that an author may, in a qualified fenfe, be perfpicuous, while yet he is far from being precife. He ufes proper words, and, proper arrangement; he gives you the idea as clear as he conceives it himfelf; 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 precifion. All fubjects do not equally require precifion. It is aff

cient, on many occafions, that we have a gene ral view of the meaning. The fubject, perhaps, is of the known and familiar kind; and we are in no hazard of miftaking the fenfe of the author, though every word which he uses be not precife and

exact.

Few authors, for inftance, in the English lan+ guage, are more clear and peripicuous, on the whole, than archbishop Tillotson, and fir William Tem ple; yet neither of them are remarkable for precie fion. They are loofe and diffufe; and accuftomed to exprefs their meaning by feveral words, which show 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 cha racter of mr. Addifon's ftyle; although he is not fo deficient in this refpect as the other two authors. Lord Shaftesbury's faults, in point of precifion, are much greater than mr. Addifon's; and the more unpardonable, because he is a profeffed philofophical writer; who, as fuch, ought, above all things, to have studied precision. His ftyle has both great beauties and great faults; and, on the whole, is by no means a fafe model for imitation. Lord Shaftesbury was well acquainted with the power of words; thofe which he employs are gene rally 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 indiftin&t or confufed ideas, as to perpetual affectation. Ho 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 drefs of ftate and majesty. Hence perpetual circumlocutions, and many words and phrafes employed to defcribe fomewhat, that would have