When I entered on the confideration of style, I obferved, that words being the copies of our ideas, there must always be a very intimate connexion between the manner in which every writer employs words, and his manner of thinking; and that, from the peculiarity of thought and expreffion which belongs to him, there is a certain character imprinted on his ftyle, which may be denominated his manner; commonly expreffed by fuch general terms, as ftrong, weak, dry, fimple, affected, or the like. Thefe diftinctions carry, in general, fome reference to an author's manner of thinking, but refer chiefly to his mode of expreffion. They arife from the whole tenor of his language; and comprehend the effect produced by all thofe parts of style which we have already confidered; the choice which he makes of fingle words; his arrangement of these in fentences; the degree of his precision; and his embellishment, by means of mufical cadence, figures, and other arts of speech. Of fuch general characters of ftyle, therefore, it remains now to speak, as the refult of thofe underparts of which I have hitherto treated.

That different fubjects require to be treated of in different forts of ftyle, is a pofition fo obvious, that I fhall not ftay to illuftrate it. Every one fees, that treatifes of philofophy, for inftance, ought not to be compofed in the fame ftyle with orations. Every one fees alfo, that different parts of the fame compofition require a variation in the ftyle and manner. In a fermon, for instance, or any harangue, the application or peroration admits more ornament, and requires more warmth than the didactic part. But what I mean at present to remark is, that, amidft this variety, we ftill expect to find, in the compofitions of any one man, fome degree of uniformity or confiftency with himself in manner; we expect to find fome predominant cha

racter of style impreffed on all his writings, which fhall be fuited to, and fhall mark his particular genius, and turn of mind. The orations in Livy differ much in style, as they ought to do, from the reft of his history. The fame is the cafe with those in Tacitus. Yet both in Livy's orations, and in those of Tacitus, we are able clearly to trace the distinguishing manner of each hiftorian; the magnificent fulness of the one, and the fententious concifenefs of the other. The "Lettres Perfanes," and "L'Efprit de Loix," are the works of the fame author. They required very different compofition furely; and accordingly they differ widely: yet ftill we fee the fame hand. Wherever there is real and native genius, it gives a determination to one kind of style rather than another. Where nothing of this appears-where there is no marked nor peculiar character in the compofitions of any author -we are apt to infer, not without reafon, that he is a vulgar and trivial author, who writes from imitation, and not from the impulfe of original genius. As the most celebrated painters are known by their hand, fo the best and most original writers are known and diftinguished, throughout all their works, by their ftyle and peculiar manner. This will be found to hold almoft without exception.

The ancient critics attended to thefe general cha racters of ftyle which we are now to confider. Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus divides them into three kinds; and calls them the auftere, the florid, and the middle. By the auftere, he means a ftyle diftinguished for ftrength and firmness, with a neglect of smoothness and ornament; for examples of which, he gives Pindar and Æfchylus among the poets, and Thucydides among the profe writers. By the florid he means, as the name indicates, a style ornamented, flowing, and fweet; refting more upon numbers and grace, than

ftrength he inftances Hefiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Euripides, and principally Ifocrates. The middle kind is the juft mean between thefe, and comprehends the beauties of both; in which clafs he places Homer and Sophocles among the poets; in profe, Herodotus, Demofthenes, Plato, and (what feems ftrange) Ariftotle. This must be a very wide clafs indeed, which comprehends Plato and Aristotle under one article as to ftyle*. Cicero and Quintilian make alfo a threefold divifion of ftyle, though with refpect to different qualities of it; in which they are followed by most of the modern writers on rhetoric; the fimplex, tenue, or fubtile; the grave or vehemens; and the medium,.or, temperatum genus dicendi. But thefe divifions, and the illustrations they give of them, are fo loose and general, that they cannot advance us much in our ideas of ftyle. I fhall endeavour to be a little more particular in what I have to fay on this fubject.

One of the first and moft obvious diftinctions of the different kinds of ftyle, is what arifes from an author's fpreading out his thoughts more or less. This diftinction forms, what are called the diffuse and the concife ftyles. A concife writer compresses his thought into the fewest poffible words; he feeks to employ none but fuch as are most expreffive; he lops off, as redundant, every expreffion which does not add fomething material to the fenfe. Ornament he does not reject; he may be lively and figured; but his ornament is intended for the fake of force, rather than grace. He never gives you the fame thought twice. He places it in the light, which appears to him the moft ftriking; but if you do not apprehend it well in that light, you need not expect to find it in any other. His fentences are arranged with compactnefs and ftrength, rather

De compofitione verborum, cap. 25.

than with cadence and harmony. The utmoft precifion is ftudied in them; and they are commonly defigned to fuggeft more to the reader's imagination than they directly exprefs.

A diffufe writer unfolds his thought fully. He places it in a variety of lights, and gives the reader every poffible affiftance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to expreis it at first in its full ftrength; because he is to repeat the impreffion; and what he wants in ftrength, he propofes to fupply by copioufnefs. Writers of this character generally love magnificence and amplification. Their periods naturally run out into fome length; and having room for ornament of every kind, they admit it freely.

Each of these manners has its peculiar advantages; and each becomes faulty when carried to the extreme. The extreme of concifenefs becomes abrupt and obfcure; it is apt alfo to lead into a ftyle too pointed, and bordering on the epigrammatic. The extreme of diffufenefs becomes weak and languid, and tires the reader. However, to one or other of these two manners, a writer may lean according as his genius prompts him; and, under the general character of a concife, or of a more open and diffuse style, may poffefs much beauty in his compofition.

For illustrations of thefe general characters, I can only refer to the writers who are examples of them. It is not fo much from detached paffages, fuch as I was wont formerly to quote for inftances, as from the current of an author's ftyle, that we are to collect the idea of a formed manner of writing. The two moft remarkable examples that I know, of concifenefs carried as far as propriety will allow, perhaps in fome cafes farther, are Tacitus the historian, and the president Montefquieu in "L'Efprit de Loix." Ariftotle too holds an eminent rank, Vol. I. 2 X

among didactic writers, for his brevity. Perhaps no writer in the world was ever fo frugal of his words as Aristotle; but this frugality of expreffion frequently darkens his meaning. Of a beautiful and magnificent diffufenefs, Cicero is, beyond doubt, the moft illuftrious inftance that can be given. Addifon alfo, and fir William Temple, come in fome degree under this clafs.

In judging when it is proper to lean to the concife, and when to the diffuse manner, we must be directed by the nature of the compofition. Difcourfes that are to be spoken, require a more copious ftyle, than books that are to be read. When the whole meaning must be catched from the mouth of the speaker, without the advantage which books afford, of paufing at pleafe, and reviewing what appears obfcure, great concifenefs is always to be avoided. We should never prefume too much on the quickness of our hearer's understanding; but our style ought to be fuch, that the bulk of men can go along with us eafily, and without effort. A flowing, copious ftyle, therefore, is required in all public fpeakers; guarding, at the fame time, against fuch a degree of diffufion as renders them languid and tirefome; which will always prove the cafe, when they inculcate too much, and prefent the fame thought under too many different views.

In written compofitions, a certain degree of concifenefs poffeffes great advantages. It is more lively; keeps up attention; makes a brifker and ftronger impreffion; and gratifies the mind by fupplying more exercise to a reader's own thought. A fentiment, which, expreffed diffufely, will barely be admitted to be juft, expreffed concisely, will be admired as fpirited. Defcription, when we want to have it vivid and animated, should be in a concife ftrain. This is different from the common