they are designed to affect. Example; three changes of sense in the following sentence, are produced by varying the place of the adverb only. "This book only was loaned to me❞—means this and no other. "This book was only loaned to me"means loaned, not sold or given. "This book was loaned to me only"-means to me and to no other.

There is one other violation of perspicuity by bad arrangement, so common, that it deserves to be especially noticed here; I mean the wrong position of circumstances. A single example may be sufficient; "I return my answer, to the question which you sent me, in the following words." This clause, in the following words, is ambiguous, because the collocation does not determine whether it refers to the question, or the answer. *

3. Obscurity of style arises in various ways, from affectation. This weakness in a writer is sometimes displayed in the length and involution of his sentences. To acquire the reputation of genius or erudition, he despises whatever is common, and aims at a style that is above the level of ordinary minds. Hence his laboring faculties unburden themselves in such a profusion of words, and in such a complicated group of members and circumstances, that it must require, indeed, uncommon powers to divine his meaning. I know that a long sentence is not always obscure. It may have so much simplicity and order in its structure, as to render the sense very obvious. But protracted periods, that are artificial in structure, are seldom understood without labour, to which a clear writer will not subject his readers.

This complex form of sentences, is still more fatal to perspicuity, when an affected pomp of diction is superadded. It is reason

* We can hardly look amiss for instances of a fault so very common in the structure of sentences. A book lately sent me for our public library, was accompanied with a letter from the author, begining thus: "I send a copy of the work which I have been occupied in preparing, a year or two past, for the library of the Andover Institution." Here the last clause being misplaced, makes a merely incidental thing the writer's chief object in preparing his book.

enough why a writer should be unintelligible, that he regards the sound rather than the signification of his words.

But affectation may lead to obscurity in sentences by too much brevity, as well as by too much length. compliment to the understanding of those

As a writer pays no whom he addresses,

by supposing it necessary to dilate every thought with a tedious multiplicity of words; so he is not to suppose that every thought, which reflection has made familiar to himself, will of course be familiar to others. A great sentiment may sometimes be expressed clearly in a very few words. But where great conciseness results from an effort to utter our thoughts in the fewest words that can be employed, we contract an elliptical phraseology, as unfriendly to clearness as too much prolixity. "Brevis esse laboro- -obscurus fio."

The following remarks on affected obscurity in writing, I quote from a standard author, as applicable to the several defects just noticed. "Mr. Cowley observes to one of his friends, -You tell me, that you do not know whether Persius be a good poet or no, because you cannot understand him; for which very reason, I affirm that he is not so.' This art of writing unintelligibly, has been very much improved by several of the moderns, who observing the general inclination of mankind to dive into a secret, and the reputation many have acquired by concealing their meaning, under obscure terms and phrases; resolve, that they may be still more abstruse, to write without any meaning at all. The Egyptians who made use of hieroglyphics, to signify several things, expressed a man, who confined his knowledge altogether within himself, by the figure of a dark lantern closed on all sides; which though it was illuminated within, afforded no manner of light or advantage to such as stood by it. For my own part, I should much rather be compared to an ordinary lamp, which consumes itself for the benefit of every passenger."

Spect. No. 379.

4. The last source of obscurity which I shall mention, is indistinct conception in a writer.

4

A man's language is intimately connected with the structure of his mind it is indeed a copy of his mind, presented to othWhen he writes,

:

ers, either on paper, or in articulate sounds.

How

he thinks visibly: when he speaks, he thinks audibly. then can the expression of his thoughts be perspicuous, when the thoughts themselves are confused. Horace says, “when a man is master of his subject, he will not be deficient in fluency of style, nor in lucid order."*

Let one undertake to describe a city, or give a narrative of facts with which he is but partially acquainted, and you see at once, that knowledge which he possesses imperfectly, he cannot communicate fully and clearly. The same principle is universal in its application. A writer can never make that clear to his readers, which is not clear to himself. He is perplexed in finding words to express his meaning, and his language is indefinite and dark, because his conceptions of his subject are indefinite. But on common subjects, let a man thoroughly comprehend and feel what he wishes to utter, and his expression, though it may be incorrect will be perspicuous and significant. It will distinctly convey to others, the impressions of his own mind.

Shall we then conclude, that every man, who in any case writes obscurely, has a feeble understanding? By no means. The fountain of light itself is sometimes concealed behind clouds. The most strong and luminous intellect will not alway's preserve a writer, from expressing himself in a manner. difficult to be understood. There may be some intrinsic difficulty in his subject. It may be so abstruse that the clearest discussion which it admits, will not bring it within the compass of ordinary minds. But if the subject admits of perspicuous treatment, and is well understood by the writer, his style will commonly be perspicuous. In this case I know of but two rea

"cui lecta potenter erit res,

Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo."

Ars Po. v. 40.

sons why a man who thinks clearly, should write obscurely. One is, that he may have acquired no skill in using language, by the habit of writing. The other is, that he may have acquired a bad habit, by imitating bad models.

LECTURE V.

STYLE.—STRENGTH, as DEPENDING ON UNITY AND BREVITY,

The next general quality of style which we are to consider, is

STRENGTH.

By this I mean that the language which a writer employs, is adapted to convey to the minds of others, a full and vivid impression of his own ideas. He who expresses his thoughts so that they are understood, and felt, and rememberd, by those whom he addresses, whatever inelegance may attend his style, is not a feeble writer. Throughout these remarks, however, I wish not to be understood as expressing the opinion, that any single property of good writing should be sought, to the exclusion of others. All the essential constituents of such writing are so related to each other, that we rarely meet with any one in great perfection where the rest are wanting. The basis of a good style is good sense. A vigorous and active perception, a solid judgment, and a lively fancy are qualities which, in some considerable measure, must be found united, to produce a writer of distinction. Still it should be remembered, that no one kind of writing is adapted to all the variety of subjects, which a man may be called to treat. To determine in any given case, what is the best style to be employed, he must consider the end to be accomplished, the persons to be addressed, and his own taste and temperament.

The observations which I propose to make on strength of style, may be comprised under three heads,—unity, brevity and good arrangement. The two former are to be now considered.