the qualities of a good ftyle. Perfpicuity demands our chief care; for, without this quality, the richeft ornaments of language only glimmer through the dark; and puzzle, instead of pleafing, the reader. An author's meaning ought always to be obvious, even to the most carelefs and inattentive reader; fo that it may ftrike his mind, as the light of the fun ftrikes our eyes, though they are not directed towards it. We must study, not only that every reader may understand us, but that it fhall be impoffible for him not to understand us. If we are obliged to follow a writer with much care, to paufe, and to read over his fentences a fecond time, in order to comprehend them fully, he will never please us long. Mankind are too indolent to relifh fo much labour. They may pretend to admire the author's depth, after they have discovered his meaning; but they will feldom be inclined to. bestow upon his work a fecond perufal.

In treating of perfpicuity of ftyle, it will be proper, in the 'first place, to direct our attention to fingle words and phrafes, and afterwards to the conftruction of fentences.

Perfpicuity, confidered with respect to words and phrafes, requires the qualities of purity, propriety, and precision. The two first of thefe are often confounded with each other: and, indeed, they are very nearly allied. A diftinction, how

ever, obtains between them. Purity of ftyle confifts in the ufe of fuch words, and fuch conftructions, as belong to the idiom of the language which we ufe; in oppofition to words and phrafes which are imported from other languages, or that are obfolete, or new-coined, or ufed without proper authority. Propriety of ftyle confifts in the felection of fuch words, as the best and most established ufage has appropriated. to thofe ideas which we employ them to exprefs. It implies the correct and happy application of them, according to that ufage, in oppofition to vulgarifms, or low expreffions; and to words and phrafes that would be lefs fignificant of the ideas which we intend to convey. Style may be pure, that is, itmay be strictly English, without Scotticifms or Gallicifms, or ungrammatical and unwarranted expreffions of any kind, and may, nevertheless, be deficient in propriety. The words

*In this chapter it was propofed to enumerate fuch Scot ticifms as molt frequently occur; but the compiler has not vet collected a fufficient number of examples from writers of

may be unskilfully chofen, not adapted to the fubject, nor fully expreffive of the author's fentiments. He may have taken his words and phrafes from the general mafs of the English language; but his felection may happen to be inju dicious.

Purity may juftly be denominated grammatical truth. It confifts in the conformity of the expreffion to the fentiment which the writer intends to convey; as moral truth confifts in the conformity of the fentiment intended to be conveyed, to the fentiment actually entertained; aud logical truth in the conformity of the fentiment to the nature of things. The oppofite to logical truth, is error; to moral truth, a lie; to grammatical truth, a folecifm.

The only ftandard by which the conformity implied in grammatical truth must be afcertained in every language, is the authorised, national, and prefent ufe of that language.

Grammatical errors, foreign idioms, and obfolete or newcoined words, were mentioned as inconfiftent with purity of Atyle. It will not be improper to collect a few hints concerning each of thefe faults.

I. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.

It is not in confequence of any peculiar irregularity or difficulty inherent in the English language, that the general practice both of speaking and writing is chargeable with inaccuracy. That inaccuracy proceeds rather from its fimplicity and facility; circumftances which are apt to perfuade us, that a grammatical ftudy of our native tongue is altogether fuperfluous. Were the language lefs eafy and fim ple, we fhould find ourselves under a neceffity of studying it with greater care and attention. But we commonly take for eftablished reputation. The reader may perufe the refpective tracts of Sir John Sinclair, Dr. Beattie, and Mr. Mitchell.

* Another will fay, it wanteth grammar. Nay, truly, it hath that praife, that it wants not grammar; for grammar it might have, but it needs it not, being fo eafy in itself, and fo void of thofe cumberfome difference of cafes, genders, moods, and tenfes; which, I think, was a piece of the tower of Babylon's curfe, that a man fhould be put to fchool to learn his mother tongue. Sidney's Defence of Poesy.

granted, that we poffefs a competent knowledge of it, and are able on any occafion to apply our knowledge to prac tice, A faculty, folely acquired by ufe, conducted by ha bit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without the labour of reflexion; we meet with no obftacles in our progress, or we do not perceive them; we find ourselves able to proceed without rules, and we never fufpect that they may be of any use.

A grammatical ftudy of our own language forms no part of the ordinary courfe of inftruction; and we feldom apply to it of our own accord. This however is a deficiency which no other advantages can fupply. Much practice in the pofite world, and a general acquaintance with the beft authors,, muft undoubtedly be confidered as excellent helps; but even thefe 'will hardly be fufficient. A critical knowledge of ancient languages, and an intimate acquaintance with ancient authors, will be found ftill lefs adequate to the purpose. Bentley, the greatest critic and moft able grammarian of the age in which he lived, was notorioufly deficient in the knowledge of his native tongue.

Grammatical errors are fo plentifully scattered over the pages of our claffical writers, that it will be no difficult task to felect a fufficient number of inftances.

I. Grammatical errors in the e use of Pronouns.

We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the fame proportion more than us.

Swift's conduct of the Allies.

King Charles, and more than him, the duke, and the popifh faction, were at liberty to form new fcheines.

Bolingbroke's Dissertation on Partiet.

Phalaris, who was fo much older than her.

Bentley's dissertation on Phalaris.

The lover got a woman of greater fortune than her he had miffed Addison, Guardian. The drift of all his fermons was, to prepare the Jews for the reception of a prophet, mightier than him, and whofe fhoes Atterbury's Sermons. If the king gives us leave, you or I may as lawfully preach, Hobbes's History of Civil Wars.

he was not worthy to bear.

as them that do.

In all these examples, the nominative cafes of the pronouns ought to have been ufed. This will more plainly appear from the following refolution of the first illustration: "We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the fame proportion more than we were obliged to."

Who is the poet but lately arrived in Elyfium, whom P faw Spencer lead in, and present him to Virgif?

Lyttleton's Dialogues of the Dead. The pronoun him is here redundant and improper; the accufative "whom" being understood to be repeated before the verb "present," as it would in fact be if the fentence were written at full length without ellipfis, thus-"whom I faw. Spencer lead in, and whom I saw Spencer, prefent to Virgil." We are alone; here's none but thee and I. Inftead of thee, it fhould be thou.

For ever in this humble cell,

Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.

The conftruction requires me instead of I.

Shakespear

Priór

He, whom ye pretend reigns in heaven, is fo far from protecting the miferable fons of men, that he perpetually delights to blast the sweet flowrets in the garden of hope.

Hawkesworth's Adventurer.

It ought to be who, the nominative cafe to reigns (i. e. who reigns, as ye pretend); not whom, as if it were the accufa-tive or objective cafe governed by pretend.

Whom do men fay that I am.

Whom think. ye, that I am

St. Matthew Acts of the Apostles. ·

In both thefe paffages it ought to be suhos which is not governed by the verb say or think, but by the verb am.

Thefe feafts were celebrated to the honour of Oliris, whom the Grecians called Dionyfius, and is the fame with Bacchus. Swift on the Mechan. Oper, of the Spirit.

Here the relative pronoun of the objective cafe must be understood as the nominative to the verb is. The paffage. ought to have ftood thus; "Thefe feafts were celebrated to the honour of Ofiris, whom the Grecians called Dionyfius, and who is the fame with Bacchus."

my

Who fhould I meet at the coffee-houfe t'other night, but old friend?. Steele, Spectator.

It is another pattern of this anfwer's fair dealing, to give us hints that the author is dead, and yet to lay the fufpicion upon fomebody, I know not who, in the country.

Here the conftruction requires whom.

Swift's Tale of a Tub.

Some writers have ufed ye as the objective cafe plural of the pronoun thou. This is an infringement of the rules of grammar.

His wrath, which one day will deftroy ye both.

The more fhame for ye; holy men I thought ye.

Milton

Shakespear.

But tyrants dread ye, left your juft decree
Transfer the power, and fet the people free..

Prior

This mode of expreffion may perhaps be allowed in the comic and burlesque tyle, which often imitates a vulgar and in correct pronunciation. But in the ferious and folemn tyle, no authority is fufficient to juftify fo manifeft a folecifm.

Though compaffion in real war may make the ruinous prac tice lefs delightful, it is certain, that in the literate warring world, the fpringing of mines, and blowing up of towers, baftions and ramparts of philofophy, with fyftems, hypothefes, opinions, and doctrines, into the air, is a fpectacle of all other the moft naturally rejoicing.

Shaftesbury's Miscellaneous Reflections. Here the adjective other is improperly put in the fingular 11mber.

I heard it first obferved by an ingenious and learned old gentleman lately deceafed, that many of Mr. Hobbs his feeming new opinions are gathered from thofe which Sextus Empiricus expofed. Dryden's Life of Plutarch.

My paper is Ulyffes his bow, in which every man of wit or learning may try his ftrength. Addison, Guardian.

This by the calumniators of Epicurus his philofophy was objected as one of the moft fcandalous of all their fayings.

Cowley's Essays.