light of poetical numbers; and even of the more concealed and looser measures of prose.

426. Wit, humour, and ridicule, likewise open a variety to pleasures of taste, quite distinct from any that we have yet considered.

427. WIT is a quality of certain thoughts and expressions; the term is never applied to an action, nor to a passion; far less to an external object.*

ilus. 1. Wit is a terin appropriated to such thoughts and expressions as are ludicrous, and also occasion some degree of surprise by their singularity.

2. Wit also, in a figurative sense, expresses a talent for inventing ludicrous thoughts or expressions: we say commonly a witty man, or a man of wit. Hudibras is a man of wit; Falstaff is a witty man: Swift is both.

3. Wit, in its proper sense, as explained above, is distinguishable into two kinds; wit in the thought, and wit in the words or expressions. 4. Again: wit in the thought, is of two kinds; ludicrous images, and ludicrous combinations, that have little or no natural relation.

5. Ludicrous images, which surprise by their singularity, are fabricated by the imagination; and ludicrous combinations are such an assemblage of ideas or of things, as, by distant and fanciful relations, surprise, because they are unexpected.

428. HUMOUR. Nothing just or proper is denominated humour; nor any singularity of character, words, or actions that is valued or respected.

Illus. 1. When we attend to the character of an humorist, we find that it arises from circumstances both risible and improper, and therefore that it lessens the man in our esteem, and makes him in some measure ridiculous.

2. A ludicrous writer is one who insists upon ludicrous subjects with the professed purpose to make his readers laugh; a writer of humour is one, who, affecting to be grave and serious, paints his subject in such colours as to provoke mirth and laughter.

Example. Swift and Fontaine were humorists in character, and their writings are full of humour. Arbuthnot outdoes them in drollery and humorous painting; but he who should say that Addison was an humorist in character, would be suspected of mistaking horse chesnuts for chesnut horses.

429. RIDICULE. A visible object produceth an emotion of laughter merely; a ridiculous object is improper as well as risible, and produceth a mixed emotion, which is vented by a laugh of derision or scorn.t

Obs. Burlesque is a great engine of ridicule: it is distinguishable into the burlesque that excites laughter merely, and the burlesque that provokes derision or ridicule.

Example. Virgil Travestie, and the Lutrin, are compositions which

Kames' Essays, chap. 13. vol. I.

Arist. Poet. ch. 5. Cicero de Oratore, I. 2. Quinctilian, lib. 6 cap. 3

come under this article. The Rape of the Lock is not strictly burlesque, but an heroic-comical poem., Addison's Spectator* on the Fan is extremely gay and ludicrous.

Scholium. This singular advantage writing and discourse possess, that, in every point of view, they encompass a large and rich field, in respect to the pleasures of taste; and have power to exhibit, in great perfection, not a single set of objects only, but almost the whole of those which give pleasure to taste and imagination; whether that pleasure arise from sublimity, from beauty in its different forms, from design and art, from moral sentiment, from novelty, from harmony, from wit, humour, and ridicule. To whichsoever of these the peculiar bent of a person's taste lies, from some writer or other he has it always in his power to receive the gratification of his taste.

430. The high power which eloquence and poetry possess, of supplying taste and imagination with an extensive circle of pleasures, they derive altogether from their having a greater capacity of imitation and description than is possessed by any other art.

Illus. 1. Of all the means which human ingenuity has contrived for recalling the images of real objects, and awakening, by representation, similar emotions to those which are raised by the original, none is so full and extensive as that which is executed by words and writing. Through the assistance of this happy invention, there is nothing, either in the natural or in the moral world, that cannot be represented and set before the mind, in colours very strong and lively.

Corol. Hence it is usual, among critical writers, to speak of discourse as the chief of all the imitative or mimical arts; they compare it with painting and with sculpture, and in many respects prefer it justly before them.

Illus. 2. Imitation is performed by means of something that has a natural likeness and resemblance to the thing imitated; and, of consequence, is understood by all: statues and pictures are examples of likenesses.

2. Description, again, is the raising in the mind the conception of an object by means of some arbitrary or instituted symbols, understood only by those who agree in the institution of them; such are words and writing.

3. Words, though copies, (Art. 432.) have no natural resemblance to the ideas or objects which they are employed to signify; but a statue or picture has a natural likeness to the original. And therefore imitation and description differ considerably in their nature from each other.

431. As far, indeed, as the poet introduces into his work persons actually speaking; and, by the words which he puts into their mouths, represents the discourse which they might be supposed to hold; so far his art may more accurately be called imitative; and this is the case in all dramatic composition. But, in narrative or descriptive works, it can with no propriety be called so.

* No. 102.

Illus. 1. Who, for instance, would call Virgil's description of a tempest, in the first Æneid, an imitation of a atorm? If we heard of the imitation of a battle, we might naturally think of some sham-fight, or representation of a battle on the stage, but could never apprehend that it meant one of Homer's descriptions in the Iliad.

2. But imitation and description agree in their principal effect, of recalling, by external signs, the ideas of things which they do not see. But though in this they coincide, yet it should not be forgotten, that the terms themselves are not synonymous; that they import different means of effecting the same end; and of course make different impressions on the mind.

Scholium. Whether we consider poetry in particular, and discourse in general, as imitative or descriptive; it is evident, that their whole power in recalling the impressions of real objects, is derived from the significancy, the choice and arrangement, of words. Their excellency flows altogether from these sources. Having shewn how the source may be preserved pure, we shall, in the next book, enter upon style and eloquence in their most extensive signification.

BOOK VI.

THE GENERAL CHARACTERS OF STYLE.

CHAPTER I.

THE DIFFUSE AND CONCISE STYLES.

432. WORDS being the copies of our ideas, there must always be a very intimate connection between the manner in which we employ words, and our manner of thinking. From the peculiarity of thought and expression which belongs to every writer, there is a certain character imprinted on his style, which may be denominated his manner; commonly expressed by such general terms as strong, weak, dry, simple, affected, or the like.

Illus. These distinctions carry, in general, some reference to an author's manner of thinking, but refer chiefly to his mode of expression. They arise from the whole tenor of his language; and comprehend the effect produced by all those parts of style which we have already considered; the choice which he makes of single words; his arrangement of these in sentences; the degree of his precision; his embellishment, by means of musical cadence, figures, or other arts of speech; and, finally, the cultivation of his genius and taste. Of such general characters of style, therefore, it remains now to speak, as the result of those elementary parts of which we have hitherto treated.

433. That different subjects require to be treated of, in different sorts of style, is a position so obvious, that it needs no illustration. Every one sees that treatises of philosophy, for instance, ought not to be composed in the same style with orations. Every one sees also, that different parts of the same composition require a variation in the style and manner. In a sermon, or any harangue, as shall be shewn hereafter, the application or peroration admits more ornament, and requires more warmth, than the didactic part.

Obs. But what we mean at present to remark is, that, amidst this variety, we still expect to find, in the compositions of any one man, some

degree of uniformity or consistency with himself in manner; we expect to find impressed on all his writings, some predominant character of style which shall be suited to his particular genius, and shall mark the turn of his mind.

Example. The orations in Livy differ much in style, as they ought to do, from the rest of his history. The same is the case 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 historian; the magnificent fulness of the one, and the sententious conciseness of the other.

Corol. 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 compositions of any author, we are apt to infer, and not without reason, that he is a vulgar and trivial author, who writes from imitation, and not from the impulse of original genius. As the most celebrated painters are known by their hand, so the best and most original writers are known and distinguished, throughout all their works, by their style and peculiar manner. This will be found to hold almost without

exception.

434. One of the first and most obvious distinctions of the different kinds of style, is what arises from an author's spreading out his thoughts more or less. This distinction forms what are called the diffuse and the concise styles.

pos

Illus. 1. A concise writer compresses his thoughts into the fewest sible words; he seeks to employ none but such as are most expressive; he lops off, as redundant, every expression which does not add something material to the sense.

Ornament he does not reject; he may be lively and figured; but his ornament is intended for the sake of force rather than grace.

He never gives you the same thought twice. He places it in the light which appears to him the most striking; but if you do not apprehend it well in that light, you need not expect to find it in any other.

His sentences are arranged with compactness and strength, rather than with cadence and harmony. The utmost precision is studied in them; and they are commonly designed to suggest more to the reader's imagination than they directly express.

Illus. 2. A diffuse writer unfolds his thought fully. He places it in a variety of lights, and gives the reader every possible assistance for understanding it completely. He is not very careful to express it at first in its full strength; because he is to repeat the impression; and what he wants in strength he proposes to supply by copiousness.

Writers of this character generally love magnificence and amplification. Their periods naturally run out into some length, and, having room for ornament of every kind, they admit it freely.

Scholium. Each of these manners has its peculiar advantages; and each becomes faulty when carried to the extreme. The extreme of conciseness becomes abrupt and obscure; it is apt also to lead into a style too pointed, and bordering on the epigrammatic. The extreme of diffuseness 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 concise, or of a more open and diffuse style, he may possess much beauty in his composition.