nately; ultimately, when the direct purpose of the difcourfe is information, or conviction; subordinately, when the end is pleafure, emotion, or perfuafion.

THERE is another difference alfo between perfpicuity and the two laft mentioned qualities, vivacity and animation, which deferves to be remarked. In a difcourfe wherein either or both of these are requifite, it is not every fentence that requires, or even admits them; but every fentence ought to be perfpicuous. The effect of all the other qualities of ftyle is loft without this. This being to the understanding what light is to the eye, ought to be diffused over the whole performance. In this refpect it refembles grammatical purity, of which I have already treated, but it is not in this refpect only that it refembles it. Both are beft illuftrated by fhowing the different ways wherein they may be loft. It is for thefe reasons that, though perfpicuity be more properly a rhetorical than a grammatical quality, L thought it better to include it in this book, which treats of the foundations and effential or univerfal properties of elocution, than to clafs it with those which are purely difcriminative of particular styles.

INDEED, if language were capable of abfolute perfection, which it evidently is not; if words and things could be rendered exact counterparts to each other; if every different thing in nature had a different fymbol by which it were expreffed; and every difference in the relations of things had a correfponding difference in the combinations of words, purity alone would secure perfpicuity, or rather these two would entirely coincide. To fpeak grammatically would, in that cafe, convey infallibly and perfpicuously the full meaning of the fpeaker, if he had any meaning, into the mind of every hearer whò perfectly understands the language. There would not be even a poffibility of mistake or doubt. But the cafe is widely different with all the languages that ever were, are, or will be in 'the world.

GRAMMATICAL purity, in every tongue, conduceth greatly to perfpicuity, but it will by no means fecure it. A man may in refpect of it fpeak unexceptionably, and yet fpeak obscurely, or ambiguously; and though we cannot fay, that a man may speak properly, and at the fame time speak unintelligibly, yet this laft cafe falls more naturally to be confidered as an offence against

B 4

pro

against perfpicuity, than as a violation of priety. For when the meaning is not difcovered, the particular impropriety cannot be pointed out. In the three different ways, therefore, juft now mentioned, perfpicuity may be violated.

SECTION I.

The Obfcure.

PART I. From Defect.

THIS is the first offence against perfpicuity,

I

and may arise from several causes. First, from fome defect in the expreffion. There are in all languages certain elliptical expreffions, which ufe hath established, and which, therefore, very rarely occafion darkness. When they do occafion it, they ought always to be avoided. Such are, in Greek and Latin, the frequent fuppreffion of the fubftantive verb, and of the poffeffive pronouns ; was going to add, and of the perfonal pronouns alfo: but, on reflection, I am fenfible, that, in the omiffion of them in the nominative, there is pro, perly no ellipfis, as the verb, by its inflection, actually expreffes them, Accordingly, in thefe languages, the pronoun in the nominative is never rightly introduced, unless when it is emphatical. But the idiom of moft modern tongues,

I

English

English and French particularly, will feldom admit such ellipfis *. In Italian and Spanish they are pretty frequent,

OFTEN, indeed, the affectation of conciseness, often the rapidity of thought natural to fome

:

* The French, I imagine, have gone to the other extreme. They require in many inftances a repetition of pronouns, prepofitions, and articles, which, as they add nothing to the perfpicuity, muft render the expreffion languid. There are fome cafes in which this repetition is confequential on the very construction of their language. For example, we fay properly in English, my father and mother; because the poffeffive pronoun having no distinction of gender, and so having but one form, is alike applicable to both the case being different with them renders it neceffary to follow a different rule, and to fay, mon pere et ma mere. But it is not to inftances of this fort that the rule is limited. Cuftom with them hath extended it to innumerable cafes, wherein there is no neceffity from conftruction. With us it is enough to fay, "She was robbed of her clothes and jewels." With them the prepofition and the pronoun muft both be re peated, de fes habits et de fes joiaux. Again, with them it is not fufficient to say,The woman whom you know and love,' but whom you know and whom you love-que vous connoissez et que vous aimez. In like manner, the relatives in French must never be omitted. They often are in English, and when the omiffion occafions no obfcurity, it is not accounted improper. An expreffion like this would in their tongue be intolerable : You are obliged to say and do all you can.' It must be—* to Jay and to do all that which you can,'-de dire et de faire tout ce que vous favez. But though in feveral inftances the critics of that nation have refined on their language to excess, and by needless repetitions have fometimes enervated the expreffion, their criticisms, when useful in affitting us to fhun any obscurity or ambiguity, deferve to be adopted.

writers,

writers, will give rife to ftill more material defects in the expreffion. Of thefe I fhall produce a few examples: "He is infpired," fays an eminent writer," with a true fenfe of that function, "when chofen from a regard to the interests' of

piety and virtue." Senfe in this paffage denotes an inward feeling, or the impreffion which fome fentiment makes upon the mind. Now a function cannot be a fentiment impreffed or felt. The expreffion is therefore defective, and ought to have been," He is infpired with a true fenfe "of the dignity, or of the importance of that "function."-"You ought to contemn all

the wit in the world against you."-As the writer doth not intend to fignify that all the wit in the world is actually exerted against the perfon whom he addreffes, there is a defect in the expreffion, though perhaps it will be thought chargeable with redundancy at the fame time. More plainly thus, "You ought to contemn all "the wit that can be employed against you." "He "talks all the way up ftairs to a vifit." There is here also a faulty omiffion, which, if it cannot be faid to obfcure the fense, doth at leaft withhold that light whereof it is fufceptible. If the word vifit ever meant perfon or people, there * Guardian, N°. 13. + Ib. No. 53. Spect. No. 2. would