write so much and so sagaciously. The challenge is perfectly fair. If you decline it, your "occupation is gone," and you must give up the business of style-master. The only way to arrive at any useful or intelligible definition of style, with a view to teaching, or to positive instruction, is by "collecting facts and instances," and after much reflection, and I may say, laborious investigation, my belief is, that there are but two kinds upon which we can work with certainty the long-winded, and the perspicuous. As for the first, every one knows and comprehends it well, and there are more practical proofs of it than we can desire. It may truly be called the first—indeed it is almost the natural, or at least, the common, style, for all inexperienced or uninformed writers, and many who know grammar too, and whom we account good scholars, are prone to drawling. None, except the few who are highly gifted, commence by writing pithy or well-proportioned sentences, however they may speak in a terse or concise manner, and as this is a tangible part of the subject, and capable of clear explanation, it should be the nucleus of any system of instruction. Perspicuity CAN be taught. Any master who knows his business can correct long-windedness as regularly as grammatical errors. In this, there is nothing mysterious or abstruse-nothing that calls for those metaphysical descriptions, that we must only conceive but not touch. The thing is quite mechanical, and may be taught to any boy or man of tolerable capacity. The business then should be, simply, TO TEACH PERSPICUITY BY CORRECTING LONG-WINDEDNESS. After that, if the pupil have the bent or talent, nothing can prevent him from getting into the graceful, the florid, the vehement, the nervous, or any other style to which his genius inclines. But if it be maintained, and observe that I do not wish to dispute the possibility, that various styles can be taught or acquired by instruction, it is indispensable that they, who proffer tuition, should be able to meet the test that I have already proposed. They will find, by careful induction, that there is no other earthly plan for accomplishing the purpose, and, if they be not incorrigible devotees, they will also discover the important, though to them disagreeable, fact, that the public mind is now prepared to scout the grave delusions of literary astrology. It may be satisfactory to explain, why I have selected the word long-winded, which is certainly not the most elegant. Writers on style call it the diffuse, but, as this does not exactly convey my meaning, I rather choose to leave it to themselves. One may be diffuse without being long-winded. We may be excessively tedious and insipid-we may introduce a number of perfectly unnecessary exceptions and impertinent remarks, and yet all this in well-proportioned and pleasing sentences. But your long-winded gentleman cannot come to close, in a reasonable time, on any occasion. He must bring in his ifs, and ands, and buts, and thoughs, and whiches, and notwithstandings, until he compels us to do the very reverse of what he wishes-to throw away his writing. It is, in fact, the first principle of composition, rather than any kind of style, that I would inculcate, and which I should I wish to be inferred and understood. For this reason I prefer perspicuous to the concise, which our commentators on style oppose to the diffuse. Conciseness is too much to expect from ordinary pens. To unfold our thoughts with ease, and to exhibit them without redundancy of expression, is only for the gifted few. A Tacitus or a Montesquieu cannot be looked for every day, but what I call perspicuity is now expected from every one, no matter how poor the language. Whatever might be done in folio-volume times, we will not, in the present day, labour to find out meaning. If we do not readily understand, we will not grope our way to sense, unless where our interest is very materially concerned. CHAPTER VII. PUNCTUATION. THE separation of sentences into convenient portions for emphasis and pausing, is called punctuation, or pointing. This is effected by seven stops or points, which you will find after their names, thus :— Comma, Semicolon; Colon: Dash interrogation? Note of admiration ! Period. Note of Comma. Of these the comma, being oftener introduced than any other, is the first in importance. Besides, its use is more easily learned, and less judgment is required in assigning its proper place. We may generally put it, whenever we think that there is an ordinary rest before the conclusion of a sentence. There is, indeed, some difficulty in what is called high pointing, of which the following is a specimen :— Now, though this may, and too often can, be, and is still, considered, by many persons, as a direct infringement, yet, seeing that, under all the circumstances, men will, in despite of law, run those risks, we cannot, here, take it into serious account. In this very highly-pointed sentence there are sixteen commas, which, without any palpable impropriety, may be thus reduced to four : Now though this may and too often can be, and is still considered by many persons as a direct infringement, yet seeing that under all the circumstances, men will in despite of law run those risks, we cannot here take it into serious account. High pointing, when not carried too far, is very expressive, and it much assists a reader. It is, comparatively, only of recent date, and is, I think, a considerable improvement, as it relieves us from the frequent semicolons so embarrassing to inexperienced punctuators. But it must not be used at random. You must always observe that it have an easy and natural union-though you separate the parts, their connections must be kept in view. This can be made plainer by an example. Seeing a comma mostly after but, especially when beginning a sentence, you are led to place it there on all occasions, and you thus commit unpardonable breaches of propriety. But, not being able to procure a horse, he was obliged to walk home. The first of these examples is pointed right, and the second wrong. Both express the same thing, although there is some slight difference in words. If you reflect a little, and try to find out, after what has been previously said, the erroneous pointing, you must discover the blunder. Here is the test. Join But to he was obliged to walk home, and you have some sense-join But to and was obliged to walk home, and it tells nothing. Therefore, in the first example, you are authorised to put a comma after But, and, in the second, I hope that you now perceive why there should be none. I must also remark that, in the first, there is no necessity for a comma after But. This is only high pointing, which may or may not be adopted, but if we begin with it we should continue. For want of proper attention, some persons unnecessarily mix it with the ordinary mode, and this, in punctuation, is equally blameable as it is in grammar, when speaking of parliament, to say, it is not consulting the interest of the nation, and, before the conclusion of the sentence, to tell us that they are irritating the people. However, some latitude may be even here allowed. The most uniform punctuator will be sometimes, one might almost say, forced into deviations, and, according as he feels, so will his pointing change. The following sentence may explain : : Having shown this to be frequently the cause of foolish quarrels, I think that we ought to exert ourselves for its suppression. Should the writer have previously dwelt, particularly, on the immense number of quarrels occasioned, he would, if a high pointer, place frequently between two commas, but, not having that so much in view as the folly of their origin, he uses the less marked punctuation. But as you see that high pointing presents, at least, some difficulties as it can be dispensed with, and as its rules are, by no means, invariably fixed, your best plan will be, to follow the common mode, until you find that you understand the other. Some practice on high pointing is, however, instructive, and by observing the newspapers and modern books, you will easily learn enough for your information. Besides being a considerable aid to perspicuity, it actually leads to grammatical knowledge, as I think I can now clearly show by the following example : On your way to London, do not fail to call at my house, where you will find two old acquaintances, whom you would say are truly pleasant fellows. Observe this attentively. There is hardly anything more difficult, for those who know nothing of grammar, than this word whom. It is always their puzzle, and, when they put it right, they only do so by chance. Had you to write anything like the example given, you would, doubtless, set it down in the same manner. Whom you would say are truly pleasant fellows, does not appear to have anything harsh or unnatural-it reads well enough to your ears. But submit it to the test of high pointing, and you then see that whom is a blunder : whom, you would say, are truly pleasant fellows. By thus separating the component parts, you immediately perceive that whom are will not do, for you know and feel that who are is what is always said. You would yourself laugh at whom are truly pleasant fellows, but the syntactical absurdity was concealed by the intervening words, until you dissected the member. This is more important than you may imagine. I assure you, that many persons who have learned, and who think that they know, grammar, would write whom instead of who, as in the example. Yet this is but one out of some hundred capital errors, that you may discover through high pointing, as the following simple example will show : "Blackstone's Commentaries" though a work of acknowledged ability, is now of little use without explanatory notes. This reads smoothly enough as it is, but, if we put a comma after Commentaries, we see that work is not our nominative, and that are is required instead of is. Lest you should be in doubt on some occasions, it is right to notice, that you may put a comma after but, for, this, and other such words, where more than one member intervenes, when there is anything like connection with that towards which it bears. You will find an instance in the following, where you see that the For reads smooth with we, and thus authorises the comma For, notwithstanding his having gone, in winter, to Moscow, where he found the cold excessive, and which confined him, without intermission, six weeks to his room, we could not induce him to come home. In cases of inversion, the comma may be used, when it would not be proper in plain construction :— Against any such wanton extravagance, I solemnly protest. |