a great many serious reflections ;"* much better, "full of serious reflections." "If he happens," says the Spectator, "to have any leisure upon his hands." To what purpose "upon his hands?" "The everlasting club," says the same author, "treats all other clubs with an eye of contempt," for "treats all other clubs with contempt." To treat with the eye is also chargeable with impropriety and vulgarism. "Flavia, who is the mamma," says the Tatler, " has all the charms and desires of youth still about her."§ The last two words are at least superfluous. In such a phrase as this, "I wrote a letter to you yesterday," the French critics would find a pleonasm, because it means no more than what is clearly expressed in these words, "I wrote to you yesterday." Yet in the last form there is an ellipsis of the regimen of the active verb; and one would imagine that the supplying of an ellipsis could never constitute a pleonasm. It is at least certain, that where the supply is so unnecessary as it is here, it is better to follow the usual mode of speaking. But when any additional circumstance requires the insertion of a noun, the nicest judge will not condemn the expression as pleonastic; as, "I wrote you a long letter yesterday". "This is the third letter I have written you on the same subject."|| It may not be improper here to remark, that every word that is accounted an expletive doth not always constitute a pleonasm. For example, the do and the did, as the signs of the tenses, are frequently necessary, and sometimes emphatical. The idiom of the language renders them for the most part necessary in negation and interrogation; and even in affirmation they are found in certain circumstances to give an emphasis to the expression. For instance, "Did I object to this measure formerly? I do object to it still." Or," What I did publicly affirm then, I do affirm now, and I will affirm always." The contrast of the different tense in these examples is more precisely marked by such monosyllables as are intended singly to point out that circumstance, than they can be by the bare inflections of the verb. The particle there, when it is not an adverb of place, may be considered as a kind of expletive, since we cannot assign it to a separate + No. 43. No. 73. 66 * No. 34. § No. 206. It deserves our notice, that on this article the idiom of the tongue hath great influence, insomuch that an expression in one language may contain a pleonasm, which, if literally rendered into another, would express no more than is quite necessary. Thus the phrase in French, "Il lui donna des coups de sa main," is pleonastic; but there is no pleonasm in these words in English," He gave him blows with his hand." On the contrary, "Il lui donna des coups de main," is proper in French. "He gave him blows with hand" is defective in English. The sense, however, may be expressed in our language with equal propriety and greater brevity in this manner, "He gave him handy blows." Ни sense. Nevertheless, it is no pleonasm; for though it is not easy to define in words the import of such terms, yet if the omission of them make the expression appear either stiff or defective, they are not to be regarded as useless. Lastly, I shall observe on this subject, that as there are some single words which have I know not what air of tautology, there are some also which have a pleonastic appearance. Such are the following, unto, until, selfsame, foursquare. devoid, despoil, disannul, muchwhat, oftentimes, nowadays, downfall, furthermore, wherewithal, for to, till, same, square, void, spoil, annul, much, often, now, fall, further, wherewith. The use of such terms many writers have been led into, partly from the dislike of monosyllables, partly from the love of variety. The last end it hardly answers, as the simple word is still included; and as to the first, I am persuaded that this dislike hath carried some modern writers to the other extreme, and, I imagine, the worse extreme of the two. It hath proceeded on an opinion, which I shall afterward evince to be erroneous, that a frequent recurrence of monosyllables is inconsistent with harmony. However, with regard to the words specified, it would not be right to preclude entirely the use of them in poetry, where the shackles of metre render variety more necessary, but they ought to be used very sparingly, if at all, in prose. It is worth while to remark, that the addition of a short syllable to the termination of a word, when that syllable hath no separate signification, doth not exhibit the appearance of a pleonasm, which any syllable prefixed, or a long one added, never fails to exhibit. Thus, mountain, fountain, meadow, valley, island, climate, are as good as mount, fount, mead, vale, isle, clime, and in many cases preferable. Indeed, the words fount, mead, vale, and clime are now almost confined to poetry. Several adjectives may in like manner be lengthened by the addition of an unaccented syllable, as ecclesiastical, astronomical, philosophical, grammatical, from ecclesiastic, astronomic, philosophic, grammatic; in all which, if the choice be not a matter of absolute indifference, it may at least be determined by the slightest consideration of variety or of sound Sometimes custom insensibly assigns different meanings to such different formations as in the words comic and comical, tragic and tragical, politic and political. Though the words here coupled were at first equally synonymous with those before mentioned, they are not entirely so at present. Tragic denotes belonging to tragedy; tragical, resembling tragedy. The like holds of comic and comical. We say "the tragic muse, the comic muse ;" and "a tragic poet" for a writer of tragedy; "a comic poet" for a writer of comedy; but "I heard a tragical story" for a mournful story; and “I met with a comical adventure" for a droll adventure. We say 66 a pol itic man" for an artful fellow, but a political writer for a writer on politics. There is not, however, a perfect uniformity in such applications, for we constantly use the phrase "the body politic," and not political, for the civil society. On the whole, however, it would seem that what is affixed, especially when unaccented, is conceived as more closely united to the word than what is prefixed is conceived to be. In this last case the supernumerary syllable, if it make no change on the signification, always conveys the notion of an expletive, which is not suggested in the first. But before I quit this subject, it will not be beside the purpose to observe, that there are cases in which a certain species of pleonasm may not only be pardonable, but even have a degree of merit. It is at least entitled to indulgence when it serves to express a pertinent earnestness of affirmation on an interesting subject, as in phrases like these: "We have seen with our eyes," "We have heard with our ears," which, perhaps, are to be found in every language.* Again, in poetical description, where the fancy is addressed, epithets which would otherwise be accounted superfluous, if used moderately, are not without effect. The azure heaven, the silver moon, the blushing morn, the seagirt isle. Homer abounds in such. They often occur, also, in Sacred Writ. The warm manner of the ancient Orientals, even in their prose compositions, holds much more of poesy than the cold prosaic diction of us moderns and Europeans. A stroke of the pencil, if I may so express myself, is almost always added to the arbitrary sign, in order the more strongly to attach the imagination. Hence it is not with them, the beasts, the birds, the fish, the heaven, and the earth; but the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the heaven above, and the earth beneath. But though, in certain cases, there is some indulgence given to terms which may properly be styled pleonastic, I scarcely think that an epithet which is merely tautological is in any case tolerable. PART III. Verbosity. The third and last fault I shall mention against a vivid conciseness is verbosity. This, it may be thought, coincides with the pleonasm already discussed. One difference, however, is this: in the pleonasm there are words which add nothing to the sense; in the verbose manner, not only single words, but whole clauses, may have a meaning, and yet it were better to omit them, because what they mean is unimportant. Instead, therefore, of enlivening the expression, they make it languish. Another difference is, that in a proper pleonasm a complete correction is always made by razing. * Vocemque his auribus hausi. Vidi ante oculos ipse meos This will not always answer in the verbose style; it is often necessary to alter as well as blot. It will not be improper here farther to observe, that by verbosity I do not mean the same thing which the French express by the word verbiage, as some persons, misled by etymology, may be inclined to think. By this term is commonly understood a parade of fine words, plausibly strung together, so as either to conceal a total want of meaning, or to disguise something weak and inconclusive in the reasoning. The former, with which alone we are here concerned, is merely an offence against vivacity; the latter is more properly a transgression of the laws of perspicuity. One instance of a faulty exuberance of words is the intemperate use of circumlocution. There are circumstances wherein this figure is allowable, there are circumstances wherein it is a beauty, there are circumstances wherein it is a blemish. We indulge it often for the sake of variety, as when, instead of the women, an author says the fair sex, or when, instead of the sun, a poet puts the lamp of day; we choose it sometimes for the sake of decency, to serve as a sort of veil to what ought not to be too nakedly exposed, or for the sake of avoiding an expression that might probably offend.* Sometimes, indeed, propriety requires the use of circumlocution, as when Milton says of Satan, who had been thrown down headlong into hell, "Nine times the space that measures day and night To mortal men, he with his horrid crew Lay vanquish'd, rolling in the fiery gulf."+ To have said nine days and nights would not have been proper, when talking of a period before the creation of the sun, and, consequently, before time was portioned out to any being in that manner. Sometimes this figure serves, as it were accidentally, to introduce a circumstance which favours the design of the speaker, and which to mention of plain purpose, without apparent necessity, would appear both impertinent and invidious. An example I shall give from Swift: "One of these authors (the fellow that was pilloried, I have forgot his name) is so grave, sententious, dogmatical a rogue, that there is no enduring him." What an exquisite antonomasia have we in this parenthesis! Yet he hath rendered it apparently necessary by his saying, "I have forgot his name. Sometimes even the vivacity of the expression may be augmented by a periphrasis, as when it is made to supply the place of a separate sentence. Of this the words of Abraham afford an instance: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" The Judge of all the earth is a periphrasis for God, * See book iii., chap. i., sect. ii., part iii. + Paradise Lost, b. i. Gen., xviii, 25. and, as it represents him in a character to which the acting unjustly is peculiarly unsuitable, it serves as an argument in support of the sentiment, and is therefore conducive even to conciseness. In this view we may consider that noted circumlocution employed by Cicero, who, instead of saying simply, Milo's domestics killed Clodius, says, "They did that which every master would have wished his servants to do in such an exigence." 99* It is far from being enough to say of this passage that it is an euphemism, by which the odious word killed is avoided. It contains, also, a powerful vindication of the action, by an appeal to the conscience of every hearer, whether he would not have approved it in his own case. But when none of these ends can be answered by a periphrastical expression, it will inevitably be regarded as injuring the style by flattening it. Of this take the following example from the Spectator: "I won't say we see often, in the next tender things to children, tears shed without much grieving." The phrase here employed appears, besides, affected and far-fetched. Another source of languor in the style is when such clauses are inserted as to a superficial view appear to suggest something which heightens, but, on reflection, are found to presuppose something which abates the vigour of the sentiment. Of this I shall give a specimen from Swift: "Neither is any condition of life more honourable in the sight of God than another, otherwise he would be a respecter of persons, which he assures us he is not." It is evident that this last clause doth not a little enervate the thought, as it implies but too plainly that without this assurance from God himself we should naturally conclude him to be of a character very dif ferent from that here given him by the preacher. Akin to this is the juvenile method of loading every proposition with asseverations. As such a practice in conversation more commonly infuseth a suspicion of the speaker's veracity than it engages the belief of the hearer, it hath an effect somewhat similar in writing. In our translation of the Bible, God is represented as saying to Adam, concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The adverb surely, instead of enforcing, enfeebles the denunciation. My reason is the same as in the former case. A ground of mistrust is insinuated, to which no affirmation is a counterpoise. Are such adverbs, then, never to be used? Not when either the character of the speaker or the evidence of the thing is such as precludes the smallest doubt. In other cases they are pertinent enough. But as taste itself is influenced by custom, and as, for that "Fecerunt id servi Milonis-quod suos quisque servos in tali re facere voluisset."-Cicero pro Milone. † No. 95. § Gen., ii., 17. Sermon on Mutual Subjection. |